Fairfield City Council
February 7, 2023

subdivisions that are eligible under SB 9. Development regulations set forth in this Section are co n siste n t w ith th e C ity's visio n an d d e sig n stan d a rd s fo r re sid ential districts.

B. Applicability. Pu rsu a n t to SB 9, a ho u sin g pro je ct sh a ll be ap p roved ministerially if it co m p lie s w ith all o f th e fo llo w in g :

1. T h e pro p o se d ho u sin g de v e lo p m e n t an d /o r pa rcel subdivision is located in a single-family residential zone.

2. T h e pro p o se d housing development and/or parcel subdivision does not require demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rent to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or ve ry lo w income.

3. The proposed housing development and/or parcel subdivision does not require demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity's valid exercise of its police power.

4. The pro posed housing development and/or parcel subdivision does not require de molition or alteration of housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years.

5. The pro posed housing development and/or parcel subdivision does not involve the demolition of more than 25% of the existing exterior structural walls, unless the site has no t be e n o ccu p ie d by a tenant in the last three years.

6. T h e pro p o se d ho u sin g de v e lo p m e n t an d /o r pa rce l su b d iv isio n is lo cate d w ith in a ci ty, th e bo u n d a rie s of w h ich in cl u d e so m e po rt io n of eith e r an urb a n ize d are a o r urb a n cl uster, as d e sig n ate d by th e U n ite d State s C e n su s Bu rea u .

7. T h e pro p o se d ho u sin g de ve lo p m e n t an d /o r pa rce l su b d iv isio n is no t lo cate d w ith in a histo ric district, is no t in cl u d e d o n th e S tate H isto ric R e so u rce s In v e n to ry, o r is no t w ith in a site th at is le g ally de sig n a te d o r liste d as a city o r co u n ty la n d m a rk o r histo ric pro p e rt y o r d istrict.

C. Development Regulations. Pro je cts su b m itt e d fo r ap p ro v a l un d e r th is se ctio n sh a ll de m o n strate co m p lia n ce w ith th e re g u latio n s in th is Se ctio n , in cl u d in g T ab le 25 -2 .1 PC ITEM NO.: C
PC FILE NO.: OA2022-003
S:\Planning\PC Meetings\PC-2022\22-12-14\ITEM C. SB 9 (OA2022-003)\3. Ordinance OA2022-003 .docx PC DATE: 12/14/2022
PAGE 2
Packet Page 178 of 846Attachment 2 Page 4 of 16

O R D . NO. 2023-_

T a b le 25 -2 .1 : R V L an d R L D is tric t D ev elo p m e n t R e g u la tio n s U n d e r S B 9 Regulations Zoning District Applicable
(all figures are minimums measured from property lines and in RVL:40 RVL:20 RVL:15 RL:10 RL:S Sections and linear feet. unless otherwise indicated) Footnotes
Site Planning
Lot Area (square feet)
Minimum 16,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 3,200
Lot Dimensions (feet) Note 1
Width: Note 2
... interior lot 60 50 45 40 35 Note 12
... corner lot 65 55 50 45 40
Depth 75 65 60 55 50 Note 3
Parking Section 25. 34
On-site spaces per dwelling, covered 1 Note 4
Landscaping
Street trees (one tree for each ... feet of street frontage) 35 30 25 Note 5 Front yard landscaping installed by developer Not required Buildings
Dwelling Unit Size (square feet)
Minimum 800
Maximum 1800
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.25 I 0.5 I 0.5 I 0.5 0.5 Note 10 Setbacks (feet) Note 1
Front: Notes 6, 7, 11
... to habitable portion of bldg. or side entry garage 30 I 25 I 20 I 20 I 15 ... to garage opening directly toward street 35 I 30 I 25 I 25 I 18 Note 13 Street side yard 4 I 4 I 4 I 4 I 4 Notes 1, 8
Interior side yard:
... minimum one side 4 I 4 I 4 I 4 I 4
Rear 4 I 4 I 4 I 4 I 4 Notes 1, 9
Building Height Limits (maximum)
Main dwelling 18
Accessory Structures See Section 25.20.4.1 Note 9
Roof Pitch Line 3:12
Wall Plane Transparency 33% Note 14
Trim Around Windows and Doors (inches)
Width 3
Depth 0.5
Notes:
(1) Lot dimension and setback regulations shall be measured from the outer boundary of any common area or public landscape easement (e.g., rear fence line) on corner lots and lots backing onto a roadway (2) Minimum lot width is measured 25 feet from front property line or at minimum required front yard setback for garage, whichever is greater (see Section 25.51, Measurements).
(3) Lot depth may be reduced by two feet for lots with separated sidewalk at front property line to accommodate wider right-of-way. (4) Pursuant to Senate Bill 9 (2021), No on-site parking space is required if the parcel is located within one-half mile of a high-quality transit corridor or major transit stop or there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel. (5) All street-trees shall be located within eight feet of back of sidewalk. (6) Front setbacks may be reduced by two feet for lots with separated sidewalk at front property line provided the distance between the front property line and garage door is 18 feet or greater for homes with garages open directly toward street. (7) Front setbacks shall be increased by five feet for lots that front on an arterial roadway. (8) For lots with the garage facing the street side-yard, the minimum distance between the street-side property line and garage door shall be 18 feet or greater.
(9) A garage opening directly to an alley shall either have a minimum 18-foot setback or maximum three-foot setback. (1 O ) Calculate Floor Area Ratio by dividing total square footage of all floors of all non-accessory structures on a lot, including attached garage, by total lot area.
(11) Structures that preexist a subdivision pursuant to Senate Bill 9 (2021) may have a zero foot side and rear setback, but must comply with all applicable public safety regulations at the time of new subdivision (12) Flag lots may have a minimum width of 16 feet for portions of a lot that serve to provide access from a street (13) In the RVL:40, RVL:20, and RVL:15 zoning districts, garages shall not exceed 50 percent of the front elevation for the home; in the RL:10 and RL:8 zoning districts, garages shall not exceed 60 percent of the front elevation for the home (14) Transparency shall include windows, glass, or similar features that provide light to habitable areas within the house. This regulation applies only to wall plans that are visible from the public right of way. (15) Where the application of regulations in Table 25-2.2 conflicts with Senate Bill 9 (2021 ), the conflicting regulations shall be modified by the minimum amount required to comply with Senate Bill 9 (2021)
PC ITEM NO.: C
PC FILE NO.: OA2022-003
S:\Planning\PC Meetings\PC-2022\22-12-14\ITEM C. SB 9 (OA2022-003)\3. Ordinance OA2022-003 .docx PC DATE: 12/14/2022
PAGE 3
Packet Page 179 of 846Attachment 2 Page 5 of 16

ORD. NO. 2023-_

1. Housing development projects approved under this Section shall meet the following standards:
a. The proposed housing development will not require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of structures:
i. Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income.
ii. Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity's valid exercise of its police power.
iii. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. b. When a housing project consisting of two units is developed on an existing parcel (i.e., a parcel not created by an urban lot split), up to two accessory dwelling units (ADU) may be added to the parcel under current ADU law. c. When two parcels are created by an urban lot split, up to two residential units of any kind (including accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units) may be developed on each of the two new parcels. A housing development contains two residential units if the development proposes no more than two new units or if it proposes to add one new unit to one existing unit. d. When an urban lot split is combined with a housing project development, no ADUs or Junior ADUs are permitted on the new parcels.

2. Subdivision projects approved under this Section shall meet the following standards:
a. A parcel map for an urban lot split shall create no more than two new parcels of approximately equal lot area provided that one parcel shall not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision. b. The subject parcel to be subdivided as part of an urban lot split project under SB 9 must not have been established through prior exercise of an urban lot split as provided for in SB 9 or this Section.
c. Neither the owner of the parcel being subdivided nor any person acting in concert with the owner has previously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an urban lot split as provided for in SB 9 or this Section.

3. Utilities for Housing Development Projects and Subdivisions Under SB 9 a. Each separate, legal parcel shall have one (1) public water meter, water service, public sewer cleanout, and sewer service ADU's shall share water and sewer services with the main residential home/ duplex.

PC ITEM NO.: C
PC FILE NO.: OA2022-003
S:\Planning\PC Meetings\PC-2022\22-12-14\ITEM C. SB 9 (OA2022-003)\3. Ordinance OA2022-003 .docx PC DATE: 12/14/2022
PAGE4
Packet Page 180 of 846Attachment 2 Page 6 of 16

ORD. NO. 2023-_

b. Each unit, excluding ADUs, shall have separate public water and sewer service connections to the public utility mains, including separate water meters and sewer cleanouts. Water services shall have unique addresses, correlated with the unique address assigned to each unit. Water manifo lds are not permitted. c. Shared water and sewer services between separate, legal parcels are not permitted.
d. Utility services for pro posed ADUs shall be connected to on-site water and sewer infrastructure and separate utility connections to the public water and sewer mains exclusively for proposed AD Us are not permitted. e. Parcel maps submitted under SB 9 shall include a 10' wide Public Service Easement (PSE) if none already exists along the street frontage. f. Driveway and Sidewalk Standards for Housing Development Projects Under SB 9 i. Proposed driveways shall be designed per City Standard Detail except as modified as the requirements in this Section.
ii. Proposed driveway widths, including flares, shall not exceed 45% of the new property line lineal feet along the street.
iii. If the existing driveway is damaged, does not exist, and/or does not meet C ity sta n d a rd de tail, th e de v e lo per shall replace any existing driveways w ith ne w d riv ew ay s pe r cu rre n t C ity sta ndards and specifications. iv . Sh a re d d riv e w ay s sh a ll be a m in im u m of 24-feet wide. A reciprocal access an d utility ease m e n t sh a ll be re co rd e d across shared portions of the proposed parcels.
v. If the existing sidewalk is damaged, does not meet City Standard detail, an d /o r do e s no t exist, de v e lo p er shall replace the sidewalk per City sta n d a rd s an d sp e cifi catio n s w ith a minimum width of 4.5 feet or matching th e w id th of an y existin g sid ewalk adjacent to the parcel frontage.

D . G e n e ra l R e stric tio n s.

1. A p p lica n ts fo r an urb a n lo t sp lit are required to sign an affidavit stating that the ap p lica n t in te n d s to o ccu p y o n e of th e ho u sin g un its as th eir principal residence for a m in im u m o f th re e ye a rs fr o m th e date of ap p ro v al o f th e urb a n lo t sp lit.

PC ITEM NO.: C
PC FILE NO.: OA2022-003
S:\Planning\PC Meetings\PC-2022\22-12-14\ITEM C. SB 9 (OA2022-003)\3. Ordinance OA2022-003 .docx PC DATE: 12/14/2022
PAGES
Packet Page 181 of 846Attachment 2 Page 7 of 16

O R D . N O . 2 0 2 3 -_
P a g e 6
2 . A re n ta l o f a n y u n it cre a te d p u rs u a n t to S B 9 a n d th is Se ctio n is re q u ire d to b e fo r a te rm lo n g e r th a n 3 0 d a y s.
3 . T h e C ity m a y d e n y a p ro p o se d h o u sin g d e v e lo p m e n t p ro je ct if th e b u ild in g o ff ici a l m a k e s a w ritt e n fi n d in g th a t th e p ro p o se d h o u sin g d e v e lo p m e n t p ro je ct w o u ld h a v e a sp e ci fi c , a d v e rs e im p a ct u p o n p u b lic h e a lth a n d sa fe ty o r th e p h y s ic a l e n v iro n m e n t.

S E C T IO N 3 . T h e c o u n c il h e re b y m a k e s th e fo ll o w in g fi n d in g p u rsu a n t to th e C a lifo rn ia E n v iro n m e n ta l Q u a lity A ct (C E QA ): b a se d o n th e in fo rm a tio n c o n ta in e d in th e sta ff re p o rt a n d p re s e n te d b y sta ff , th e c o u n c il h a s d e te rm in e d th a t a n o rd in a n c e ad o p te d to im p le m e n t S B 9 sh a ll n o t b e c o n s id e re d a p ro je ct u n d e r th e C E QA a n d is e x e m p t fr o m C E QA re v ie w p e r G o v e rn m e n t C o d e Se c tio n s 6 5 8 5 2 .2 1 0) a n d 6 6 4 1 1.7 (n ), w h ic h sta te th a t th e ad o p tio n o f an o rd in a n c e b y a ci ty o r c o u n ty im p le m e n tin g th e p ro v isio n s o f G o v e rn m e n t C o d e Se ctio n 6 5 8 5 2 .2 1 a n d 6 6 4 1 1.7 a n d re g u la tin g tw o -u n it d e v e lo p m e n t a n d u rb a n lo t sp lit p ro je cts are sta tu to rily e x e m p t fr o m th e re q u ire m e n ts o f C E QA . T h e p ro p o se d te xt am e n d m e n ts are also se p a rate ly an d in d e p e n d e n tly e x e m p t fr o m C E Q A , p u rs u a n t to S e ctio n 1 5 0 6 1 {b )(3 ): C o m m o n Se n se E x e m p tio n , th e g e n e ra l ru le th a t C E QA o n ly a p p lie s to p ro je cts w h ic h h a v e th e p o te n tia l fo r ca u sin g a sig n ifi c a n t o n th e e n v iro n m e n t. T h e te x t a m e n d m e n ts m a k e ch a n g e s to cl a rify e x istin g sta n d a rd s a n d re q u ire m e n ts fo r e x istin g stru ctu re s u n d e r S ta te la w an d re g u la te m in o r co n v e rsio n s to e x is tin g stru ctu re s th e s e ch a n g e s w ill n o t re su lt in a n y n e w su b sta n tia l p h y sic a l ch a n g e to th e e n v iro n m e n t.

S E C T IO N 4 . T h is O rd in a n c e sh a ll b e e ff e ctiv e 3 0 d a y s fo ll o w in g its ad o p tio n b y th e C ity C o u n c il.

A su m m a ry o f th is O rd in a n c e sh a ll , w ith in fi ft e e n (1 5 ) d a y s aft e r p a ssa g e , b e p u b lish e d in a c co rd a n c e w ith Se ctio n 3 6 9 3 3 o f th e G o v e rn m e n t C o d e o ft h e S ta te o f C a lifo rn ia w ith th e n a m e s o f th e C ity C o u n c il m e m b e rs v o tin g fo r a n d ag a in st it.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Fairfield on the __ day of _________ _,2023,and
PASSED AND ADOPTED this_ day of _, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Councilmembers: _
Councilmembers: ------,--------------------
Councilmembers: _
Councilmembers: _
MAYOR
PC ITEM NO.: C
PC FILE NO.: OA2022-003
S:\Planning\PC Meetings\PC-2022\22-12-14\ITEM C. SB 9 (OA2022-003)\3. Ordinance OA2022-003 .docx PC DATE: 12/14/2022
PAGE 6
Packet Page 182 of 846Attachment 2 Page 8 of 16

O R D . N O . 2023 -_

A T T ES T :

C IT Y C LER K
PC ITEM NO.: C
PC FILE NO.: OA2022-003
S:\Planning\PC Meetings\PC-2022\22-12-14\ITEM C. SB 9 (OA2022-003)\3. Ordinance OA2022-003 .docx PC DATE: 12/14/2022
PAGE 7
Packet Page 183 of 846Attachment 2 Page 9 of 16

DRAFTS:\Planning\PC Meetings\Minutes\2022\2022-12-14 Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes.docx

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES
DECEMBER 14, 2022

REGULAR MEETING
6:00 P.M.

I.ROLL CALL

Present: Chairperson CHILDS, Jerome
Commissioner GREVE, Don
Commissioner MATTHEWS, Chris
Commissioner PAUL, Shashi
Commissioner WERBLIN, Tina
Vice-Chairperson CRUZEN, Melissa
Commissioner EVANS, Lerecia

Absent: None.

II.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice-Chairperson Cruzen.

III.INFORMATION ON SPEAKER CARDS
IV.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Vice-Chairperson Cruzen made a motion to approve the agenda as submitted. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Evans. The motion was approved unanimously by roll call vote.

V.APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 9,2022
Vice-Chairperson Cruzen motioned to approve the Minutes for the Planning Commission’s November 9, 2022,meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Paul. The motion was approved unanimously by roll call vote.

VI.PUBLIC COMMENTS
No persons spoke during public comments.

VII.SCHEDULED MATTERS

ITEM A HOMELESS STRATEGY PRESENTATION
Interim City Manager David Gassaway made a presentation on the item and answered questions.

ITEM B ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONALLY PERMIT CHILD

DAYCARE IN THE CS ZONE
Packet Page 184 of 846Attachment 2 Page 10 of 16

DRAFTS:\Planning\PC Meetings\Minutes\2022\2022-12-14 Planning Commission DRAFT Minutes.docx Community Development Department

RESOLUTION PC2022-15

RESOLUTION OF THE FAIRFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE I, ALSO KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD, TABLE 25-9 UNDER SECTION 25.22,

COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, TO ALLOW CHILD DAYCARE CENTERS AS A CONDITIONALLY

PERMITTED USE IN THE SERVICE COMMERCIAL (CS) ZONING DISTRICT

Junior Planner Yee-Lynn Wong made a presentation on the item and answered questions. Interim Planning Division Manager Meily Sheehan also answered questions on the item.

Vice-Chairperson Cruzen motioned to approve Resolution PC2022-15; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Werblin. The motion was approved unanimously by roll call vote.

ITEM C STATE BILL 9 (SB 9)

RESOLUTION PC2022-16

RESOLUTION OF THE FAIRFIELD PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF FAIRFIELD APPROVE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25.20.3 OF CHAPTER 25, ARTICLE I, ALSO KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TO INCLUDE NEW SECTION 25.20.3.4 SB 9 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND ASSOCIATED TABLE 25-2.1 RVL AND RL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS UNDER SB 9

Junior Planner Yee-Lynn Wong made a presentation on the item and answered questions.

No person spoke during the public comment period.

Chairperson Childs motioned to approve Resolution PC2022-16; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Paul. The motion was approved unanimously by roll call vote.

VIII. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS

ITEM A DIRECTOR’S REPORT AND COMMISSIONER’S COMMENTS

Ms. Sheehan provided an update on upcoming agenda items and the upcoming Housing Element.

Commissioners request a presentation with FAST Transit.

IX. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING OF DECEMBER 28, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

MEILY M SHEEHAN
Planning Commission Secretary
Packet Page 185 of 846Attachment 2 Page 11 of 16

S T A F F R E P O R T
M e e tin g
D ate :

T o :

Fro m :

Su b je ct:

D e ce m b e r 14 , 20 2 2
Ch a irp e rso n an d M e m be rs o f th e Plan n in g Com m issio n C o m m u n ity D e v e lo p m e n t De p art m e nt
IT E M C : ST A T E B ILL 9 {S B 9 ) ZO N IN G O R D IN A N C E U P D A T E R e so lu tio n N o . PC 2 0 2 2 - 16
O rd in a n ce A m e n d m e n t (O A 2 02 2 -0 0 3 )
Lo catio n : C ityw id e
A p p lic a n t: C ity o f Fa irfie ld
O w n e r: N/A
P u b lic he a rin g o n th e re q u e st by th e C ity of Fairfie ld fo r Zon in g O rd in an ce am e n d m e n ts to Se ctio n 25.2 0 .3.4 to in cl u de Se n ate Bill 9 (SB 9) D eve lop m e nt R e g u latio n s, pro v id in g gu id e lin e s an d o b je ctiv e de velo p m e nt reg u lation s fo r ho u sin g p ro je cts an d su b d ivisio n s th at qualify un de r SB 9 an d fa ci litatin g th e m in iste ria l ap p ro v al pro ce ss fo r th e se ap plicatio n s T his O rd in a n ce is exe m p t fr om th e C alifo rn ia En viro n m e n tal Q u a lity A ct (C E QA ) pu rsu an t to (1 ) G o ve rn m e nt C od e Se ctio n 65 8 5 2 .2 1 0 ) as an actio n to im ple m ent G overn m e nt C o d e Se ction 6 5 8 5 2 .2 1 an d (2 ) G o v e rn m e n t C o d e Se ctio n 664 11.7(n ) as an actio n to im ple m ent G o ve rn m e n t C o d e Se ction 66 41 1.7. Fu rth e rm o re, th e te xt am e n dm e nts are exe m p t pe r Se ctio n 15 06 1 {b )(3 ) Co m m on Se n se Exe m p tio n . (Pla n n e r: Yee -Lyn n W o n g , (7 0 7 ) 4 2 8 -7 4 4 9 , yw on g @ fa irfie ld.ca.g o v )

BA C K G R O U N D /D IS C U SS IO N
In 20 2 1 , G a v in N e w so n sig n e d in to law Se n ate B ill 9 {SB 9) to furt h e r ad d ress C alifo rn ia's ho u sin g sh o rtag e an d en co u rag e acce ss to aff o rd a b le ho usin g . SB 9 w e nt in to eff ect o n Janu a ry 1, 202 2 .

T h is bill re q u ire s lo cal ag e n cie s to m in iste ria lly ap p ro v e ho u sin g pro je cts, an d urb an lo t sp lit pro p o sals in to sin g le -fa m ily re sid e n tia l zon e s if the y m e e t certain req u irem e nts set fo rt h in SB 9.

T h e b ill co m p rise s tw o pa rts, a ho u sin g de ve lo p m e nt po rtion , an d an urban lo t sp lit po rtion . The b ill also allo w s lo cal ag e n cie s to im p ose o b je ctiv e zon in g , su b divisio n, an d de sig n stan dards fo r ho u sin g d e v e lo p m e n t an d urb a n lo t sp lit pro je ct ap p licatio n s, pro vid e d th at th ese stan d a rd s do no t co n fl ict w ith th e re q u ire m e n ts se t by th e bill.

Lo cal ag e n cie s m a y im p o se o bje ctiv e zo n in g stan d a rd s an d o bje ctive de sig n stan dards fo r p ro p o se d ho u sin g d e ve lo p m e n ts elig ible un d e r SB 9, pro vid e d th at th e stan d ard s do not precl u d e th e co n stru ctio n o f up to tw o un its o f at le ast 80 0 sq u are feet in floor area. A m axim um fo u r-fo o t setb a ck m a y be re q u ired alo n g th e sid e an d re ar lo t lin e s; no setb ack sh all be req uired fo r an existin g stru ctu re o r a stru ctu re co n stru cte d in th e sam e lo catio n .

C ity of F airfield
C om m u nity D evelopm en t Departm en t
Prepared by: ill
Reviewed by: ,.Af1_
Packet Page 186 of 846Attachment 2 Page 12 of 16

Similarly, local agencies may impose objective subdivision standards for proposed urban lot splits elig ib le un d e r SB 9, pro v id e d th at th e stan d a rd s do no t p re cl u d e th e co n stru ctio n of two units on e ith e r of th e re su ltin g pa rce ls o r resu lt in a un it size of le ss th a n 8 0 0 sq u a re fee t. Fu rt h e rm o re , pro p o se d urb a n lo t sp lits can n o t re su lt in tw o pa rce ls w h e re o n e pa rce l is sm a lle r th an 40 pe rce n t o f th e lo t are a o f th e o rig in a l pa rce l, an d th e ne w ly cre ate d pa rce ls are re q u ire d to be no sm a lle r th a n 1,2 0 0 sq u a re fe e t.

T h e staff has pre p a re d an am e n d m e n t to th e Zo n in g O rd in a n ce to in cl u d e th e pro p o se d S e ctio n 25 .2 0 .3 .4 SB 9 Development Regulations to im p o se o b je ctive de v e lo p m e n t stan d a rd s th at are co n siste n t w ith S B 9 an d fa ci litate ho u sin g de ve lo p m e n t an d urb a n lo t sp lits un d e r th e pa ram e te rs of th e b ill. A t th is m e e tin g , staff asks th e Pla n n in g C o m m issio n to re v ie w th e p ro p o se d am e n d m e n t to th e Zo n in g O rd in a n ce an d re co m m e n d ad o p tio n by th e C ity C o u n cil.

A N A LYS IS FO R P LA N N IN G C O M M ISSIO N
A. Zoning Ordinance Amendments
S taff p ro p o se s th e in se rtio n o f a ne w se ctio n de d icate d to SB 9 re g u latio n s, S e ctio n 25 .2 0 .3 .4 SB 9 Development Regulations (S e ctio n ) an d T ab le 25 -2 .1 : RVL and RL District Development Regulations Under SB 9 (T a b le ) un d e r S e ctio n 25 .2 0 .3 Developm ent Regulations of th e Zo n in g O rd in a n ce . T h e S e ctio n an d th e T ab le p ro v id e o b je ctiv e de ve lo p m e n t, su b d iv isio n , an d de sig n sta n d a rd s fo r su b d iv isio n s an d resid e n tia l stru ctu re ap p licatio n s su b m itt e d un d e r SB 9 .

25.20.3.4 SB 9 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS

1. Add 25.20.3.4 A. Purpose
Se ctio n 25 .3 0 .3 .4 A. Purpose pro v id e s co n te xt fo r th e re g u latio n s se t fo rt h in th is se ctio n .

2. Add 25.20.3.4 B. Applicability
Se ctio n 25 .3 0 .3 .4 B. Applicability pro v id e s elig ib ility re q u ire m e n ts fo r ho u sin g pro je ct ap p licatio n un d e r S B 9 . Ite m s 1-7 in th is su b se ctio n co m p ly w ith th e sp e ci fi e d stan d a rd s an d co n d itio n s in S B 9 .

3. Add 25.20.3.4 C. Development Regulations
Se ctio n 25 .3 0 .3 .4 C. Development Regulations p ro v id e s re g u latio n s an d sta n d a rd s th at all S B 9 ho u sin g pro je ct ap p licatio n s m u st co m p ly w ith in o rd e r to be m in iste ria lly ap p ro v e d by th e C ity . T h e T ab le pro v id e s th e se re g u latio n s base d o n th e zo n in g district o f th e su b je ct pa rce l. T h e fo llo w in g parag rap h s p ro v id e de tail o n each re g u latio n cate g o ry liste d in th e T ab le .

PC ITEM NO.: C
PC FILE NO.: OA2022-003
S:\Planning\PC Meetings\PC-2022\22-12-14\ITEM C. SB 9 (OA2022-003)\l. Staff Report OA2022-003.docx PC DATE: 12/14/2022
PAGE 2
Packet Page 187 of 846Attachment 2 Page 13 of 16

T h e T a b le p ro v id e s re g u la tio n s o n th e fo llo w in g site p la n n in g e le m e n ts: m in im u m lo t are a , m in im u m lo t d im e n sio n s, re q u ire d p a rk in g , an d la n d sca p in g re q u ire m e n ts. C ity sta ff d e te rm in e d m in im u m a n d m a x im u m va lu e s b a se d o n th e ex istin g d e v e lo p m e n t re g u la tio n s o f th e su b je ct zo n in g d e sig n a tio n a n d sp e c ifi c sta n d a rd s an d co n d itio n s se t fo rth b y S B 9 . 1 ) L o t A re a a n d Lo t D im e n sio n s:

T h e m in im u m lo t a re a a n d lo t d im e n sio n s fo r e a c h o f th e zo n in g d e sig n a tio n s in th e ta b le d o n o t p re cl u d e th e lo ts fr o m th e co n stru c tio n o f tw o 8 0 0 -sq u a re -fo o t u n its, as re q u ire d b y S B 9 . T h e m in im u m lo t size s w e re c a lc u la te d b y ta k in g 4 0 p e rce n t o f th e ex istin g lo t a re a m in im u m s o f e a c h zo n in g d e sig n a tio n . Lo t d im e n sio n s are se t to 5 0 p e rc e n t o f th e e x is tin g lo t a re a d im e n sio n s o f e a c h o f th e zo n in g d e sig n a tio n s. N o te 1 an d N o te 2 se t m e a su re m e n t sta n d a rd s. N o te 3 a llo w s fo r a 2 -fo o t lo t d e p th re d u c tio n fo r lo ts w ith a s e p a ra te d sid e w a lk a t th e fr o n t p ro p e rty lin e to ac co m m o d a te a w id e r rig h t-o f-w a y . N o te 1 2 a ll o w s p ro p o s e d "fl a g lo ts " to h a v e a m in im u m w id th o f 16 fe e t fo r p o rtio n s o f th e lo t th a t p ro v id e stre e t a c ce ss.
2 ) P a rk in g :

A s sp e cifi e d in S B 9 , o n e c o v e re d o n -s ite p a rk in g sp a c e is re q u ire d p e r d w e ll in g , u n le ss th e d w e ll in g is w ith in o n e -h a lf m ile o f a h ig h -q u a lity tra n sit co rrid o r o r m a jo r tra n sit sto p o r th e re is a c a r sh a re v e h icl e lo c a te d w ith in o n e b lo c k o f th e p a rce l. 3 ) L a n d s ca p in g :

O n e stre e t tre e is re q u ire d fo r e a c h 3 5 fe e t o f stre e t fr o n ta g e in th e R V L : 4 0 an d R V L: 20 zo n e s , fo r e a c h 3 0 fe e t in th e R V L : 15 an d R V L : 10 zo n e s , a n d fo r e a c h 2 5 fe e t in th e R L:
8 zo n e . N o te 8 sp e ci fi e s th a t a ll stre e t tre e s sh a ll b e lo c a te d w ith in e ig h t fe e t o f th e b a c k o f th e sid e w a lk . N o fr o n t ya rd la n d sca p in g is re q u ire d to b e in sta ll e d b y th e d e v e lo p e r.

T h e T a b le a lso p ro v id e s re g u la tio n s o n th e fo llo w in g b u ild in g e le m e n ts: m in im u m an d m a x im u m d w e ll in g u n it size , m a x im u m fl o o r a re a ra tio , se tb a c k s, m a x im u m b u ild in g h e ig h t lim it, ro o f p itc h lin e , w a ll p la n e tra n sp a re n c y , a n d w in d o w an d d o o r trim . C ity sta ff d e te rm in e d m in im u m a n d m a x im u m v a lu e s b a se d o n th e e x istin g d e v e lo p m e n t re g u la tio n s o f th e su b je ct zo n in g d e sig n a tio n s a n d sp e ci fi c sta n d a rd s an d co n d itio n s se t fo rth b y S B 9 . 1 ) D w e ll in g U n it S ize :

T h e m in im u m d w e ll in g u n it size id e n tifi e d c o m p lie s w ith S B 9 's re q u ire m e n t th a t e a c h u n it m u s t b e at le a st 8 0 0 sq u a re fe e t in a re a . T h e 18 0 0 sq u a re fo o t m a x im u m d w e llin g u n it size is se t to e n c o u ra g e h o u sin g p ro je cts u n d e r S B 9 to b e aff o rd a b le as in te n d e d w ith th e b ill.
2 ) F lo o r A re a R a tio :

T h e m a x im u m fl o o r a re a ra tio re m a in s th e sa m e as th a t o f th e e x istin g zo n in g d e sig n a tio n s th a t th e ta b le co v e rs. N o te 1 0 sp e c ifi e s h o w to ca lc u la te fl o o r are a ra tio .

PC ITEM NO.: C
PC FILE NO.: OA2022-003
S:\Planning\PC Meetings\PC-2022\22-12-14\ITEM C. SB 9 (OA2022-003)\l. Staff Report OA2022-003.docx PC DATE: 12/14/2022
PAGE 3
Packet Page 188 of 846Attachment 2 Page 14 of 16

3} Se tb a cks:

Se tb acks fo r th e stre e t sid e yard , in te rior sid e yard, an d re ar yard com ply w ith SB 9's se tb a ck re q u ire m e n t th at th e C ity m ay o n ly req u ire setb acks up to fo u r feet fr o m sid e an d rea r lo t lin e s. T h e fr o n t setb acks re m ain th e sam e as th at of th e existin g zo n in g de sig n atio n s th at th e ta b le co ve rs. N o te 6 an d N o te 7 pro vid e fr o n t setb ack varian ces fo r lo ts w ith a se p a rate d sid e w alk an d lo ts th at fr ont o n an art e rial ro ad w ay; th e se no te s are th e sa m e as th e no te s o n existin g de v e lo p m e nt regu latio n table s fo r th e app licable zo n in g de sig n atio n s. N o te 8 an d N o te 9 pro vide m in im um setb acks betw ee n garag es an d stre e t-sid e p ro p e rt y lin e s; th e se notes are th e sam e as th e notes o n existin g de v e lo p m e n t re g u latio n table s fo r th e app licable zo n in g de sig n ation s. N o te 11 refl e cts an SB 9 co n d itio n th a t allo w s fo r ze ro fo o t sid e an d rear setb ack fo r structu res th at pre e xist a su b d ivisio n pu rsu a n t to SB 9 . N ote 13 sets m axim u m pe rce ntag es fo r how m u ch of th e fr o n t ele v atio n can co n sist of a garag e . 4 } B u ild in g H e ig h t Li m its:

T h e 18 -fo o t m ax im u m bu ild in g he ig ht lim it is set to allo w on e -story ho m e s, to en co u rag e affo rd a b ility .
5} R o o f P itch Li n e , W all Pla n e T ran sp a re n cy, W in d o w an d Door T rim :

C o n siste n t w ith th e de sig n of re sid e ntia l un its th ro ug ho u t th e C ity, th e bu ild in g d e v e lo p m e n t re g u latio n s ta b le in cl u d e s reg u lation s fo r ro of pitch lin e , w all plan e tran sp a re n cy, an d trim aro u n d w in d ow s an d doors. A 3:1 2 ro o f pitch lin e m atch e s m a n y o f th e existin g ro o f pitch lin e s in Fa irfi e ld ne ig h b o rhoo d s. W all plan e tran sp are n cy, de fi n e d in N o te 14 , p re v e n ts th e de ve lopm e n t of structu res w ith sp arse natu ral lig ht, an d th e w in d o w an d do o r trim re g u lation creates visu a l inte rest. T he se de sig n stan d a rd s en su re ho u sin g de v e lo p m e n t pro je cts un de r SB 9 pro vid e qu a lity de sig n an d ble n d ha rm o n io u sly w ith th e existin g ne ig h b o rhood.

4. Add 25.20.3.4 D. General Restrictions
Se ctio n 25 .3 0 .3 .4 D . G enera l Restrictions pro v ide s reg u latio n s fo r th e usag e of resid e n tial un its cre ate d p u rsu a n t to SB 9 an d state s th e C ity's au tho rity to de n y pro je cts th at have sp e cifi c, ad v e rse im p acts as fo u n d by th e C h ie f B u ild in g O ff icial.

B. Environm ental Review
A n o rd in a n ce ad o p te d to im p le m e n t SB 9 sh a ll no t be con sid e red a pro je ct un d er th e C alifo rn ia E n viro n m e n ta l Q ua lity A ct (C E QA } an d is exe m p t fr om C EQA revie w pe r G o ve rn m e nt C o d e S e ctio n s 6 5 8 5 2 .2 1 (j} an d 6 6 4 11 .7 (n }, w h ich state th at th e ad op tio n of an o rd in a n ce by a city o r co u n ty im p le m e n tin g th e p ro v isio n s of G o v e rn m ent C o d e Se ctio n 65 85 2 .21 an d 66 4 1 1.7 an d re g u latin g tw o -u n it de ve lo p m e n t an d urb a n lo t sp lit proje cts are statu torily exe m p t fr o m th e re q u ire m e n ts o f C E QA . T h e pro p o se d te xt am e n d m ents are also se p arate ly an d in d e p e n de ntly ex e m p t fr o m C E QA , pu rsu a n t to Se ction 15 0 6 1 (b }(3 ): C om m o n Se n se Exe m p tion, th e gen e ral ru le PC ITEM NO.: C
PC FILE NO.: OA2022-003
S:\Planning\PC Meetings\PC-2022\22-12-14\ITEM C. SB 9 (OA2022-003)\1. Staff Report OA2022-003.docx PC DATE: 12/14/2022
PAGE 4
Packet Page 189 of 846Attachment 2 Page 15 of 16

th a t C EQA o n ly ap p lie s to pro je cts w h ich ha v e th e po ten tial fo r cau sin g a sig n ifi can t on th e en viro n m e n t. T h e te xt am e n d m e n ts m a k e ch a n g es to cl arify existin g stan d ard s an d req u ire m e nts fo r existin g stru ctu re s un d e r State law an d reg ulate m ino r co n ve rsion s to existin g structu res; th e se ch a n g e s w ill no t re su lt in an y ne w su b sta ntial ph ysical cha n g e to th e enviro n m e nt.

R EC O M M E N D A T IO N
S taff re co m m e n d s th at th e Pla n nin g C om m issio n adop t Re solutio n N o . PC 2022 -16 , re co m m e n d in g th e C ity C o u n cil ap p ro ve s th e Zon in g O rd in an ce Am e n dm e nt req u e st.

A tt a ch m e n ts:

1. P la n n in g C o m m issio n Re so lu tio n N o . PC 20 2 2 -1 6 w ith att ach e d:
• Exh ib it A - D raft O rd in a n ce fo r S B 9 Zon in g O rd in an ce A m e n d m e n t PC ITEM NO.: C PC DATE: 12/14/2022
PC FILE NO.: OA2022-003
S:\Planning\PC Meetings\PC-2022\22-12-14\ITEM C. SB 9 (OA2022-003)\1. Staff Report OA2022-003.docx PAGE 5
Packet Page 190 of 846Attachment 2 Page 16 of 16

Agenda Item No: 12.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:February 7, 2023
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, City Manager
SUBJECT:Resolution 2023­16 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving up to $250,000 to Cover Tenant Improvement Costs for City Hall Office Space RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt resolution.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The Information Technology (IT) Department  seeks approval for funding of up to $250,000 for tenant improvements to accommodate the entire department in one centralized address and be fully compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.

DISCUSSION
The IT Department majority staff and data center is housed at the Police Department (PD) building.

Several others work at the Fairfield Transportation Center. PD has a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for new construction adjacent to the current PD building. This will allow the PD to better house current and planned staff.

To accommodate the PD's CIP project, the IT Department will need to develop an interim office plan and reconfigure the new office space on the first floor of the City Hall building to address the department’s needs and vacate a portion of current PD building for their project to continue.

The Housing Service Department has recently vacated office space on the City Hall building’s first floor.

Moving IT Department staff to City Hall with allow all IT staff to be centrally located at one address.

Approval for use of funds will help provide the infrastructure, technology, and office equipment needed for IT’s needs. Approval with cover the following expenses:

Description Costs
Electrical $72,554
Cubicles $72,000
Flooring $46,880
Packet Page 191 of 846

Agenda Item No: 12.AGENDA REPORTDATE:February 7, 2023 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, City ManagerSUBJECT:Resolution 2023­16 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving up to $250,000to Cover Tenant Improvement Costs for City Hall Office SpaceRECOMMENDED ACTIONAdopt resolution. STATEMENT OF ISSUEThe Information Technology (IT) Department  seeks approval for funding of up to $250,000 for tenantimprovements to accommodate the entire department in one centralized address and be fully compliantwith the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. DISCUSSIONThe IT Department majority staff and data center is housed at the Police Department (PD) building.Several others work at the Fairfield Transportation Center. PD has a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) fornew construction adjacent to the current PD building. This will allow the PD to better house current andplanned staff. To accommodate the PD's CIP project, the IT Department will need to develop an interim office planandreconfigure the new office space on the first floor of the City Hall building to address thedepartment’s needs and vacate a portion of current PD building for their project to continue. The Housing Service Department has recently vacated office space on the City Hall building’s first floor.Moving IT Department staff to City Hall with allow all IT staff to be centrally located at one address.  Approval for use of funds will help provide the infrastructure, technology, and office equipment neededfor IT’s needs. Approval with cover the following expenses: Description CostsElectrical$72,554 Cubicles $72,000
Flooring $46,880
Desks and chairs $33,000
Misc and contingency $21,566
Total Project Costs $250,000
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The project costs are estimated at $250,000. The City Manager's Office General Fund contingency Fund 101, Organization Code 10110104, Project 10457 will provide $250,000 for renovating the first floor of City Hall to meet IT's staffing, infrastructure, and technology needs.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The City Council may choose not to adopt the resolution. However, an alternative solution will need to be identified as to not delay the Capital Improvement Project.

STAFF CONTACT
Shawn Smith, Senior Management Analyst
(707) 428­7542
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
City Manager's Office, Finance Department, Police Department, Public Works Department, Housing Services Department
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Proposed Resolution
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Chaudhary, Savita Approved 1/23/2023 ­ 5:51 PM
Beavers, Esther Approved 1/24/2023 ­ 10:53 AM
Beavers, Esther Approved 1/24/2023 ­ 10:53 AM
Packet Page 192 of 846

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-16

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD APPROVING UP TO $250,000

TO COVER TENANT IMPROVEMENT COSTS FOR CITY HALL OFFICE SPACE

WHEREAS, the Police Department (PD) has a capital improvement plan (CIP) project to construct a new facility to place PD staff; and

WHEREAS, the Information Technology (IT) Department has shared part of the PD building footprint; and

WHEREAS, the CIP project will expand PD’s building print and will require IT to vacate offices in the PD building to allow space for PD’s expansion; and

WHEREAS, the Housing Services Department has recently vacated office space on the first floor of the City Hall; and

WHEREAS, the City IT Department seeks to engage with multiple contractors to meet the department’s needs and project deadlines for the move to the first floor of the City Hall building.

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

Section 1. The City Council authorizes up to $250,000 for the IT Department staff to move to City Hall. Funds will come from the City Manager’s Fund 101, Organization Code 10110104, Project 10457.

Section 2. The council hereby authorizes the city manager or designee to take all steps necessary to implement this resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: MEMBERS: MOY / BERTANI / CARR /PANDURO / TONNESEN/ VACCARO / WILLIAMS

NOES: MEMBERS:

ABSENT: MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: MEMBERS:

_________ _____________________________________________ MAYOR
ATTEST:

____________________________

CITY CLERK
Packet Page 193 of 846Attachment 1 Page 1 of 1

Agenda Item No: 13.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:February 7, 2023
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, City Manager
SUBJECT:Resolution 2023­17 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving a Professional Services Agreement with Cyber Leadership and Strategy Solutions, LLC RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt resolution.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The Information Technology (IT) Department seeks approval to engage with Cyber Leadership and Strategy Solutions, LLC (CLASS­LLC) to strengthen the City’s cybersecurity program.

DISCUSSION
The IT Department recently completed a Cyber Resilience Plan (CRP), which identified the five­year roadmap of projects, technology, policies and procedures, including staff training to strengthen the City’s cybersecurity program and protect against cyber threats. The CRP is comprised of 11 strategic and 12 technical projects. IT would like to engage with CLASS­LLC to support City staff in completing three projects to achieve this critical goal.

The three citywide projects associated with this phase of the CRP:

Cyber Incident Response Planning
Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Planning for IT Systems Citywide Policies and Procedures Documentation
Approval of this agreement will permit assessment and strategic planning, cyber incident response, business continuity, disaster recovery, and an ongoing service agreement. The assessment and strategic planning will help develop security policy procedures, standards, and guidelines. Cyber incident response planning is to prepare for, detect, contain, and recover from a data breach. Incident planning will include a tabletop exercise including the findings. A business continuity and disaster recovery plan combine strategies, policies, and procedures about how an organization should respond to or adapt to potential threats or unforeseen disruptive events while minimizing the negative impacts.

Lastly, there is a request to authorize funds for a future services contract to support ongoing cybersecurity efforts.

Packet Page 194 of 846

Agenda Item No: 13.AGENDA REPORTDATE:February 7, 2023 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, City ManagerSUBJECT:Resolution 2023­17 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving a ProfessionalServices Agreement with Cyber Leadership and Strategy Solutions, LLCRECOMMENDED ACTIONAdopt resolution. STATEMENT OF ISSUEThe Information Technology (IT) Department seeks approval to engage with Cyber Leadership andStrategy Solutions, LLC (CLASS­LLC) to strengthen the City’s cybersecurity program.DISCUSSIONThe IT Department recently completed a Cyber Resilience Plan (CRP), which identified the five­yearroadmap of projects, technology, policies and procedures, including staff training to strengthen theCity’s cybersecurity program and protect against cyber threats. The CRP is comprised of 11 strategicand 12 technical projects. IT would like to engage with CLASS­LLC to support City staff in completingthree projects to achieve this critical goal.The three citywide projects associated with this phase of the CRP:Cyber Incident Response PlanningBusiness Continuity and Disaster Recovery Planning for IT Systems CitywidePolicies and Procedures DocumentationApproval of this agreement will permit assessment and strategic planning, cyber incident response,business continuity, disaster recovery, and an ongoing service agreement. The assessment andstrategic planning will help develop security policy procedures, standards, and guidelines. Cyberincident response planning is to prepare for, detect, contain, and recover from a data breach. Incidentplanning will include a tabletop exercise including the findings. A business continuity and disasterrecovery plan combine strategies, policies, and procedures about how an organization should respondto or adapt to potential threats or unforeseen disruptive events while minimizing the negative impacts.

Lastly, there is a request to authorize funds for a future services contract to support ongoing cybersecurity efforts.

CLASS­LLC is a professional services firm specializing in cybersecurity strategy, risk management, and workforce development. The organization has decades of experience in developing tailored cybersecurity solutions.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The total amount requested is $205,000 to engage in the professional services contract with CLASS­ LLC. The costs are budgeted in Fund 522 (Fund 522, Organization Code 25199, Project 10088).

Additionally, a service agreement for ongoing work is expected not to exceed $70,000 per year for continual cybersecurity efforts to align with changing industry standards and will be included in future fiscal year’s budgets subject to budget appropriation.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The City Council may choose not to approve the resolution. Staff considered completing the work internally, however, the staff believed it would be beneficial to get an outside perspective that could bring with them industry best practices and experience working with other local municipalities to help setup a framework that the City can use for the next five years to assist with strengthening the City’s cybersecurity efforts.

STAFF CONTACT
Eudora Fleischman, IT Manager
(707) 428­7527
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
City Attorney's Office
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Proposed Resolution
Proposed Agreement
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Chaudhary, Savita Approved 1/23/2023 ­ 11:36 AM
Beavers, Esther Approved 1/24/2023 ­ 10:51 AM
Beavers, Esther Approved 1/24/2023 ­ 10:52 AM
Packet Page 195 of 846

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-17

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL

SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CYBER LEADERSHIP AND STRATEGY SOLUTIONS, LLC

WHEREAS, the Information Technology (IT) Department recently completed a Cyber Resilience Plan (CRP), which identified the five-year roadmap of projects, technology, policies, and procedures, including staff training to strengthen the City’s cybersecurity program and protect against cyber threats; and

WHEREAS, the City of Fairfield plans to develop a carefully designed architecture that gives the ability to protect from, detect, respond to and recover from cyberattacks ; and

WHEREAS, components of the Cyber Resilience Plan include strengthening the cybersecurity incident response planning, business continuity, and disaster recovery programs; and

WHEREAS, the IT Department would like to engage Cyber Leadership and Strategy Solutions, LLC (CLASS-LLC) to strengthen the City’s cybersecurity program.

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

Section 1. The City Council authorizes the Professional Services Agreement with CLASS-LLC, for cyber security consulting in the amount of $205,000 from the Computer Fund 522 Project 10088.

Section 2. The council hereby authorizes an additional services agreement not to exceed $70,000 per year for continual cybersecurity efforts to align with changing industry standards.

Section 3. The council hereby authorizes the city manager or designee to take all steps necessary to implement this resolution.

Packet Page 196 of 846Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2

RES. NO. 2023-17

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: MEMBERS: MOY / BERTANI / CARR /PANDURO / TONNESEN/ VACCARO / WILLIAMS

NOES: MEMBERS:

ABSENT: MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: MEMBERS:

_________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________

CITY CLERK

Packet Page 197 of 846Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2

CITY OF FAIRFIELD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
Cybersecurity Professional Services with CLASS LLC.

THIS AGREEMENT is made at Fairfield, California, as of FEB XX, 2023, by and between the City of Fairfield, a municipal corporation (the “CITY") and Cyber Leadership and Strategy Solutions, LLC (“CLASS-LLC” or "CONSULTANT"), who agree as follows: 1) SERVICES. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall provide to the CITY the services described in Exhibit “A,” which consists of the proposal submitted by CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT shall provide said services at the time, place, and in the manner specified in Exhibit “A.” 2) PAYMENT. CITY shall pay CONSULTANT for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the times and in the manner set forth in Exhibit “B.” The payments specified in Exhibit “B” shall be the only payments to be made to CONSULTANT for services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall submit all billings for said services to the CITY in the manner specified in Exhibit “B.” 3) FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. CONSULTANT shall, at its sole cost and expense, furnish all facilities and equipment which may be required for furnishing services pursuant to this Agreement. 4) GENERAL PROVISIONS. The general provisions set forth in Exhibit “C” are part of this Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between said general provisions and any other terms or conditions of this Agreement, the provisions set forth in Exhibit “C” shall control. 5) INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. The insurance requirements set forth in Exhibit “D” are part of this Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between said general provisions and any other terms or conditions of this Agreement, the requirements set forth in Exhibit “D” shall control. 6) EXHIBITS. All exhibits referred to herein are attached hereto and are by this reference incorporated herein. 7) TERM. This agreement shall be in effect through JUN 30, 2024; or until the scope of work is completed. 8) GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE. Should either Party to this Agreement bring legal action against the other, the validity, interpretation, and performance of this Contract shall be controlled by and construed under the laws of California, excluding California’s choice of law rules. Venue for any such action relating to this Agreement shall be in the Solano County Superior Court. 9) ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, including any other documents incorporated herein by specific reference, represents the entire and integrated agreement between CITY and CONSULTANT. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations, or agreements. This Agreement may not be modified or amended, nor any provision or breach waived, except in a writing signed by both parties which expressly refers to this Agreement. 10) COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in counterpart originals, duplicate originals, or both, each of which is deemed to be an original for all purposes.

Packet Page 198 of 846Attachment 2 Page 1 of 23

CITY OF FAIRFIELD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
Cybersecurity Professional Services with CLASS LLC.
11) NOTICES. This Agreement is managed and administered on the CITY’s behalf by the individual named below. All invoices must be submitted and approved by this individual and all notices shall be given to the CITY using the following contact information: CITY Contact: Savita Chaudhary E-mail: [email protected] Address: 1000 Webster St., Fairfield, CA 94533 Telephone: 707-428-7532 Notices must be given to CONSULTANT at the following: CONSULTANT Contact: Keyaan Williams E-mail: [email protected] Address: 10 Glenlake Pkwy NE Suite 130, Atlanta, GA 30328 Telephone: (770) 354-9341 EXECUTED as of the day first above-stated.

City of Fairfield, a municipal corporation by:

CONSULTANT By:

Packet Page 199 of 846Attachment 2 Page 2 of 23

CITY OF FAIRFIELD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
Cybersecurity Professional Services with CLASS LLC.

EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Packet Page 200 of 846Attachment 2 Page 3 of 23

CITY OF FAIRFIELD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR
Cybersecurity Professional Services with CLASS LLC.

Statement of Work:

Cybersecurity Projects
City of Fairfield, CA
Keyaan Williams

CLASS-LLC
Packet Page 201 of 846Attachment 2 Page 4 of 23

Cybersecurity and Privacy Services Contract

1. Statement of Work: City of Fairfield, CA Cybersecurity Projects This Statement of Work (SOW) is issued pursuant to the Master Services Contract for Cybersecurity and Privacy Services (“Contract”), by and between Cyber Leadership and Strategy Solutions, LLC (“CLASS-LLC”) and the City of Fairfield, CA (“Client”).

Any term not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning specified in the Contract. The terms and conditions of this SOW shall govern and control any conflict among the terms and conditions of this Schedule and the terms and conditions of the Contract.

1.1. Client Obligations: The Client acknowledges and agrees that the Client’s failure to comply with the following obligations may require modification to the services provided through the execution of an approved Project Change Request (PCR), which could result in changes to the scope, fees, or schedule outlined in the SOW. (1) The Client shall assign a project manager to represent the organization, assist with project coordination, and support resolution of any issues that arise.
(2) The Client will provide timely access to and feedback from those individuals assigned to the Client project team for the duration of the project. (3) The Client will perform its obligations outlined for the project at its own expense in a timely manner.
(4) The Client will provide access to relevant documentation required to support the project.
(5) The Client will provide timely response to questions and deliverables provided by CLASS-LLC.

1.2. Project Management: The Director, Information Technology of the Client or an authorized designee shall serve as the point of contact representing the Client and provide oversight for all cybersecurity projects outlined within this SOW.

1.3. Project Change Management: Excluding fixed-price project activities, the Client may change, pause, or cancel service at any time without cause by providing 30 days of notice in writing. The following process will be followed for any change to the approved project for any reason. Either Party may document a Project Change Request (PCR) to formally communicate a request to change the scope, cost, or schedule of any in-scope project activity. The PCR must describe the change, the rationale for the change, and the effect the change will have on the project. A Change Authorization will be documented when both Parties agree upon the information, impact, and outcomes documented in the PCR. A PCR requires

Packet Page 202 of 846Attachment 2 Page 5 of 23

Cybersecurity and Privacy Services Contract

signatures from an authorized official representing CLASS-LLC and the Client to authorize the final PCR.

1.4. Project Completion Acknowledgement: The Client will sign a Project Completion Acknowledgement (“Acknowledgement”) to formally affirm project completion as agreed and to the satisfaction of the Client upon completion of the Project. The Client must report any significant issues with project delivery in writing or provide signed Acknowledgement within ten (10) business days of project delivery. Otherwise, an “Auto Acknowledgement” will occur whereby CLASS-LLC will consider the Project complete and any outstanding payments to CLASS-LLC will be due. Any additional services performed after Acknowledgement or the Auto Acknowledgement will be billed to the Client on a “time and materials” basis unless otherwise agreed upon by the Parties.

1.5. Work Location: All work for this SOW will be performed remotely using reasonable means of communication. All meetings will be scheduled during normal business hours designated by the Client. CLASS-LLC will coordinate with Client personnel and relevant stakeholders, as required, to support execution of documented requirements.

1.6. Payment: The Client shall pay CLASS-LLC all designated fees in the designated timeframe, and any payments that are not timely paid shall be subject to the late fee specified in each Statement of Work. Should the Client breach any payment obligations hereunder, the Client shall reimburse CLASS-LLC for all reasonable fees and expenses required for collection.

1.7. Late Fees: A late fee of 2% per day applies after a grace period of five (5) business days for all payment options. All discounts are waived after the account is more than ten (10) business days past due.

1.8. Travel Expense Reimbursement: Service fees do not include reasonable travel and accommodation for on-site meetings and support. Any expenses billed for travel and accommodations require advance approval in writing by the Client. All approved expenses will be charged at cost according to documented Client expense policies.

Packet Page 203 of 846Attachment 2 Page 6 of 23

Cybersecurity and Privacy Services Contract

2. [Project 1] Assessment and Strategic Planning for Security Policies, Procedures, Standards, and Guidelines

2.1. Financials: The up-front fee for Project 1 Services is USD $45,000 if paid within five (5) business days of the project start date. The project fee for deferred payment is $56,250 with negotiable terms for the project-start fee, interim payments, and final payment.
2 .2. Service Overview: CLASS-LLC will lead a 90-day project to analyze and standardize findings from disparate assessments performed by city vendors. The findings will be organized into a consolidated action plan that outlines requirements to satisfy critical findings across all cybersecurity assessments conducted on behalf of the city. CLASS-LLC will document the action plan in a standardized form or GRC system (preferred) to support tracking and execution of requirements.

2.3. Project Schedule
(1) (Step 1) Project Initiation. The parties will establish standard project management activities like scheduling and stakeholder planning. The project manager representing the Client should be available for up to ten (10) hours per week to support coordination during the first 15 days of the project. a. CLASS-LLC and the client will agree to a regular meeting schedule for project management and status updates.
b. The parties will agree upon the primary points of contact for project management and develop a stakeholder management plan to identify relevant stakeholders and the frequency of communication. c. The parties will agree upon the format, content, and level of detail required for weekly and monthly project status reports.
(2) (Step 2) CRR Data Collection. The parties will deposit all relevant data and information in an agreed upon repository to support the project. The project manager representing the client should be available for up to ten (10) hours per week to support coordination during the first 15 days of the project. a. One of two data repositories will be created to support the project.

CLASS-LLC will create and manage a secure document repository and provide access for the client to upload all relevant information, or the client will create a secure repository to host all relevant project documentation and provide secure access to CLASS-LLC.

Packet Page 204 of 846Attachment 2 Page 7 of 23

Cybersecurity and Privacy Services Contract

b. CLASS-LLC will create a list of all documentation required to support the assessment. The client will deposit required information in the appropriate data management repository.
(3) (Step 3) Data Analysis and Assessment. CLASS-LLC will review and analyze all relevant data collected during Step 2. The project manager representing the client should be available up to two (2) hours per week to support a weekly (or bi-weekly) project status meeting. In addition, the project manager should be available via email to provide feedback and clarification about any questions that CLASS-LLC highlights during the data analysis and assessment step.
a. Document review. CLASS-LLC will review all relevant documentation provided by the client with a focus on business goals and objectives; regulatory and contractual obligations (existing or future); policies, procedures, standards, and guidelines for security program management; in-place controls; and the results of previous security assessments or audits.
b. Assessment of strategic alignment. CLASS-LLC will consider the client’s core mission, vision, goals, and objectives to determine the extent to which the security program satisfies business requirements.
c. Roadmap development. CLASS-LLC will document a detailed remediation roadmap to address critical short-term, medium-term, and long-term priorities based on the findings identified during the assessment.
(4) (Step 4) Reporting and Deliverables. CLASS-LLC will finalize all deliverables.

The project manager representing the client should be minimally available to participate in project status meetings. Relevant project stakeholders should be available for a project review meeting to discuss the final deliverables from the project and discuss next steps.
a. Strategic roadmap. The report will include a roadmap that highlights short, medium, and long-term activities that must take place for the client to improve maturity of the privacy program in alignment with business requirements and priorities.
b. Gap analysis report. The report will include detailed documentation summarizing the gap between in-place controls and security

Packet Page 205 of 846Attachment 2 Page 8 of 23

Cybersecurity and Privacy Services Contract

program management practices required to satisfy regulatory and contractual obligations of the client.
c. Executive presentation to Management. CLASS-LLC will develop an executive presentation to summarize the project, findings, and recommendations appropriate for the client’s board and/or executive management team. Delivery of the presentation will include participation of a cybersecurity attorney, if requested, to provide the benefit of privilege related to any negative findings.

3. [Project 2] Cyber Incident Response Project

3.1. Financials: The up-front fee for the cyber incident response project is USD $50,000 if paid within five (5) business days of the project start date. The project fee for deferred payment is $62,500 with negotiable terms for the project-start fee, interim payments, and final payment.

3.2. Service Overview: CLASS will lead a 90-day project to help the city strengthen its cyber incident response program. Core objectives of the project include the following:
(1) Conduct a comprehensive review of the city’s documented cyber incident response program and assess gaps in documented practices for containment, eradication, and recovery based on guidance provided in the Cyber Incident Handling Guide from NIST (SP 800-61).
a. Conduct gap assessment based on framework selected by the city. b. Review the documented incident response policy.
c. Review documented incident response plans.
d. Review documented incident response procedures for up to 10 high-priority event or incident categories.
(2) Revise and/or document formal policies, plans, and procedures for cyber incident response required to achieve the level of maturity desired by the city. (3) Develop templates to facilitate effective incident escalation and communication to relevant stakeholders and partners during incident response.

Packet Page 206 of 846Attachment 2 Page 9 of 23

Cybersecurity and Privacy Services Contract

a. Document executive communications templates to facilitate third- party or internal notification and escalation for incidents that affect critical operating environments, data, or obligations.
b. Document a template for city leadership to facilitate relevant tabletop exercises with the city council, mayor, and city leadership. c. Document a crisis communication plan and associated RACI matrix to support relevant and effective communications to city partners, customers, and the media when an incident occurs.
d. Facilitate cyber incident response tabletop exercise with relevant stakeholders to test the effectiveness of documented response capabilities.

3.3. Project Schedule
(1) (Step 1) The first 30 days of the project constitute an onboarding phase that provides the opportunity for CLASS-LLC to conduct deep analysis of documented cyber incident response practices and capabilities. a. CLASS-LLC and the client will agree to a regular meeting schedule for project management and status updates.
b. The parties will agree upon the primary points of contact for project management and develop a stakeholder management plan to identify relevant stakeholders and the frequency of communication. c. The parties will agree upon the format, content, and level of detail required for weekly and monthly project status reports.
(2) (Step 2) The next 30 days of the project provide time for CLASS-LLC to update or document relevant practices based on the findings from Step 1. d. Document cyber incident response policy. The policy provides a prescriptive definition of expectations supported by relevant governance to ensure acceptable execution.
e. Document cyber incident response plan. The plan outlines the methodology and approach used by the city to support planning, situational awareness and alerting, event escalation, incident response, and post-incident analysis.
f. Document cyber incident response procedures. Procedures focus on applying the response plan to the top attack vectors faced by the city aligned with the capability of the city to provide adequate response and remediation.

Packet Page 207 of 846Attachment 2 Page 10 of 23

Cybersecurity and Privacy Services Contract

(3) (Step 3) The last 30 days of the project provide time for CLASS-LLC to finalize project deliverables and conduct the tabletop exercise. Findings from the exercise will be documented in a formal report within two weeks of the cyber incident response tabletop test.
a. Project report. The final project report will document the results of the cyber incident response project. As applicable, the report will include a roadmap that highlights short, medium, and long-term activities that must take place to improve maturity of the cyber incident response capabilities of the city and provide instructions for the team to execute a prescriptive implementation plan. b. Gap analysis report. The report will include detailed documentation summarizing the gap between in-place controls and required practices for an effective cyber incident response capability. c. Tabletop exercise report. The report will document participants, exercise date, scenario(s) performed, and findings from the exercise. (4) Executive summary for management. CLASS-LLC will develop an executive presentation to summarize the project, findings, and recommendations appropriate for the client’s board and/or executive management team.

4. [Project 3] Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery

4.1. Financials: The up-front fee for the business continuity and disaster recovery project is USD $50,000 if paid within five (5) business days of the project start date. The project fee for deferred payment is $62,500 with negotiable terms for the project- start fee, interim payments, and final payment.

4.2. Service Overview: CLASS will lead a 90-day project to help the city strengthen its business continuity and disaster recovery program. Core objectives of the project include the following:
(1) Conduct a comprehensive review of the city’s documented business continuity management program, including business continuity planning, disaster recovery, and business impact analysis based on guidance provided in the Contingency Planning Guide from NIST (SP 800-34). a. Conduct gap assessment based on framework selected by the city. b. Review the documented business impact analysis (BIA) process, business continuity plan (BCP), disaster recovery plan (DRP), and

Packet Page 208 of 846Attachment 2 Page 11 of 23

Cybersecurity and Privacy Services Contract

continuity of operations plan (ConOps), which for the basis of business continuity management and operational resilience.
c. Conduct stakeholder interviews to confirm critical systems and services of the city, which influences recovery priorities for business continuity management and operational resilience.
(2) Revise and/or document formal policies, plans, and procedures for cyber incident response required to achieve the level of maturity desired by the city.
a. Ensure a formal process for BIA is documented to determine critical systems and services based on the impact their loss would have on revenue, operations, regulations, and/or reputation of the city. b. Ensure a formal documented BCP focuses continuing the city’s critical systems and services during a disruption. The BCP will include documentation of the information system contingency plan (ISCP) to guide recovery of designated systems regardless of the site or location used for recovery (primarily for non-COOP systems and services). c. Ensure a formal documented DRP focuses on the recovery and reconstitution of critical systems and services following major physical disruptions that last for an extended period. The DRP will be designed to guide technical recovery of designated systems and services at an alternate site after any significant outage. All documented BCP’s will point to and support the requirements of the DRP.
(3) Develop templates to facilitate effective incident escalation and communication to relevant stakeholders and partners during incident response.
a. Document executive communications templates to facilitate third- party or internal notification and escalation for incidents that affect critical operating environments, data, or obligations.
b. Document a template for city leadership to facilitate relevant tabletop exercises with the city council, mayor, and city leadership. c. Document a crisis communication plan and associated RACI matrix to support relevant and effective communications to city partners, customers, and the media when an incident occurs.

Packet Page 209 of 846Attachment 2 Page 12 of 23

Cybersecurity and Privacy Services Contract

(4) Facilitate business continuity management tabletop exercise with relevant stakeholders to test the effectiveness of documented response capabilities.

4.3. Project Schedule:
(1) (Step 1) The first 30 days of the project constitute an onboarding phase that provides the opportunity for CLASS-LLC to conduct deep analysis of documented business continuity management practices and capabilities. a. CLASS-LLC and the client will agree to a regular meeting schedule for project management and status updates.
b. The parties will agree upon the primary points of contact for project management and develop a stakeholder management plan to identify relevant stakeholders and the frequency of communication. c. The parties will agree upon the format, content, and level of detail required for weekly and monthly project status reports.
(2) (Step 2) The next 30 days of the project provide time for CLASS-LLC to update or document relevant practices based on the findings from Step 1.

NOTE: CLASS-LLC will prioritize documenting the BIA, BCP, and DR for up to 10 critical systems and services; however, templates provided will be available to the city to complete documentation for 100% of systems and services.
a. Document BIA. The BIA provides a standard approach to identify the recovery point objective (RPO), recovery time objective (RTO), and maximum tolerable downtime (MTD) of critical systems and services used by the city.
b. Document BCP. The BCP highlights the priorities and objectives of continuity plans to continue delivering critical systems and services. c. Document DRP. The DRP highlights specific processes for technical recovery of critical systems and services.
(3) (Step 3) The last 30 days of the project provide time for CLASS-LLC to finalize project deliverables and conduct the tabletop exercise. Findings from the exercise will be documented in a formal report within two weeks of the business continuity tabletop exercise.
a. Project report. The final project report will document the results of the business continuity and disaster recovery project. As applicable, the report will include a roadmap that highlights short, medium, and

Packet Page 210 of 846Attachment 2 Page 13 of 23

Cybersecurity and Privacy Services Contract

long-term activities that must take place to improve maturity of business continuity management capabilities of the city and provide instructions for the team to execute a prescriptive implementation plan. b. Gap analysis report. The report will include detailed documentation summarizing the gap between in-place controls and required practices for an effective business continuity management. c. Tabletop exercise report. The report will document participants, exercise date, scenario(s) performed, and findings from the exercise. d. Executive summary for management. CLASS-LLC will develop an executive presentation to summarize the project, findings, and recommendations appropriate for the client’s board and/or executive management team.

5. Acknowledgement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this statement of work is executed by the duly authorized representatives of the parties as of the last signature date below.

City of Fairfield, CA
By: Savita Chaudhary, Director, Information Technology
Date:

Cyber Leadership and Strategy Solutions, LLC
By: Keyaan J Williams, Managing Director
Date:

Packet Page 211 of 846Attachment 2 Page 14 of 23

CITY OF FAIRFIELD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR Cybersecurity Professional Services with CLASS LLC
EXHIBIT “B”

PAYMENT
1) Payment for services shall be made to CONSULTANT on a fixed cost. The total cost for the services rendered under the Scope of Services described in Exhibit “A” shall be Two hundred four thousand two hundred fifty dollars ($204,250) 2) Payment shall be made to CONSULTANT based on the project based fees as described in Exhibit “A”
Project # Description Cost
1 Assessment and Strategic Planning for Security
Policies, Procedures, Standards, and Guidelines
$56,250
2 Cyber Incident Response $62,500
3 Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery $62,500
Travel Costs $3,000
TOTAL COSTS $204,250
3) CONSULTANT shall submit monthly invoices to [email protected] for the same.
4) CITY shall pay CONSULTANT within 45 days after receipt of CONSULTANT’s invoice.
5) Any additional meetings, work, or other services required beyond that set forth in Exhibit “A” shall be mutually agreed to in writing by the CITY and CONSULTANT.

Such additional work shall be billed on a time and materials basis, or as otherwise agreed to in writing by CITY and CONSULTANT.
6) NON-REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for all costs and expenses incurred by CONSULTANT, personnel of CONSULTANT and subcontractors of CONSULTANT, in connection with the Services, including, without limitation, payment of salaries, fringe benefit contributions, payroll taxes, withholding taxes, and other taxes or levies, office overhead expenses, travel expenses, telephone and other telecommunication expenses, and document reproduction expenses. With respect to travel expenses, such expenses shall be the responsibility of Consultant unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the City.

Packet Page 212 of 846Attachment 2 Page 15 of 23

CITY OF FAIRFIELD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR Cybersecurity Professional Services with CLASS LLC

EXHIBIT “C”

GENERAL PROVISIONS
1) INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT. At all times during the term of this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of CITY. CITY shall have the right to control CONSULTANT only insofar as the results of CONSULTANT's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement; however, CITY shall not have the right to control the means by which CONSULTANT accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. 2) LICENSES; PERMITS; ETC. CONSULTANT represents and warrants to CITY that CONSULTANT has all licenses, permits, qualifications, and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for CONSULTANT to practice CONSULTANT's profession. CONSULTANT represents and warrants to CITY that CONSULTANT shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement, any licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally required for CONSULTANT to practice his profession. 3) TIME. CONSULTANT shall devote such services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary for satisfactory performance of CONSULTANT's obligations pursuant to this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall adhere to the Schedule of Activities as described in their Executive Summary. 4) CONSULTANT NOT AN AGENT. Except as CITY may specify in writing, CONSULTANT shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of CITY in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. CONSULTANT shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement, to bind CITY to any obligation whatsoever. 5) ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED. No party to this Agreement may assign any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment of any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement shall be void and of no effect. 6) PERSONNEL. CONSULTANT shall assign only competent personnel to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that CITY, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the removal of any person or persons assigned by CONSULTANT to perform services pursuant to this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall remove any such person immediately upon receiving notice from CITY of the desire of CITY for the removal of such person or persons. 7) STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE. CONSULTANT shall perform all services required pursuant to this Agreement. Services shall be performed in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which CONSULTANT is engaged in the geographical area in which CONSULTANT practices his profession. All products which CONSULTANT delivers to CITY pursuant to this Agreement shall be prepared in a workmanlike manner and conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in CONSULTANT's profession. CITY and Consultant shall mutually determine in good faith whether the product of the CONSULTANT is satisfactory. 8) CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement may be canceled at any time by the CITY at its discretion upon written notification to CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT is entitled to receive full payment for all services performed and all costs incurred up to and including the date of receipt of written notice to cease work on the project. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to no further compensation for work performed after the date of receipt of written notice to cease work. All completed and Packet Page 213 of 846Attachment 2 Page 16 of 23

incomplete products up to the date of receipt of written notice to cease work shall become the property of CITY. 9) PRODUCTS OF CONSULTING. All deliverables to the City provided by CONSULTANT under Exhibit B of this Agreement shall be the property of the CITY. 10) INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS. a) If AGREEMENT is an agreement for design professional services subject to California Civil Code § 2782.8(a) and CONSULTANT is a design professional, as defined in California Civil Code § 2782.8(c)(2), to the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY and its elected officials, officers, agents, employees and designated volunteers (collectively “CITY Indemnitees”) from and against any and all claims, losses, liabilities, damages, costs and expenses, including attorney’s fees and costs, to the extent they arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT’s duty to defend shall consist of reimbursement of defense costs incurred by CITY in direct proportion to the CONSULTANT’s proportionate percentage of fault. CONSULTANT’s percentage of fault shall be determined, as applicable, by a court of law, jury, or arbitrator. In the event any loss, liability or damage is incurred by way of settlement or resolution without a court, jury or arbitrator having made a determination of the CONSULTANT’s percentage of fault, the parties agree to mediation with a third-party neutral to determine the CONSULTANT’s proportionate percentage of fault for purposes of determining the amount of indemnity and defense cost reimbursement owed to the CITY. b) If AGREEMENT is not an agreement for design professional services subject to California Civil Code § 2782.8(a) or CONSULTANT is not a design professional as defined in California Civil Code § 2782.8(c)(2), to the fullest extent allowed by law, CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the CITY Indemnitees from all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind and description, brought forth on account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to property arising from or connected with the willful misconduct, negligent acts, errors or omissions, ultra-hazardous activities, activities giving rise to strict liability, or defects in design by CONSULTANT or any person directly or indirectly employed by or acting as agent for CONSULTANT in the performance of this Agreement, including the concurrent or successive passive negligence of the CITY Indemnitees.

CONSULTANT’S duty to indemnify City under this Section 10 shall not apply to liability arising from any City act or omission that (i) is outside the scope of services of this Agreement, (ii) fails to reasonably implement, execute, or contemplate the services as provided by CONSULTANT, or (iii) is taken upon the advice or consultation of a third-party vendor unrelated to CONSULTANT, including, without limitation, third-party software.

It is understood that the duty of CONSULTANT to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code.

Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Agreement does not relieve CONSULTANT from liability under this indemnification and hold harmless clause. This indemnification and hold harmless clause shall apply whether or not such insurance policies are determined to be applicable to any such damages or claims for damages.

CONSULTANT’S responsibility for such defense and indemnity shall survive termination or completion of this agreement for the full period of time allowed by law.

Packet Page 214 of 846Attachment 2 Page 17 of 23

11) PROHIBITED INTERESTS. No employee of the CITY shall have any direct financial interest in this agreement. This agreement shall be voidable at the option of the CITY if this provision is violated. 12) LOCAL EMPLOYMENT POLICY. The CITY desires wherever possible, to hire qualified local residents to work on city projects. Local resident is defined as a person who resides in Solano County. The CITY encourages an active affirmative action program on the part of its contractors, consultants, and developers. When local projects require, subcontractors, contractors, consultants and developers will solicit proposals from qualified local firms where possible. As a way of responding to the provisions of the Davis-Bacon Act and this program, contractor, consultants, and developers will be asked, to provide no more frequently than monthly, a report which lists the employee's name, job class, hours worked, salary paid, city of residence, and ethnic origin. 13) CONSULTANT NOT A PUBLIC OFFICIAL. CONSULTANT is not a "public official" for purposes of Government Code §§ 87200 et seq. CONSULTANT conducts research and arrives at his or her conclusions, advice, recommendation, or counsel independent of the control and direction of the CITY or any CITY official, other than normal contract monitoring. In addition, CONSULTANT possesses no authority with respect to any CITY decision beyond these conclusions, advice, recommendation, or counsel. 14) EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. When the CITY executes an agreement for or makes payment to CONSULTANT in the amount of $600 (six hundred dollars) or more in any one calendar year, CONSULTANT shall provide the following information to CITY to comply with Employment Development Department (EDD) reporting requirements:
a) Whether CONSULTANT is doing business as a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability partnership, corporation, limited liability corporation, non-profit corporation or other form of organization.
b) If CONSULTANT is doing business as a sole proprietorship, CONSULTANT shall provide the full name, address, and social security number of the sole proprietor. c) If CONSULTANT is doing business as other than a sole proprietorship, CONSULTANT shall provide CONSULTANT’S federal tax identification number.

Packet Page 215 of 846Attachment 2 Page 18 of 23

CITY OF FAIRFIELD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR Cybersecurity Professional Services with CLASS LLC
EXHIBIT “D”

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the CONSULTANT, its agents, representatives, or employees. 1) MINIMUM SCOPE AND LIMITS OF INSURANCE
a) Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence Form CG 00 01) with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, products and completed operations, and property damage. If Commercial General Liability or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
b) Automobile Liability coverage (Form CA 00 01 with Code 1 – any auto) with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
c) Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employers’ Liability insurance, each in the amount of $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
2) INDUSTRY SPECIFIC COVERAGES If checked below, the following insurance is also required. X Professional Liability Insurance / Errors and Omissions Liability in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence. X CYBERSECURITY Liability Insurance in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence Pollution Liability Insurance in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence Garage Keepers Insurance in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence Fidelity / Crime / Dishonesty Bond in the minimum amount of $ _______________ MCS-90 Endorsement to Business Automobile insurance for transportation of hazardous materials and pollutants Builder’s Risk / Course of Construction Insurance in the minimum amount of $ .

3) INSURANCE PROVISIONS
a) DEDUCTIBLES AND SELF-INSURED RETENTIONS. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the CITY. At the option of the CITY, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the CITY, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers; or the CONSULTANT shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. b) The general and automobile liability policies (and if applicable, pollution liability,

Packet Page 216 of 846Attachment 2 Page 19 of 23

garage keepers’ liability and builder’s risk policies) are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: i) The CITY, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of the CONSULTANT; products and completed operations of the CONSULTANT; premises owned, occupied or used by the CONSULTANT; and automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the CONSULTANT. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the CITY, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. ii) For any claims related to this project, the CONSULTANT’S insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the CITY, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the CITY, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the CONSULTANT’S insurance and shall not contribute with it. iii) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the CITY, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers. iv) The CONSULTANT’S insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability. v) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the CITY. vi) The policy limits of coverage shall be made available to the full limits of the policy. The minimum limits stated above shall not serve to reduce the CONSULTANT’S policy limits of coverage. Therefore, the requirements for coverage and limits shall be (1) the minimum coverage and limits specified in this agreement, or (2) the broader coverage and maximum limits of coverage of any insurance policy or proceeds available to the named insured, whichever is greater. c) ACCEPTABILITY OF INSURER. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the CITY. VERIFICATION OF COVERAGE. CONSULTANT shall furnish the CITY with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this Exhibit D. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf; on forms equivalent to CG 20 10 11 85, subject to CITY approval; and submitted electronically through the Exigis insurance system to: [email protected]. All insurance certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the CITY before work commences. At the request of the CITY, CONSULTANT shall provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these specifications. d) SUB-CONTRACTORS. CONSULTANT shall require all subcontractors to procure and maintain insurance policies subject to the requirements of Exhibit D. Failure of CONSULTANT to verify existence of sub-contractor’s insurance shall not relieve CONSULTANT from any claim arising from sub-contractors work on behalf of CONSULTANT.

Packet Page 217 of 846Attachment 2 Page 20 of 23

CITY OF FAIRFIELD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
FOR Cybersecurity Professional Services with CLASS LLC

EXHIBIT “E”

MUTUAL NON-DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
Regarding Sensitive Proprietary Infrastructure Information This Mutual Non-Disclosure Agreement (“Agreement”), is entered into this ___ day of _______ , 2023
(“Effective Date”), by and between the City of Fairfield, (“City”), a municipal corporation of the State of California, and the entity responding to City’s above-referenced subject for receiving such information whose name, address, and state of incorporation, are as follows (please print: Cyber Leadership and Strategy Solutions, LLC (“CLASS LLC”), a Georgia limited liability company). Each party (in such capacity, “Discloser”) may disclose or provide access to certain of its confidential or proprietary information to the other party (in such capacity, “Recipient”) pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.

WHEREAS, the City, acting through the Information Technology Department, will disclose certain Confidential Information to potential vendors who wish to work with the City, relating to the City’s network configuration and infrastructure; and

WHEREAS, each potential entity who may work with the City, at the request of the Information Technology Department must have access to such information in order to configure hardware, software, application, or network services; and

WHEREAS, in order to release this Confidential Information to potential vendors, the City requires each vendor to enter into this Agreement through its authorized representative and return it to the City as a pre-condition of receiving supplemental documents that contain Confidential Information.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and the mutual promises of the parties herein contained, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows:

1. “Confidential Information” as used in this Agreement shall mean any and all technical and non-technical information, data, documents, records, and materials provided by or on behalf of the Discloser to the Recipient, including without limitation patent, trade secret, proprietary, and systems security- related information and information related to the current, future, and proposed services of the Discloser, in any form or medium, written or oral. Confidential Information also includes other information that is marked or otherwise identified as confidential or proprietary, or that would otherwise appear to a reasonable person to be confidential or proprietary in the context and circumstances in which the information is known or used.

Confidential Information shall not include public records subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act, Government code section 6250 et seq. and 7929.210.

2. The Recipient agrees that it will not make use of, disseminate, or in any way Packet Page 218 of 846Attachment 2 Page 21 of 23

disclose the Discloser’s Confidential Information to any person, firm, or business, except as necessary for the Recipient to work with the Discloser, and any purpose the Discloser has authorized or hereafter authorizes in writing. The Recipient agrees that it shall disclose Confidential Information only to those directors, officers, employees, agents, affiliates, advisors, representatives, or consultants who need to know such information and who have previously agreed, either as a condition to employment or service or in order to obtain the Confidential Information, to be bound by terms and conditions substantially similar to those of this Agreement.

3. The Recipient agrees to hold all Confidential Information of the Discloser in the strictest confidence and treat it with the same degree of care as it accords to its own Confidential Information, and
the Recipient represents and warrants that it exercises reasonable care to protect its own Confidential Information.

4. The Recipient’s obligations under Sections 2 and 3 with respect to any portion of the Discloser’s Confidential Information shall terminate if the Recipient can document that: (a) such information was in the public domain at the time it was communicated to the Recipient by the Discloser; (b) such information entered the public domain subsequent to the time it was communicated to the Recipient through no fault of the Recipient; (c) it was in the Recipient’s possession free of any obligation of confidence at the time it was communicated to the Recipient by the Discloser (as shown by the Recipient’s files and records as of the time of disclosure); (d) it was rightfully communicated to the Recipient by a third party free of any obligation of confidence subsequent to the time that it was communicated to the Recipient by the Discloser; (e) it was developed by employees or agents of the Recipient independently of and without reference to any information communicated to the Recipient by the Discloser; or (f) the communication was in response to a valid order by a court or other governmental body, was otherwise required by law, or was necessary to establish the rights of either party under this Agreement (provided that the Recipient has provided the Discloser with a reasonable opportunity to seek protective legal treatment for such Confidential Information).

5. All materials (including, without limitation, documents, drawings, models, apparatus, sketches, designs, and lists) furnished to the Recipient by the Discloser shall remain the property of the Discloser and shall be returned promptly upon request, together with any copies thereof, or destroyed with the consent of the Discloser.

6. The Recipient shall not assign or transfer any rights or obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the Discloser.

7. Recipient’s obligations under this Agreement shall survive the termination of any other contractual agreement between the parties.

8. This Agreement shall be governed in all respects by the laws of the United States of America and by the laws of the State of California. The sole jurisdiction and venue for any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be the state and federal courts located in Solano County, CA, and each party to this Agreement hereby submits to such jurisdiction Packet Page 219 of 846Attachment 2 Page 22 of 23

and venue.

9. This Agreement may only be changed by mutual agreement of authorized representatives of the parties in writing.

10. The Recipient acknowledges and agrees that irreparable injury may result to the Discloser if the Recipient breaches the provisions of this Agreement and that damages may be an inadequate remedy in respect of such breach. The Recipient agrees in advance that, in the event of such breach, the Discloser shall be entitled to the granting of injunctive relief in the Discloser’s favor, in addition to such other remedies, damages and relief as may be available under applicable law.

11. This Agreement shall not be construed in any manner to be an obligation to enter into further contract or to reimburse the cost of any effort expended by Recipient.

12. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. In the event of a dispute or a claim by a party to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the non-prevailing party shall pay all of the prevailing party’s reasonable legal fees. This Agreement and all of the provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors, transferees, and assignees.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written
above.

RECIPIENT: CITY OF FAIRFIELD:

By: _________________________
Name: ______________________
Title: _______________________
Date:

By: _________________________
Name: ______________________
Title: _______________________
Date:

Packet Page 220 of 846Attachment 2 Page 23 of 23

Agenda Item No: 14.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:February 7, 2023
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, City Manager
SUBJECT:Resolution 2023­18 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Accepting the Nelson Hill Reservoir Mixing and Valve Replacement Project as Complete RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt resolution.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The adoption of this resolution accepts the Nelson Hill Reservoir Mixing and Valve Replacement Project as complete.

DISCUSSION
On July 20, 2021, the City adopted Resolution No. 2021­185 approving a contract with Valentine Corporation for the Nelson Hill Reservoir Mixing and Valve Replacement Project (Project). The Project included removal and replacement of different valves and improvement of operational efficiency through the incorporation of a mixing system in each reservoir basin which increases water turnover rates and improves water quality. The Project was completed on October 14, 2022.

The construction authorization for the Project was approved for $3,101,975. This amount included a total bid of $2,697,369 and a 15% contingency of $404,606. The final cost for the Project was $3,070,249.83, which is approximately 1% 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 Water Utilities Fund (Fund 461).

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
If the council has any questions, acceptance may be delayed so that staff may provide the necessary Packet Page 221 of 846

Agenda Item No: 14.AGENDA REPORTDATE:February 7, 2023 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, City ManagerSUBJECT:Resolution 2023­18 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Accepting the Nelson HillReservoir Mixing and Valve Replacement Project as CompleteRECOMMENDED ACTIONAdopt resolution.STATEMENT OF ISSUEThe adoption of this resolution accepts the Nelson Hill Reservoir Mixing and Valve Replacement Projectas complete.DISCUSSIONOn July 20, 2021, the City adopted Resolution No. 2021­185 approving a contract with ValentineCorporation for the Nelson Hill Reservoir Mixing and Valve Replacement Project (Project). The Projectincluded removal and replacement of different valves and improvement of operational efficiency throughthe incorporation of a mixing system in each reservoir basin which increases water turnover rates andimproves water quality. The Project was completed on October 14, 2022.  The construction authorization for the Project was approved for $3,101,975. This amount included atotal bid of $2,697,369 and a 15% contingency of $404,606. The final cost for the Project was$3,070,249.83, which is approximately 1% 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 Water Utilities Fund (Fund 461). PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATIONN/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION
If the council has any questions, acceptance may be delayed so that staff may provide the necessary background information.

STAFF CONTACT
Roger Dunham, Public Works Construction Manager
(707) 428­7478
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Proposed Resolution
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Beavers, Esther Approved 1/26/2023 ­ 6:08 PM
Beavers, Esther Approved 1/26/2023 ­ 6:09 PM
Beavers, Esther Approved 1/26/2023 ­ 6:13 PM
Packet Page 222 of 846

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-18

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD ACCEPTING THE NELSON HILL

RESERVOIR MIXING AND VALVE REPLACEMENT PROJECT AS COMPLETE

WHEREAS, the City Council approved a contract with Valentine Corporation, for Nelson Hill Reservoir Mixing and Valve Replacement Project (Project) on July 20, 2021, by Resolution No. 2021-185; and

WHEREAS, Valentine Corporation has completed the Project in accordance with the contract approved by 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 Valentine Corporation approved by council on July 20, 2021.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: MOY / BERTANI / CARR / PANDURO /TONNESEN / VACCARO / WILLIAMS

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________

CITY CLERK
Packet Page 223 of 846Attachment 1 Page 1 of 1

Agenda Item No: 15.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:February 7, 2023
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, City Manager
SUBJECT:Public Hearing, and;
Resolution 2023­19 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving a Negative Declaration (ER2023­003) for the 2023­2031 Housing Element Project, Adopting the 2023­2031 Housing Element, and Forwarding the Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for Certification RECOMMENDED ACTION
Hold public hearing and adopt resolution.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
State law mandates that the General Plan’s Housing Element be updated every eight years and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Fairfield’s current Housing Element covers the period of 2015­2022. City Council is being asked to adopt an updated Housing Element, which would cover the period 2023­2031. Following adoption, the City would forward the updated Housing Element to HCD for certification.

DISCUSSION
Background:

California law requires that all local government jurisdictions adopt a Housing Element as a part of its General Plan. The Housing Element addresses the jurisdiction’s range of housing needs. It sets forth actions that the jurisdiction will undertake to support the production of an adequate supply of safe, affordable housing for existing and future residents, preserve and rehabilitate existing affordable housing stock, protect tenants from displacement pressures, and affirmatively further fair housing throughout the jurisdiction so that everyone has access to housing opportunity.

Every eight years, the City of Fairfield is required by State law to update the General Plan’s Housing Element. The purpose of the update is to reflect changing conditions, community objectives, and goals (Cal. Gov. Code section 65588). The HCD Certification makes the City eligible for a variety of grants, which help fund its housing programs, capital improvements, transportation infrastructure, and special purpose needs.

Failing to certify a Housing Element by the State­mandated deadline resets the schedule for updating Housing Element to every four years, limits access to State funding, open the City to potential lawsuits and subjects the City to rigid streamlining of development approvals.

Fairfield’s Housing Element was last updated in 2015 for the period through 2022 and is now required by law to update Housing Element.

A key component of the Housing Element update is the requirement to plan satisfying the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).

The RHNA is the number of housing units each jurisdiction needs to plan for across income levels during the life of the eight­year Housing Element. The RHNA is not an obligation to build housing. Jurisdictions are required to plan for their RHNA by ensuring sufficient land is zoned for housing with appropriate zoning. Land suitable for residential development can be vacant sites or sites that are underutilized and have the potential for additional residential development or redevelopment. Appropriate zoning means development standards and regulations that facilitate housing development for all income categories. If a city cannot demonstrate that it has adequate sites with appropriate zoning commensurate with its RHNA allocation, then the city must rezone the identified vacant and/or underutilized sites to accommodate its RHNA.

Following coordination among Solano County jurisdictions in 2021, HCD approved an RHNA allocation for Fairfield of 3,069 units. The City’s RHNA is broken down as follows:

Fairfield’s approved RHNA:  2023­2031
Income Level 2022 Solano County Area
Median Income (AMI)
Number of Housing Units
(#)
Very Low Income
(<50% of AMI)
<$54,350 792
Low Income
(50­80% of AMI)
$54,350 ­ $86,960 464
Moderate Income $86,960 ­ $130,440 539
Packet Page 224 of 846

Agenda Item No: 15.AGENDA REPORTDATE:February 7, 2023 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, City ManagerSUBJECT:Public Hearing, and; Resolution 2023­19 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving a Negative Declaration (ER2023­003) for the2023­2031 Housing Element Project, Adopting the 2023­2031 Housing Element, and Forwarding the Housing Elementto the California Department of Housing and Community Development for CertificationRECOMMENDED ACTIONHold public hearing and adopt resolution.STATEMENT OF ISSUEState law mandates that the General Plan’s Housing Element be updated every eight years and certified by the California Department ofHousing and Community Development (HCD). Fairfield’s current Housing Element covers the period of 2015­2022. City Council is beingasked to adopt an updated Housing Element, which would cover the period 2023­2031. Following adoption, the City would forward theupdated Housing Element to HCD for certification.DISCUSSIONBackground:California law requires that all local government jurisdictions adopt a Housing Element as a part of its General Plan. The Housing Elementaddresses the jurisdiction’s range of housing needs. It sets forth actions that the jurisdiction will undertake to support the production of anadequate supply of safe, affordable housing for existing and future residents, preserve and rehabilitate existing affordable housing stock,protect tenants from displacement pressures, and affirmatively further fair housing throughout the jurisdiction so that everyone has access tohousing opportunity. Every eight years, the City of Fairfield is required by State law to update the General Plan’s Housing Element. The purpose of the update is toreflect changing conditions, community objectives, and goals (Cal. Gov. Code section 65588). The HCD Certification makes the City eligiblefor a variety of grants, which help fund its housing programs, capital improvements, transportation infrastructure, and special purpose needs.Failing to certify a Housing Element by the State­mandated deadline resets the schedule for updating Housing Element to every four years,limits access to State funding, open the City to potential lawsuits and subjects the City to rigid streamlining of development approvals.Fairfield’s Housing Element was last updated in 2015 for the period through 2022 and is now required by law to update Housing Element.A key component of the Housing Element update is the requirement to plan satisfying the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).The RHNA is the number of housing units each jurisdiction needs to plan for across income levels during the life of the eight­year HousingElement. The RHNA is not an obligation to build housing. Jurisdictions are required to plan for their RHNA by ensuring sufficient land is zonedfor housing with appropriate zoning. Land suitable for residential development can be vacant sites or sites that are underutilized and have thepotential for additional residential development or redevelopment. Appropriate zoning means development standards and regulations thatfacilitate housing development for all income categories. If a city cannot demonstrate that it has adequate sites with appropriate zoningcommensurate with its RHNA allocation, then the city must rezone the identified vacant and/or underutilized sites to accommodate its RHNA.Following coordination among Solano County jurisdictions in 2021, HCD approved an RHNA allocation for Fairfield of 3,069 units. The City’sRHNA is broken down as follows: Fairfield’s approved RHNA:  2023­2031Income Level 2022 Solano County AreaMedian Income (AMI)Number of Housing Units(#)Very Low Income ( 120% of AMI)
>$130,440 1,274
Total ­­3,069
Housing Element overview:

Working with the consulting firm Dyett & Bhatia, the City prepared the proposed 2023­2031 Housing Element in 2022. The process for developing Housing Element included coordination between the Planning Division, Housing Services Department, and Homeless Services Division. The process also includes a wide range of opportunities for public input and multiple rounds of review by HCD. This input and review process is described in the “Public Contact” section of this report.

To comply with the requirements of state law, the complete Housing Element consists of the following major components:

A review of the City’s accomplishments and progress in implementing the previous Housing Element.

Materials used for public participation and community outreach.

A detailed inventory of sites for meeting the projected housing needs.

An analysis of the City’s demographic and housing characteristics and trends.

An evaluation of land, financial, and administrative resources available to address the City’s housing goals.

A review of potential constraints, both governmental and non­governmental, to meeting the City’s housing needs; and a Housing Action Plan for the 2023­2031 planning period, including housing goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives.

A Housing Action Plan for the 2023­2031 planning period, including housing goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives.

Major components of the Housing Element are discussed in greater detail in the September 14th Planning Commission Staff Report, attached, including the public engagement program, needs assessment, and 5th Cycle Housing Element progress. Two key components of the Housing Element ­ the Sites Inventory (Appendix C of the Housing Element) and Housing Action Plan (Chapter 6 of the Housing Element) ­ are summarized below.

Sites Inventory:

The Sites Inventory denotes where land is sufficiently zoned to accommodate the RHNA at all income levels and identifies where rezoning will be required to affirmatively further fair housing and promote an even distribution of lower and moderate­income sites across the city in accordance with State law. Under State law, the City must show an attempt to locate lower income sites in moderately resourced areas, including Cordelia, to distribute equitable housing. Housing sites in Cordelia represent eight percent of Fairfield’s total RHNA allocation.

Figure 1. Housing Sites Inventory
Packet Page 225 of 846

Agenda Item No: 15.AGENDA REPORTDATE:February 7, 2023 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, City ManagerSUBJECT:Public Hearing, and; Resolution 2023­19 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving a Negative Declaration (ER2023­003) for the2023­2031 Housing Element Project, Adopting the 2023­2031 Housing Element, and Forwarding the Housing Elementto the California Department of Housing and Community Development for CertificationRECOMMENDED ACTIONHold public hearing and adopt resolution.STATEMENT OF ISSUEState law mandates that the General Plan’s Housing Element be updated every eight years and certified by the California Department ofHousing and Community Development (HCD). Fairfield’s current Housing Element covers the period of 2015­2022. City Council is beingasked to adopt an updated Housing Element, which would cover the period 2023­2031. Following adoption, the City would forward theupdated Housing Element to HCD for certification.DISCUSSIONBackground:California law requires that all local government jurisdictions adopt a Housing Element as a part of its General Plan. The Housing Elementaddresses the jurisdiction’s range of housing needs. It sets forth actions that the jurisdiction will undertake to support the production of anadequate supply of safe, affordable housing for existing and future residents, preserve and rehabilitate existing affordable housing stock,protect tenants from displacement pressures, and affirmatively further fair housing throughout the jurisdiction so that everyone has access tohousing opportunity. Every eight years, the City of Fairfield is required by State law to update the General Plan’s Housing Element. The purpose of the update is toreflect changing conditions, community objectives, and goals (Cal. Gov. Code section 65588). The HCD Certification makes the City eligiblefor a variety of grants, which help fund its housing programs, capital improvements, transportation infrastructure, and special purpose needs.Failing to certify a Housing Element by the State­mandated deadline resets the schedule for updating Housing Element to every four years,limits access to State funding, open the City to potential lawsuits and subjects the City to rigid streamlining of development approvals.Fairfield’s Housing Element was last updated in 2015 for the period through 2022 and is now required by law to update Housing Element.A key component of the Housing Element update is the requirement to plan satisfying the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).The RHNA is the number of housing units each jurisdiction needs to plan for across income levels during the life of the eight­year HousingElement. The RHNA is not an obligation to build housing. Jurisdictions are required to plan for their RHNA by ensuring sufficient land is zonedfor housing with appropriate zoning. Land suitable for residential development can be vacant sites or sites that are underutilized and have thepotential for additional residential development or redevelopment. Appropriate zoning means development standards and regulations thatfacilitate housing development for all income categories. If a city cannot demonstrate that it has adequate sites with appropriate zoningcommensurate with its RHNA allocation, then the city must rezone the identified vacant and/or underutilized sites to accommodate its RHNA.Following coordination among Solano County jurisdictions in 2021, HCD approved an RHNA allocation for Fairfield of 3,069 units. The City’sRHNA is broken down as follows: Fairfield’s approved RHNA:  2023­2031Income Level 2022 Solano County AreaMedian Income (AMI)Number of Housing Units(#)Very Low Income ( 120% of AMI)>$130,440 1,274Total­­3,069Housing Element overview:Working with the consulting firm Dyett & Bhatia, the City prepared the proposed 2023­2031 Housing Element in 2022. The process fordeveloping Housing Element included coordination between the Planning Division, Housing Services Department, and Homeless ServicesDivision. The process also includes a wide range of opportunities for public input and multiple rounds of review by HCD. This input and reviewprocess is described in the “Public Contact” section of this report. To comply with the requirements of state law, the complete Housing Element consists of the following major components:A review of the City’s accomplishments and progress in implementing the previous Housing Element.Materials used for public participation and community outreach.A detailed inventory of sites for meeting the projected housing needs.An analysis of the City’s demographic and housing characteristics and trends.An evaluation of land, financial, and administrative resources available to address the City’s housing goals.A review of potential constraints, both governmental and non­governmental, to meeting theCity’s housing needs; and a Housing Action Plan for the 2023­2031 planning period, including housing goals, policies, programs, andquantified objectives.A Housing Action Plan for the 2023­2031 planning period, including housing goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives.Major components of the Housing Element are discussed in greater detail in the September 14th Planning Commission Staff Report,attached, including the public engagement program, needs assessment, and 5th Cycle Housing Element progress. Two key components ofthe Housing Element ­ the Sites Inventory (Appendix C of the Housing Element) and Housing Action Plan (Chapter 6 of the Housing Element) ­are summarized below. Sites Inventory:The Sites Inventory denotes where land is sufficiently zoned to accommodate the RHNA at all income levels and identifies where rezoning willbe required to affirmatively further fair housing and promote an even distribution of lower and moderate­income sites across the city inaccordance with State law. Under State law, the City must show an attempt to locate lower income sites in moderately resourced areas, including Cordelia, to distribute equitable housing. Housing sites in Cordelia represent eight percent of Fairfield’s total RHNA allocation.

Figure 1. Housing Sites Inventory
Housing Action Plan:

The Housing Action Plan contains goals, policies, and programs to address housing­related issues in Fairfield, including achieving the City’s identified housing needs and overcoming challenges and constraints. The chapter also includes quantified objectives to accomplish the established goals.

The Housing Element includes five goals that create the framework for how the City of Fairfield will address housing needs and constraints from 2023­2031. The five goals are as follows:

Goal A: Provide a variety of housing opportunities for all income groups throughout the city, including different housing types, unit sizes, design, amenities, locations, and tenure.

Goal B:Increase the production of housing affordable to lower­income households­ including extremely­low­income households­ and moderate­income households to meet housing needs.

Goal C:Improve and conserve the existing supply of housing and the city’s neighborhoods.

Goal D:Support Fair Housing and create and promote housing opportunities for people with special needs – including those experiencing homelessness, farmworkers, seniors, and Travis Air Force Base personnel, among others.

Goal E:Promote energy conservation and sustainable development.

Policies within each goal provide direction on how the City will achieve that goal. Procedures include various actions the City will take to implement the policies. Actions include programs currently in operation and new actions needed to address the City’s housing needs. The goals, policies, and programs were developed with extensive community input and reflect the City’s ambition to create equitable and inclusive neighborhoods and provide opportunities for a variety of affordable housing at all levels of affordability to meet the current and future needs of all residents.

Key themes of the Housing Action Plan are summarized below:

Affordable Housing Strategy, including actions to increase funding for affordable housing and homeownership.

Development Incentives, Assistance, and Streamlining, including actions to promote infill and small lot consolidation, design standards and support for more diverse housing types, and streamlining of permits for affordable housing.

Long­term housing affordability and preservation strategies for units that receive certain funding sources.

Rehabilitation loans.

Incentives for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Changes to the Zoning code to facilitate housing development, particularly in moderately resourced areas, and to promote smaller Packet Page 226 of 846

Agenda Item No: 15.AGENDA REPORTDATE:February 7, 2023 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, City ManagerSUBJECT:Public Hearing, and; Resolution 2023­19 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving a Negative Declaration (ER2023­003) for the2023­2031 Housing Element Project, Adopting the 2023­2031 Housing Element, and Forwarding the Housing Elementto the California Department of Housing and Community Development for CertificationRECOMMENDED ACTIONHold public hearing and adopt resolution.STATEMENT OF ISSUEState law mandates that the General Plan’s Housing Element be updated every eight years and certified by the California Department ofHousing and Community Development (HCD). Fairfield’s current Housing Element covers the period of 2015­2022. City Council is beingasked to adopt an updated Housing Element, which would cover the period 2023­2031. Following adoption, the City would forward theupdated Housing Element to HCD for certification.DISCUSSIONBackground:California law requires that all local government jurisdictions adopt a Housing Element as a part of its General Plan. The Housing Elementaddresses the jurisdiction’s range of housing needs. It sets forth actions that the jurisdiction will undertake to support the production of anadequate supply of safe, affordable housing for existing and future residents, preserve and rehabilitate existing affordable housing stock,protect tenants from displacement pressures, and affirmatively further fair housing throughout the jurisdiction so that everyone has access tohousing opportunity. Every eight years, the City of Fairfield is required by State law to update the General Plan’s Housing Element. The purpose of the update is toreflect changing conditions, community objectives, and goals (Cal. Gov. Code section 65588). The HCD Certification makes the City eligiblefor a variety of grants, which help fund its housing programs, capital improvements, transportation infrastructure, and special purpose needs.Failing to certify a Housing Element by the State­mandated deadline resets the schedule for updating Housing Element to every four years,limits access to State funding, open the City to potential lawsuits and subjects the City to rigid streamlining of development approvals.Fairfield’s Housing Element was last updated in 2015 for the period through 2022 and is now required by law to update Housing Element.A key component of the Housing Element update is the requirement to plan satisfying the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).The RHNA is the number of housing units each jurisdiction needs to plan for across income levels during the life of the eight­year HousingElement. The RHNA is not an obligation to build housing. Jurisdictions are required to plan for their RHNA by ensuring sufficient land is zonedfor housing with appropriate zoning. Land suitable for residential development can be vacant sites or sites that are underutilized and have thepotential for additional residential development or redevelopment. Appropriate zoning means development standards and regulations thatfacilitate housing development for all income categories. If a city cannot demonstrate that it has adequate sites with appropriate zoningcommensurate with its RHNA allocation, then the city must rezone the identified vacant and/or underutilized sites to accommodate its RHNA.Following coordination among Solano County jurisdictions in 2021, HCD approved an RHNA allocation for Fairfield of 3,069 units. The City’sRHNA is broken down as follows: Fairfield’s approved RHNA:  2023­2031Income Level 2022 Solano County AreaMedian Income (AMI)Number of Housing Units(#)Very Low Income ( 120% of AMI)>$130,440 1,274Total­­3,069Housing Element overview:Working with the consulting firm Dyett & Bhatia, the City prepared the proposed 2023­2031 Housing Element in 2022. The process fordeveloping Housing Element included coordination between the Planning Division, Housing Services Department, and Homeless ServicesDivision. The process also includes a wide range of opportunities for public input and multiple rounds of review by HCD. This input and reviewprocess is described in the “Public Contact” section of this report. To comply with the requirements of state law, the complete Housing Element consists of the following major components:A review of the City’s accomplishments and progress in implementing the previous Housing Element.Materials used for public participation and community outreach.A detailed inventory of sites for meeting the projected housing needs.An analysis of the City’s demographic and housing characteristics and trends.An evaluation of land, financial, and administrative resources available to address the City’s housing goals.A review of potential constraints, both governmental and non­governmental, to meeting theCity’s housing needs; and a Housing Action Plan for the 2023­2031 planning period, including housing goals, policies, programs, andquantified objectives.A Housing Action Plan for the 2023­2031 planning period, including housing goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives.Major components of the Housing Element are discussed in greater detail in the September 14th Planning Commission Staff Report,attached, including the public engagement program, needs assessment, and 5th Cycle Housing Element progress. Two key components ofthe Housing Element ­ the Sites Inventory (Appendix C of the Housing Element) and Housing Action Plan (Chapter 6 of the Housing Element) ­are summarized below. Sites Inventory:The Sites Inventory denotes where land is sufficiently zoned to accommodate the RHNA at all income levels and identifies where rezoning willbe required to affirmatively further fair housing and promote an even distribution of lower and moderate­income sites across the city inaccordance with State law. Under State law, the City must show an attempt to locate lower income sites in moderately resourced areas,including Cordelia, to distribute equitable housing. Housing sites in Cordelia represent eight percent of Fairfield’s total RHNA allocation. Figure 1. Housing Sites InventoryHousing Action Plan:The Housing Action Plan contains goals, policies, and programs to address housing­related issues in Fairfield, including achieving the City’sidentified housing needs and overcoming challenges and constraints. The chapter also includes quantified objectives to accomplish theestablished goals. The Housing Element includes five goals that create the framework for how the City of Fairfield will address housing needs and constraintsfrom 2023­2031. The five goals are as follows:Goal A: Provide a variety of housing opportunities for all income groups throughout the city, including different housing types, unit sizes,design, amenities, locations, and tenure. Goal B:Increase the production of housing affordable to lower­income households­ including extremely­low­income households­ andmoderate­income households to meet housing needs. Goal C:Improve and conserve the existing supply of housing and the city’s neighborhoods. Goal D:Support Fair Housing and create and promote housing opportunities for people with special needs – including thoseexperiencing homelessness, farmworkers, seniors, and Travis Air Force Base personnel, among others. Goal E:Promote energy conservation and sustainable development. Policies within each goal provide direction on how the City will achieve that goal. Procedures include various actions the City will take toimplement the policies. Actions include programs currently in operation and new actions needed to address the City’s housing needs. Thegoals, policies, and programs were developed with extensive community input and reflect the City’s ambition to create equitable and inclusiveneighborhoods and provide opportunities for a variety of affordable housing at all levels of affordability to meet the current and future needs ofall residents.Key themes of the Housing Action Plan are summarized below: Affordable Housing Strategy, including actions to increase funding for affordable housing and homeownership.Development Incentives, Assistance, and Streamlining, including actions to promote infill and small lot consolidation, designstandards and support for more diverse housing types, and streamlining of permits for affordable housing.

Long­term housing affordability and preservation strategies for units that receive certain funding sources.

Rehabilitation loans.

Incentives for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).

Changes to the Zoning code to facilitate housing development, particularly in moderately resourced areas, and to promote smaller unit types that are more affordable by design.

Housing for special needs, including for people with disabilities and special needs, older adults, farmworkers, and military personnel.

Continuum of Care support and zoning changes to promote development of housing types supportive for individuals experiencing homelessness.

Energy conservation and efficiency opportunities.

Affirmatively furthering fair housing actions, including through programs described above, and in partnership with Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California.

HCD Review of the Housing Element:

The City is required to submit the Housing Element to HCD for two reviews. First, as discussed in detail in the Public Comment section below, the City submitted a draft of the Housing Element in October 2022 to HCD for a required 90­day review period. HCD must send the City a written response regarding issues with the draft Element at the end of this period. Second, following the adoption by the City Council, the City must send the Housing Element to HCD for a 60­day review for certification or additional list of changes.

At the close of the 90­day period for review of the draft Housing Element, Fairfield received a relatively short, official HCD comment letter, attached, on January 3, 2023. The City has since edited the Housing Element to address these remaining compliance issues, and published it on the Housing Element webpage. The proposed Housing Element for consideration at the February 7, 2023 City Council meeting addresses all HCD’s comments and remaining compliance issues.  Staff expects that this version should be approvable for certification by HCD.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There are no direct financial impacts to the City from adopting the Housing Element.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
Involving the community was an integral part of the Housing Element process, Section 65583(c)(9) of the Government Code states that the local government shall make “a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort." The City and its consultants conducted  public outreach to inform this Housing Element update.

The City utilized the following strategies to solicit input from the community for the 2023­2031 Housing Element and facilitate a meaningful dialogue about housing needs and priorities in Fairfield:

Fairfield Forward website and e­blasts
Stakeholder interviews
Focus group discussions
Online surveys
Community workshops
The overall themes of stakeholder feedback centered around strong support for mixed­use development along key transit corridors and a wider range of housing types suitable for people of all ages and income levels. The Community's feedback emphasized facilitating and preserving affordable housing and the importance of connecting new housing with services and amenities such as transit access and preserving agricultural land.

A draft Housing Element was prepared in the first part of 2022 and released for 30 days of public comment in August.  During this period, the Planning Commission held a public comment session on September 14 and voted to forward the draft Element as written to HCD for their comments.

During the 30­day comment period, members of the public submitted comments through the website and at the commission meeting. These comments are summarized in the “Public Participation” section of Chapter 1 of the Housing Element.

Following this public comment period, the City submitted the draft Housing Element to HCD on October 6, 2022, for a 90­day review. During informal consultation with HCD in December 2022, HCD staff provided verbal feedback on issues that needed to be addressed with the draft Element. The City then revised the Housing Element to address these issues. This modified Housing Element was made available to the public for a bonus public review period of seven days in late December, pursuant to State law. Three public comments were received during this period. These public comments are also addressed in the “Public Participation” section of Chapter 1 of the Housing Element.

The commission held a public hearing on the Housing Element on January 25, 2023. The City noticed the January 25th hearing in the Daily Republic newspaper on January 13, 2023. Following the hearing, the commission voted unanimously [7­0] to recommend that the City Council adopt the Housing Element update and forward the Housing Element to HCD for certification.

For the City Council meeting, the City published a public hearing notice in the Daily Republic to notify the public of the February 7, 2023, City Council public hearing. The staff has received three comments on the project. One expressed concurrence with the HCD comments. Another requested that no multifamily housing be proposed in the unincorporated area at the corner of Rockville Road and Suisun Valley Road. The third requested that any rezonings occur at a later date in conjunction with the full General Plan update, and with an assessment of needed services. The proposed update addresses all three comments. The Housing Element addresses all HCD comments, does not propose any housing in unincorporated areas, and directs that any future rezoning occurs in conjunction with the General Plan update.

The City sent notification of all Planning Commission and City Council hearings to the large interest list compiled for the General Plan update.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The council may choose to deny any, or all, of the requests and not adopt the resolution. In this case, the 2023­2031 Housing Element, as proposed, would not proceed. The council may also direct those changes be made to the Housing Element. There is a deadline for adopting a Packet Page 227 of 846

Agenda Item No: 15.AGENDA REPORTDATE:February 7, 2023 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, City ManagerSUBJECT:Public Hearing, and; Resolution 2023­19 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving a Negative Declaration (ER2023­003) for the2023­2031 Housing Element Project, Adopting the 2023­2031 Housing Element, and Forwarding the Housing Elementto the California Department of Housing and Community Development for CertificationRECOMMENDED ACTIONHold public hearing and adopt resolution.STATEMENT OF ISSUEState law mandates that the General Plan’s Housing Element be updated every eight years and certified by the California Department ofHousing and Community Development (HCD). Fairfield’s current Housing Element covers the period of 2015­2022. City Council is beingasked to adopt an updated Housing Element, which would cover the period 2023­2031. Following adoption, the City would forward theupdated Housing Element to HCD for certification.DISCUSSIONBackground:California law requires that all local government jurisdictions adopt a Housing Element as a part of its General Plan. The Housing Elementaddresses the jurisdiction’s range of housing needs. It sets forth actions that the jurisdiction will undertake to support the production of anadequate supply of safe, affordable housing for existing and future residents, preserve and rehabilitate existing affordable housing stock,protect tenants from displacement pressures, and affirmatively further fair housing throughout the jurisdiction so that everyone has access tohousing opportunity. Every eight years, the City of Fairfield is required by State law to update the General Plan’s Housing Element. The purpose of the update is toreflect changing conditions, community objectives, and goals (Cal. Gov. Code section 65588). The HCD Certification makes the City eligiblefor a variety of grants, which help fund its housing programs, capital improvements, transportation infrastructure, and special purpose needs.Failing to certify a Housing Element by the State­mandated deadline resets the schedule for updating Housing Element to every four years,limits access to State funding, open the City to potential lawsuits and subjects the City to rigid streamlining of development approvals.Fairfield’s Housing Element was last updated in 2015 for the period through 2022 and is now required by law to update Housing Element.A key component of the Housing Element update is the requirement to plan satisfying the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).The RHNA is the number of housing units each jurisdiction needs to plan for across income levels during the life of the eight­year HousingElement. The RHNA is not an obligation to build housing. Jurisdictions are required to plan for their RHNA by ensuring sufficient land is zonedfor housing with appropriate zoning. Land suitable for residential development can be vacant sites or sites that are underutilized and have thepotential for additional residential development or redevelopment. Appropriate zoning means development standards and regulations thatfacilitate housing development for all income categories. If a city cannot demonstrate that it has adequate sites with appropriate zoningcommensurate with its RHNA allocation, then the city must rezone the identified vacant and/or underutilized sites to accommodate its RHNA.Following coordination among Solano County jurisdictions in 2021, HCD approved an RHNA allocation for Fairfield of 3,069 units. The City’sRHNA is broken down as follows: Fairfield’s approved RHNA:  2023­2031Income Level 2022 Solano County AreaMedian Income (AMI)Number of Housing Units(#)Very Low Income ( 120% of AMI)>$130,440 1,274Total­­3,069Housing Element overview:Working with the consulting firm Dyett & Bhatia, the City prepared the proposed 2023­2031 Housing Element in 2022. The process fordeveloping Housing Element included coordination between the Planning Division, Housing Services Department, and Homeless ServicesDivision. The process also includes a wide range of opportunities for public input and multiple rounds of review by HCD. This input and reviewprocess is described in the “Public Contact” section of this report. To comply with the requirements of state law, the complete Housing Element consists of the following major components:A review of the City’s accomplishments and progress in implementing the previous Housing Element.Materials used for public participation and community outreach.A detailed inventory of sites for meeting the projected housing needs.An analysis of the City’s demographic and housing characteristics and trends.An evaluation of land, financial, and administrative resources available to address the City’s housing goals.A review of potential constraints, both governmental and non­governmental, to meeting theCity’s housing needs; and a Housing Action Plan for the 2023­2031 planning period, including housing goals, policies, programs, andquantified objectives.A Housing Action Plan for the 2023­2031 planning period, including housing goals, policies, programs, and quantified objectives.Major components of the Housing Element are discussed in greater detail in the September 14th Planning Commission Staff Report,attached, including the public engagement program, needs assessment, and 5th Cycle Housing Element progress. Two key components ofthe Housing Element ­ the Sites Inventory (Appendix C of the Housing Element) and Housing Action Plan (Chapter 6 of the Housing Element) ­are summarized below. Sites Inventory:The Sites Inventory denotes where land is sufficiently zoned to accommodate the RHNA at all income levels and identifies where rezoning willbe required to affirmatively further fair housing and promote an even distribution of lower and moderate­income sites across the city inaccordance with State law. Under State law, the City must show an attempt to locate lower income sites in moderately resourced areas,including Cordelia, to distribute equitable housing. Housing sites in Cordelia represent eight percent of Fairfield’s total RHNA allocation. Figure 1. Housing Sites InventoryHousing Action Plan:The Housing Action Plan contains goals, policies, and programs to address housing­related issues in Fairfield, including achieving the City’sidentified housing needs and overcoming challenges and constraints. The chapter also includes quantified objectives to accomplish theestablished goals. The Housing Element includes five goals that create the framework for how the City of Fairfield will address housing needs and constraintsfrom 2023­2031. The five goals are as follows:Goal A: Provide a variety of housing opportunities for all income groups throughout the city, including different housing types, unit sizes,design, amenities, locations, and tenure. Goal B:Increase the production of housing affordable to lower­income households­ including extremely­low­income households­ andmoderate­income households to meet housing needs. Goal C:Improve and conserve the existing supply of housing and the city’s neighborhoods. Goal D:Support Fair Housing and create and promote housing opportunities for people with special needs – including thoseexperiencing homelessness, farmworkers, seniors, and Travis Air Force Base personnel, among others. Goal E:Promote energy conservation and sustainable development. Policies within each goal provide direction on how the City will achieve that goal. Procedures include various actions the City will take toimplement the policies. Actions include programs currently in operation and new actions needed to address the City’s housing needs. Thegoals, policies, and programs were developed with extensive community input and reflect the City’s ambition to create equitable and inclusiveneighborhoods and provide opportunities for a variety of affordable housing at all levels of affordability to meet the current and future needs ofall residents.Key themes of the Housing Action Plan are summarized below: Affordable Housing Strategy, including actions to increase funding for affordable housing and homeownership.Development Incentives, Assistance, and Streamlining, including actions to promote infill and small lot consolidation, designstandards and support for more diverse housing types, and streamlining of permits for affordable housing.Long­term housing affordability and preservation strategies for units that receive certain funding sources.Rehabilitation loans.Incentives for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).Changes to the Zoning code to facilitate housing development, particularly in moderately resourced areas, and to promote smallerunit types that are more affordable by design.Housing for special needs, including for people with disabilities and special needs, older adults, farmworkers, and military personnel.Continuum of Care support and zoning changes to promote development of housing types supportive for individuals experiencinghomelessness.Energy conservation and efficiency opportunities.Affirmatively furthering fair housing actions, including through programs described above, and in partnership with Fair HousingAdvocates of Northern California.HCD Review of the Housing Element:The City is required to submit the Housing Element to HCD for two reviews. First, as discussed in detail in the Public Comment section below,the City submitted a draft of the Housing Element in October 2022 to HCD for a required 90­day review period. HCD must send the City awritten response regarding issues with the draft Element at the end of this period. Second, following the adoption by the City Council, the Citymust send the Housing Element to HCD for a 60­day review for certification or additional list of changes. At the close of the 90­day period for review of the draft Housing Element, Fairfield received a relatively short, official HCD comment letter,attached, on January 3, 2023. The City has since edited the Housing Element to address these remaining compliance issues, and published iton the Housing Element webpage. The proposed Housing Element for consideration at the February 7, 2023 City Council meeting addressesall HCD’s comments and remaining compliance issues.  Staff expects that this version should be approvable for certification by HCD.FINANCIAL IMPACTThere are no direct financial impacts to the City from adopting the Housing Element.PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATIONInvolving the community was an integral part of the Housing Element process, Section 65583(c)(9) of the Government Code states that thelocal government shall make “a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development ofthe housing element, and the program shall describe this effort." The City and its consultants conducted  public outreach to inform this HousingElement update. The City utilized the following strategies to solicit input from the community for the 2023­2031 Housing Element and facilitate a meaningfuldialogue about housing needs and priorities in Fairfield:Fairfield Forward website and e­blastsStakeholder interviewsFocus group discussionsOnline surveysCommunity workshopsThe overall themes of stakeholder feedback centered around strong support for mixed­use development along key transit corridors and awider range of housing types suitable for people of all ages and income levels. The Community's feedback emphasized facilitating andpreserving affordable housing and the importance of connecting new housing with services and amenities such as transit access andpreserving agricultural land.A draft Housing Element was prepared in the first part of 2022 and released for 30 days of public comment in August.  During this period, thePlanning Commission held a public comment session on September 14 and voted to forward the draft Element as written to HCD for theircomments.During the 30­day comment period, members of the public submitted comments through the website and at the commission meeting. Thesecomments are summarized in the “Public Participation” section of Chapter 1 of the Housing Element. Following this public comment period, the City submitted the draft Housing Element to HCD on October 6, 2022, for a 90­day review. Duringinformal consultation with HCD in December 2022, HCD staff provided verbal feedback on issues that needed to be addressed with the draftElement. The City then revised the Housing Element to address these issues. This modified Housing Element was made available to thepublic for a bonus public review period of seven days in late December, pursuant to State law. Three public comments were received duringthis period. These public comments are also addressed in the “Public Participation” section of Chapter 1 of the Housing Element. The commission held a public hearing on the Housing Element on January 25, 2023. The City noticed the January 25th hearing in the DailyRepublic newspaper on January 13, 2023. Following the hearing, the commission voted unanimously [7­0] to recommend that the City Counciladopt the Housing Element update and forward the Housing Element to HCD for certification. For the City Council meeting, the City published a public hearing notice in the Daily Republic to notify the public of the February 7, 2023, CityCouncil public hearing. The staff has received three comments on the project. One expressed concurrence with the HCD comments. Anotherrequested that no multifamily housing be proposed in the unincorporated area at the corner of Rockville Road and Suisun Valley Road. Thethird requested that any rezonings occur at a later date in conjunction with the full General Plan update, and with an assessment of neededservices. The proposed update addresses all three comments. The Housing Element addresses all HCD comments, does not propose anyhousing in unincorporated areas, and directs that any future rezoning occurs in conjunction with the General Plan update. The City sent notification of all Planning Commission and City Council hearings to the large interest list compiled for the General Plan update.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The council may choose to deny any, or all, of the requests and not adopt the resolution. In this case, the 2023­2031 Housing Element, as proposed, would not proceed. The council may also direct those changes be made to the Housing Element. There is a deadline for adopting a Housing Element that complies with state law end of May 2023 (120 days following January 31, 2023). The City would be at greater likelihood of being found out of compliance with state housing law if it does not adopt a compliant Housing Element by the date, jeopardizing housing funds available to the City. Moreover, the period after January 31, 2023, during which the City has not adopted a compliant Housing Element opens the risk certain housing applications must be approved ministerially without hearing, rather than at the City’s discretion.

STAFF CONTACT
Dave Feinstein, Interim Community Development Director
(707) 428­7450
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
City Manager's Office, Housing Services Department
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Proposed Resolution
Attachment 2: 2022­09­14 Planning Commission Staff Report, “Item A: Review of Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update” Attachment 3 : HCD Comment Letter, "City of Fairfield's 6th Cycle (2023­2031) Draft Housing Element" Attachment 4: Initial Study/Environmental Checklist and Negative Declaration Attachment 5: 2023­2031 Housing Element Draft
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Beavers, Esther Approved 1/26/2023 ­ 4:01 PM
Packet Page 228 of 846

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-19

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ER2023-003) FOR THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT PROJECT, ADOPTING THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT, AND FORWARDING THE HOUSING ELEMENT TO THE

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FOR

CERTIFICATION

WHEREAS, State law mandates that the Housing Element be updated every eight years and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to reflect changing conditions, community objectives, and goals (Cal. Gov. Code section 65588); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January 25, 2023. City staff presented substantial factual information regarding the proposed Project in staff reports and through oral presentations before the commission, and the commission considered all public testimony and information presented during the public hearing regarding this application; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing for the proposed Negative Declaration request on February 7, 2023; and

WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Project that satisfies the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and

WHEREAS, the Negative Declaration prepared for the Project applies to the council’s actions as well as the project’s actions during the public hearing of the commission on January 25, 2023; and

WHEREAS, the council has determined that the proposed 2023-2031 Housing Element is consistent with State Housing Law, HCD comments, and public input solicited over a two-year period.

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

Section 1. The Negative Declaration, as contained in Exhibit A, is hereby adopted.

Section 2. The 2023-2031 Housing Element, as contained in Exhibit B, is hereby adopted and forwarded to HCD for certification.

Packet Page 229 of 846Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2

RES. NO. 2023-19

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: MEMBERS: MOY / BERTANI / CARR /PANDURO / TONNESEN/ VACCARO / WILLIAMS

NOES: MEMBERS:

ABSENT: MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: MEMBERS:

_________ _____________________________________________ MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________

CITY CLERK

Packet Page 230 of 846Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2

S T A F F R E P O R T
M eeting
D ate:

To:

Fro m :

Subject:

Septem ber 14, 2022
Chairperson and M em bers of the Planning Com rnlssi on . , Com m unity Developm ent Departm ent
IT E M A : R E V IE W O F D R A FT 5TH C YC LE H O U SIN G EL EM E N T U P D A TE Planner: Jessie Hern andez, 707-428-7450, jhern andez@ fa irfield.ca.gov

BA CKG RO UN D INFO RM ATIO N
State law m andates that the Housing Elem ent be updated every eight years and certified by the Califo rn ia Depart m ent of Housing and Com m unity Developm ent (H CD) to reflect changing conditions, com m unity objectives, and goals (Cal. G ov. Code section 65588). Certification m akes the City eligible fo r a variety of grants, w hich help fund the City's housing pro gram s, capital im pro vem ents, transportation infr astructure, and speci al purpose needs. Failing to certify a Housing Elem ent by the State-m andated deadline resets the schedule fo r updating the Elem ent to every fo ur years, lim its access to State funding, opens the City to potential law suits, and subjects the City to rigid stream lining of developm ent appro vals.

The Draft 6th Cycle Housing Elem ent addresses the housing needs of Fairfield residents from 2023 to 2031. It sets fo rt h actions that the City w ill undert ake to support the pro duction of an adequate supply of safe, aff ordable housing fo r existing and future residents, preserve and rehabilitate existing affo rdable housing stock, protect tenants from displacem ent pressures, and affirm atively furt her fa ir housing thro ughout the entire City so that everyone has access to opportunity.

A t this m eeting, the staff asks the Planning Com m ission to review the Draft 6th Cycle Housing Elem ent and pro vide input. The staff has also invited key com m unity stakeholders to attend this Planning Com m ission m eeting and pro vide additional feedback. Input from the Planning Com m ission and m em bers of the public w ill be incorporated into the Draft 6th Cycle Housing Elem ent and subm itt ed to HCD fo r review . A ft er State review , staff w ill revise the Draft 6th Cycle Elem ent to address HCD com m ents befo re bringing the Elem ent back to the Planning Com m ission and City Counci l fo r adoption in late 2022. Follow ing the adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Elem ent, HCD w ill have one additional opport unity to review the docum ent fo r final certification.

RELATIO N SH IP TO THE G ENERAL PLA N
The Draft 6th Cycle Housing Elem ent is one com ponent of a larger eff ort to update the City's G eneral Plan and establish a Clim ate A ction Plan. The G eneral Plan Update represents a "once- in-a-generation" opportunity fo r Fairfield residents to chart the course fo r the City's future over the next 20 years. The Fairfield G eneral Plan com prises several "elem ents" covering a w ide range of topics im portant to the future of Fairfield, incl uding econom ic developm ent, the continued City of Fairfield
C om munity Development Department
Prepared by: 0 H
Reviewed byJY='
Packet Page 231 of 846Attachment 2 Page 1 of 6

via b ility o f T rav is A ir Fo rce Base , la n d use an d tran sp o rt atio n, op e n sp ace, no ise, con se rvatio n, an d safety .

H o u sin g po licie s an d ho u sin g pro g ram s w ill cl o se ly re late to policie s contain e d in th e Lan d U se E le m e n t. Fo r exam p le , th e am o u n t o f hou sin g ne e d e d de p e n d s in pa rt o n th e am o u n t of co m m e rcia l an d in d u stria l d e ve lo p m en t pla nne d . A direct lin k exists be tw ee n job s an d th e de m a n d fo r ho u sin g . T h e Lan d Use Ele m e n t also dictates th e distribu tion an d de n sity of ho usin g th ro u g h o u t th e city . In su m , th e H o u sin g Ele m e nt dete rm in e s how m u ch an d w h at type of ho u sin g is ne e d e d , w h ile th e La n d Use Ele m e n t pro v id e s fo r th e locatio n, distrib u tion, an d de n sity of ho u sin g .

H O U S IN G ELE M E N T C O M PO N E N T S
A m o n g all G e n e ra l P la n ele m e n ts, th e State of C alifo rn ia has th e m ost exten sive req u irem e nts o n ho u sin g ele m e n ts (C al. G o v. Co d e se ction 65 5 83 ). Pe r State law , th e Hou sin g Ele m e nt m u st in cl u d e :
• A de scrip tio n of o u tre ach co n d u cte d in prep aratio n of th e elem e n t; an d • A n an a lysis o f p ro g ress in im ple m en tin g th e previou s Ho u sin g Ele m e nt an d th e eff ectiv e n e ss o f its pro g ram s an d actio n s; an d • A n asse ssm e n t of existin g an d pro je cte d hou sing ne e d s; an d • A n an a ly sis o f sp e cia l ho u sin g ne e d s, su ch as th ose of o lde r adu lts an d pe op le w ith d isab ilitie s; an d
• A n an a lysis o f existin g assiste d hou sin g un its at risk of co n ve rsio n fr om aff o rd ab le to m a rket rate ; an d
• A n an a ly sis an d in ve n to ry o f re so u rce s an d co n straints re le van t to m e etin g hou sin g ne e d s; an d
• A p ro g ra m to aff irm atively furth er fa ir ho usin g (A FFH ), w h ich gu ide s th e an alysis of each se t o f re q u ire m e n ts; an d
• A n in v e n to ry o f ad e q u ate site s su ita b le fo r con struction of ne w ho u sing suff icie n t to m e et ne e d s at all eco n o m ic le ve ls; an d
• A pro g ram th at sets fo rt h sp e ci fi c actio n s to ad dress ho u sin g ne e d s, w ith ide ntifi catio n of re sp o n sib le ag e n ci e s an d tim e lin e s.

T h is H o u sin g Ele m e n t co n sists of th e fo llow in g m ajo r co m p o n e nts:
• A n an a ly sis o f th e C ity 's de m og ra p h ic an d hou sin g ch a racte ristics an d tren d s; an d • A n evalu a tio n of la n d , fin a n cia l, an d adm in istrativ e resou rces availab le to ad dress th e C ity's ho u sin g go a ls; an d
• A re v ie w o f po te n tia l co nstrain ts, bo th go v e rn m e ntal an d no n -go ve rn m e ntal, to m e etin g th e C ity's ho u sin g ne e d s; an d a H ou sin g A ctio n Plan fo r th e 2023 -2 0 3 1 plan n in g pe riod , in cl u d in g ho u sin g go a ls, po lici e s, pro g ram s, an d qu an tifi e d o b je ctives; an d • A re v ie w o f th e C ity's acco m p lish m e n ts an d pro g ress in im p lem e nting th e previo u s H o u sin g Ele m e n t; an d
• M a te ria ls use d fo r pu b lic pa rtici patio n an d com m un ity ou treach; an d • A d e ta ile d in ve n to ry o f site s fo r m e e tin g th e pro je cte d ho u sin g ne e d s.

S:\Planning\PC Meetings\PC-2022\22-09-14\ltem A - Review of Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update\PC PHN Housing Element Update 9-4- 2022.docx Packet Page 232 of 846Attachment 2 Page 2 of 6

In prep a rin g th e Ho u sin g Ele m e n t, variou s data sou rce s are utilize d . T he de ce n n ia l C en sus an d th e A m e rica n C o m m u n ity Su rv e y pro v id e th e basis fo r po p u lation an d ho use h o ld cha racteristics.

T h e C alifo rn ia State D e p a rtm e n t of Fina n ce also pro v id e s so m e pop u latio n an d ho u sin g un it data.

H o u sin g m a rket in fo rm atio n is d raw n fr om bo th pu blic ag en cies an d private o rgan izations. C ity re co rd s also pro v id e d ata re g ard in g hou sin g de v e lop m ent an d re h abilitation , pro g ram acco m p lish m e n ts, un its at risk of co n ve rsio n , an d hou sin g con struction an d de m o litio n activity.

PU B LI C PA R T IC IP A T IO N
S e ctio n 65 5 8 3 (c)(9 ) o f th e G o ve rn m e n t C o d e state s th at th e local go vern m e n t sh all m ake "a dilig e n t eff o rt to ach ie ve pu b lic pa rt icipation of all eco n o m ic seg m e nts of th e co m m un ity in th e de v e lo p m e n t of th e ho u sin g ele m en t, an d th e pro g ram sh all de scrib e th is eff o rt." Pu blic pa rticip atio n play s an im p o rta n t ro le in fo rm ulatin g and refi n in g th e city's ho u sin g go als an d po licie s. T h e C ity of Fa irfi e ld is in th e pro ce ss of pre p arin g a com preh e n sive upd ate to th e G e n e ral Pla n . D u e to th e statuto ry de ad lin e fo r th e Ho u sin g Ele m e n t, th is H ou sin g Ele m e nt is be in g up d ate d o n a pa ralle l bu t se p a rate track fr o m th e G en eral Plan . Exte n sive pu blic ou treach has be e n co n d u cte d to in fo rm th is Ho u sin g Ele m e n t up d ate .

In v o lv in g th e co m m u n ity is an in te g ra l pa rt o f th e Ho u sin g Ele m e n t pro cess. T h e C ity of Fairfie ld utilize d th e fo llo w in g strate g ie s to solicit in p u t fr o m th e com m u n ity fo r th e C ity's 2023 -20 3 1 H o u sin g Ele m e n t an d fa ci litate a m e a n in g ful dialog u e about hou sin g ne e d s an d prioritie s in Fa irfi e ld :
• Fa irfi e ld Fo rw ard w e b site an d e-b lasts
• Sta k e h o ld e r in te rv ie w s
• Fo cu s gro u p d iscu ssio n s
• O n lin e su rv e ys
• C o m m u n ity w o rksh o p s
T h e ove ra ll th e m e s o f sta ke h o ld e r fee d back ce nte red arou n d stro n g su pp o rt fo r m ixed -u se de v e lo p m e n t alo n g ke y tran sit co rrid o rs an d a w id e r ran g e of hou sin g type s su itab le fo r pe o p le of all ag e s an d in co m e le v e ls. C o m m un ity fee d back em ph asize d fa ci litating an d prese rvin g aff o rd a b le ho u sin g an d th e im p o rtan ce o f co n ne ctin g ne w ho u sin g w ith se rvices an d am e n itie s su ch as tra n sit acce ss an d p re se rv in g ag ricu ltu ral lan d.

N E ED S A SS E SS M E N T
T h e N e e d s A sse ssm e n t (C h a p te r 2); o u tlin e s th e ch aracte ristics of th e co m m unity an d ide ntifi es ho w th o se m ay im p a ct th e ho u sin g ne e d s in th e co m m un ity , in cl u din g po pu latio n , in co m e, an d ho u se h o ld g ro w th . K e y de m o g rap h ic ind icato rs are su m m a rize d in Fig u re 1.

S:\Planning\PC Meetings\PC-2022\22-09-14\ltem A - Review of Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update\PC PHN Housing Element Update 9-4- 2022.docx Packet Page 233 of 846Attachment 2 Page 3 of 6

F ig u r e 1 . K e y D e m o g r a p h i c In d i c a t o rs 0 n i~v
DQ
~
~
w
116,981 residents

25.4% residents under 18 years

12.2% residents 65 years and over

RACE & ETHNICITY
■ American Indian or
Alaska Native
■ Asian or Pacific Islander
• Black or African
American
■ White Non-Hispanic
■ O ther Race or Tw o or
More Races
• Hispanic or Latino
36,843 households
$84,557 Median Household Income

8.6% residents live in poverty
5TH C Y C LE H O U S IN G ELEM EN T P RO G R E S S
Fa irfi e ld is im p le m e n tin g th e 5th Cycl e Ho u sin g Ele m e nt Re g ion al H ou sin g N e e d s A llocatio n (R H N A ), w h ich qu a n tifi e d th e ne e d fo r ho u sin g w ith in each ju risd ictio n fr o m 20 15 to 2022 acro ss in co m e le v e ls. A p p e n d ix A o f th e D raft 6th Cycl e Ho u sin g Ele m e nt an a lyze s th e city's pro g ress to w ard m e e tin g th e go a ls an d R H N A o b je ctiv e s betw ee n 2015 an d 202 2.

T ab le 1 su m m a rize s th e C ity's 5th C ycl e Ho u sin g Ele m e n t an d R H N A an d th e C ity's pro g ress to w ard s im p le m e n tin g it. T h e to ta l num b e r of ho u sing un its bu ilt betw ee n 20 15 an d 20 2 2 is g re ate r th a n th e to ta l o f th e 5th C ycl e R H N A fi g u re . T o tal ho u sing un its fo r th e ve ry-lo w -, low -, an d m o d e rate -in co m e ho u se h o ld cate g orie s fa ll sh o rt of the R H N A ta rgets.

Table 1. 5th Cycle Housing Element Progress
Incom e Level 5th Cycle RHNA Total Units to Date Total Remaining Units(#) (2015 - 2022) RHNA
V e ry Lo w In co m e 77 9 15 2 (2 0 %) 62 7 (8 0 %)
( 1 2 0 % o f A re a M e d ia n In co m e )
Total 3,100 3,408 1,007
* T h e A re a M e d ia n In co m e (A M I) is th e ho u se h old in com e fo r th e m e d ian hou se h o ld in a sp e cifi e d re g io n . T h e U .S . D e p a rtm e n t o f Ho u sin g an d U rb an D e v e lop m e n t (H U D ) de fi n e s th e A M I fo r citie s an d co u n tie s ye arly.

S:\Planning\PC Meetings\PC-2022\22-09-14\ltem A- Review of Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update\PC PHN Housing Element Update 9-4- 2022.docx Packet Page 234 of 846Attachment 2 Page 4 of 6

SIT ES IN V E N T O RY
T h e H o u sin g Site s In v e n to ry, d isp lay e d in Fig u re 2 an d furth er de scrib ed in Ap p e n d ix C of the D raft 6th C ycl e H o u sin g Ele m e n t, de n o te s w h e re lan d is suff ici e ntly zo n e d to accom m od ate th e R H N A at all in co m e le v e ls. A d d itio n a lly , th e Sites In ventory ide ntifi e s w h e re rezon in g w ill be re q u ired to aff irm a tiv e ly furth e r fa ir hou sin g an d pro m o te an even distrib u tio n of lo w er an d m o d e rate -in co m e site s acro ss th e ci ty .

T ab le 2 su m m a rize s Fa irfi e ld 's re side n tia l ca paci ty an d ab ility to accom m od ate th e 2023-2 0 3 1 R H N A.

Figure 2. Housing Sites Inventory
Potential Housing Sites by Type
S u i.s 1111 Mor J h Pro te e tio n
Monarement Ar~o ISM PM A)
Hou sing Site Type
• Pipeline
- SpecificPlan
AFFH Opportvrity
- Other Opportunity
0 SpecificPIMs .,
c1/' Highway
,,/ Ramp
/ Major
Local
Local (other)
["J OtyUmit
[. ] Sphere of Influence
OP\anningAre11
Water
P,,r1<
Golf Course
Table 2. Summary of Residential capacity to Accommodate the 2023-2031 RHNA Residential Units
Very-Low- Moderate- Above-Moderate- Total
/Low-Income Income Income
T o ta l C ap acity 1,6 8 5 94 0 2,434 5,059
6th C ycl e R H N A 1,2 5 6 53 9 1,2 7 4 3,06 9
RHNA plus 15% Buffer 1,5 0 7 64 7 1,5 29 3,6 8 3
Su rp lu s O v e r R H N A p lu s 17 8 29 3 90 5 13 7 6 15 % B u ff e r
S:\Planning\PC Meetings\PC-2022\22-09-14\ltem A - Review of Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update\PC PHN Housing Element Update 9-4- 2022.docx Packet Page 235 of 846Attachment 2 Page 5 of 6

S:\Planning\PC Meetings\PC-2022\22-09-14\Item A - Review of Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update\1. Draft PC Report 6th Cycle Housing Element Update_9.14.2022.DOC

HOUSING ACTION PLAN
The Housing Action Plan (Chapter 6) contains goals, policies, and programs to address housing- related issues in Fairfield, including achieving the City’s identified housing needs and overcoming challenges and constraints. The chapter also includes quantified objectives to accomplish the established goals.

The Housing Element includes five goals that create the framework for how the City of Fairfield will address housing needs and constraints from 2023-2031. Policies within each goal provide direction on how the City will achieve that goal. Procedures include various actions the City will take to implement the policies. Actions include programs currently in operation and new actions needed to address the City’s housing needs. The goals, policies, and programs were developed with extensive community input and reflect the City’s ambition to create equitabl e and inclusive neighborhoods and provide opportunities for a variety of affordable housing at all levels of affordability to meet the current and future needs of all residents.

The Housing Action Plan goals are listed below:
• Goal A: Provide various housing opportunities for all income groups throughout the city, including different housing types, unit sizes, design, amenities, locations, and tenure. • Goal B: Increase the production of housing affordable to lower-income households— including extremely low-income households— and moderate-income households to meet housing needs.
• Goal C: Improve and conserve the existing housing supply and the City’s neighborhoods. • Goal D: Support Fair Housing and create and promote housing opportunities f or people with special needs – including those experiencing homelessness, farmworkers, seniors, and Travis Air Force Base personnel, among others.
• Goal E: Promote energy conservation and sustainable development.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element, provide comments, receive public input, and direct staff to forward the Draft 6 th Cycle Housing Element to HCD for initial review.

ATTACHMENT

1. Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element
Packet Page 236 of 846Attachment 2 Page 6 of 6

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov

January 3, 2023

David Feinstein, Director
Community Development Department
City of Fairfield
1000 Webster Street
Fairfield, CA 94533

Dear David Feinstein:

RE: City of Fairfield’s 6th Cycle (2023-2031) Draft Housing Element

Thank you for submitting the City of Fairfield’s (City) draft housing element received for review on October 6, 2022, along with revisions received on December 30, 2022.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (b), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. In addition, HCD considered comments from Duane Kromm, Robin Cox and Campaign for Fair Housing Elements and YIMBY Law, pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The draft element addresses most statutory requirements; however, revisions will be necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code), as follows:

1. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)

Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element must include an analysis demonstrating the potential for additional development on nonvacant sites. To address this requirement, the element evaluates, including recent trends, several factors including an assessed value ratio, existing floor area, age, prior vacancy Packet Page 237 of 846Attachment 3 Page 1 of 5

David Feinstein, Director

rates, location, and other relevant factors. However, the analysis should also discuss the extent existing uses impede additional residential development such as existing leases or contracts or other relevant factors precluding additional development or facilitating redevelopment in the planning period. For example, the element could describe representative sites, existing uses and any factors that may preclude development or encourage redevelopment.

City-Owned sites: The element lists seven City-Owned sites and indicates one site will be available for development while the others are currently being evaluated. Given the uncertainty, the element should discuss the potential steps for developing the remaining six sites, including any known barriers, timing for completing mitigation measures and modify Program 11.2 (City-Owned Land) with a schedule of actions to facilitate development, comply with the Surplus Land Act and particularly identify and make alternative sites with zoning of equivalent capacity and density by a specified date if the sites are not made planned to be made available by a date early in the period.

AB 725: For jurisdictions that are considered Metropolitan, the element must identify at least 25 percent of the remaining moderate and above-moderate regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) on sites that allow at least four units of housing (e.g., four plex or greater) (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(4)). While the element demonstrates meeting these requirements for the moderate-income RHNA, it must still demonstrate meeting these requirements for the above- moderate income RHNA.

Electronic Sites Inventory: For your information, pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, the City must submit an electronic sites inventory with its adopted housing element. The City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD. While the City submitted the sites inventory in the appropriate form, any changes to the inventory should be reflected in the form and the form should be re-submitted as part of adoption. The City can reach out to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance.

Programs: As noted above, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established.

Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types.

2. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph Packet Page 238 of 846Attachment 3 Page 2 of 5

David Feinstein, Director

(7), including land use controls… …and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)

An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels including… …the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584... (Gov.

Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).)

Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)

Land Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. The element lists and describes development standards and mentions recent development trends as an indicator that land use controls are not constraints.

However, the element should still evaluate impacts on housing costs, supply (number of units), feasibility and ability to achieve maximum densities. For example, the element should discuss whether any recent or pending developments utilized exceptions to zoning standards (e.g., state density bonus law, conditional use, variance, planned development, rezone) to achieve densities. The element should also discuss whether the combination of various bulk standards by zone impede the ability to achieve maximum densities and should also discuss whether past projects have not progressed through the approval process due to land use controls. The City could utilize input from developers to assist in this analysis.

Local Processing and Permit Procedures: The element mentions the minor discretionary, minor development and development review procedures but should also discuss the approval findings or decision-making criteria for each, how those standards are applied or met and any impacts on cost, timing and approval certainty.

Time between Approvals and Building Permit Application: The element must analyze the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits. The analysis should address any hinderances on the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need and programs should be added or modified as appropriate.

Packet Page 239 of 846Attachment 3 Page 3 of 5

David Feinstein, Director

Programs: As noted above, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental and nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

3. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)

The element includes many meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). However, in many cases, actions do not either geographically target efforts or do not include metrics or numerical targets toward AFFH outcomes. Examples of programs that should include geographic targeting include Programs 1.1 (Affordable Housing Finance), 1.2 (Inclusionary Housing),

2.3 (Diverse Housing), 3.3 (Tenant-based Rental Assistance), 7.1 (Special Needs Housing), 7.2 Persons with Disabilities and Other Special Needs) and 7.7 (Housing for Military Personnel). Examples of programs that should include metrics include Programs 1.1 (Affordable Housing Finance), 1.2 (Inclusionary Housing), 1.3 (Affordable Homeownership), 2.3 (Diverse Housing), 2.5 (Citywide Densities), 7.1 (Special Needs Housing) and 7.7 (Housing for Military Personnel).

Alternatively, Program 10.1 could be revised with aggregated geographic targeting and metrics. Also, in some cases, numerical objectives should be increased (e.g., Programs 5.1 (ADU Incentives) and 6.1 (Zoning in Nonresidential Zones)). Finally, the element should include additional housing mobility and place-based strategies toward community revitalization, particularly in areas of lower income and concentrated poverty.

The element will meet the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law once it has been revised and adopted to comply with the above requirements.

Public participation in the development, adoption, and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. Throughout the housing element process, the City should continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (January 31, 2023), then any rezoning to make prior identified sites Packet Page 240 of 846Attachment 3 Page 4 of 5

David Feinstein, Director

available or accommodate the, RHNA pursuant to Government Code section 65583, subdivision (c) (1) (A) and Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c), shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i). Please be aware, if the City fails to adopt a compliant housing element within one year from the statutory deadline, the element cannot be found in substantial compliance until any necessary rezones are completed.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html .

HCD appreciates the responsiveness, dedication, and collaboration the City’s housing element team provided during the review. We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Irvin Saldana, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Packet Page 241 of 846Attachment 3 Page 5 of 5

INITIAL STUDY I ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND

NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
City of Fairfield, California
Prepared by:

DYETT & BHATIA
Urban and Regional Planners
4 001 Howe Stree t
Oakland, CA 94611
D ecember 22, 20 22
Packet Page 242 of 846Attachment 4 Page 1 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 1 City of Fairfield, California Table of Contents
I. PROJECT TITLE: ........................................................................................................................... 3

2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: .............................................................................. 3

3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: .................................................................. 3

4. PROJECT LOCATION: .............................................................................................................. .3

5. PROJECT SPONSOR 'S NAME AND ADDRESS: ................................................................ .3

6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: .......................................................................................... 3

7. ZONING: ....................................................................................................................................... .3

8. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: ................................................................................................... 3

9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: ................................................................. 5 I 0. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED: ............................... 6

11. NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION: .............................................................................. 6

12. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED : ............ 6

13. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST: ......................................................................................... 10

3.1 AESTHETICS .............................................................................................................. 11

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ............................................. 12

3.3 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................ 13

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................... 14

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................... I 5

3.6 ENERGY ....................................................................................................................... 16

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .......................................................................................... 17

3.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ......................................................................... 19

3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .................................................. 20

3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .......................................................... 21

3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING .............................................................................. 23

3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................... 25

3.13 NOISE ........................................................................................................................... 26

3.14 POPULATION & HOUSING ................................................................................. 27

3.15 PUBLIC SERVICES ..................................................................................................... 27

3.16 RECREATION ............................................................................................................ 29

3.17 TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................... 30

3.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................... 32

3.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .................................................................... 32

3.20 WILDFIRE .................................................................................................................... 34

3.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .............................................. 35

14. PREPARATION .......................................................................................................................... 36 I 5. DETERMINATION .................................................................................................................... 36

16. DE MINIMIS FEE DETERMINATION ................................................................................... 36

17. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION ............................................................................. 37

18. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 38 Packet Page 243 of 846Attachment 4 Page 2 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 2 City of Fairfield, California

FIGURES
I . Regional Setting ....................................................................................... 6

2. Planning Boundaries ............................................................................................ 7 Packet Page 244 of 846Attachment 4 Page 3 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 3 City of Fairfield, California I. PROJECT TITLE:
2023-2031 Housing Element Update

2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS:

City of Fairfield, 1000 Webster Street, Fairfield, CA 94533

3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER:

Dave Feinstein, Community Development Director, (707) 428-7448

4. PROJECT LOCATION:

City of Fairfield

5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS:

NIA

6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:

Varies

7. ZONING:

Varies

8. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:

California Government Code Se ction 65302(c) mandates that each city include a Housing Element in its General Plan. The Housing Element is required to identify and analyze existing and projected housing needs and include statements of the city's goals, policies, quantified objectives and sched - uled programs for preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Each city, in adopting its Housing Element, must consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors, as well as com - munity goals as set forth in the General Plan, in compliance with California Government Code Section 65580 et. seq.

General Planning Efforts
Fairfield's existing General Plan was adopted in 2002 and is now being reexamined to ensure that it reflects the City's goals and priorities for the next 30 years . Fairfield Forward 2050 is the name of the City's update of its General Plan. The update process is a collaborative effort between the City and the community to create a vision and a blueprint for development and investm ent over the next couple of decades. More information r egarding the General Plan update can be fo und on the project's website at www.fairfieldforward.com .

In addition, the City has determined that the Fairfield Forward 2050 project requires the prepara- tion of a Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) in compliance with the C alifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Program EIR will address all required topic areas includ- ing aesthetics, biological r esources, transportation/traffic, natural hazards (including geological, Packet Page 245 of 846Attachment 4 Page 4 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 4 City of Fairfield, California hydrological, and fire hazards), agricultural resources, tribal resources, mineral resources, public services/utilities, population/housing, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. The City released a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to solicit guidance from responsible, trustee, and federal agencies about the scope and content of the environmental information to be included in the Program EIR. The comment period for the scoping phase ran from August 16, 2021, to September 16, 2021.

This project is a General Plan Amendment to update the City of Fairfield (City) Housing Element for the planning period of 2023-2031 (hereafter, HEU). The proposed HEU is available at the city website, https://www.fairfieldforward.com/housing-element . This Initial Study evaluates the po- tential environmental impacts expected to result from adoption of the HEU.

Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Consistent with state law, the HEU provides a plan to accommodate the City's fair share of afford- able housing known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, or RHNA. The RHNA is allocated to each region of the state by the California Department of Housing and Community Development in consultation with regional council of governments. Typically, a region 's council of governments prepares the RHNA methodology for all its member jurisdictions, however, Government Code Sec- tion 65584.03 allows for" ... at least two or more cities and a county, or counties, to form a subre- gional entity for the purpose of allocation of the subregion's existing and projected need for housing among its members ... " For the 6th Cycle RHNA, all seven incorporated cities and unincorporated Solano County chose to form a subregional entity for which they designated the City County Co- ordinating Council (4Cs) to serve as the representative body. For the 2023-2031 housing cycle, Solano County has been assigned a RHNA of 10,992 housing units with Fairfield receiving an allo- cation of 3,069 units at five income levels (Extremely Low, Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate).

HEU Programs
While current zoning within the City's specific plan areas permit higher d ensities (ranging from 8 to 80 dwelling units in the Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan area, and up to 50 dwelling units per acre in the Train Station Specific Plan area) and some commercial areas with Mixed Commercial zoning permit 32-50 dwelling units per acre, the HEU includes actions to spur infill on smaller lots in these areas and revise zoning in selected nonresidential zones to allow higher density housing and af- firmatively further fair housing. To affirmatively further fair housing in more moderately-re - sourced areas, the City will rezone seven parcels in the Cordelia area and east of Oliver Road, a shown in Figure 3. Near Cordelia, there are two vacant sites adjacent to office commercial uses. A third vacant site on Campus lane is bounded by Solano College to the northeast, a vacant office building to the south, and medium-density residential neighborhoods on all other sides. Near Oli- ver Road, the rezonings are applied to three parcels in an underutilized existing commercial center with several retail vacancies . These sites currently allow housing conditionally, with the exception of the site near the college, and will be rezoned to allow housing by right in order to accommodate a realistic capacity of 343 housing units, just 11 percent of the overall RHNA allocation. The re- mainder of sites utilize Fairfield's existing land use and zoning classifications.

Through implementation of the housing programs, potential housing sites were identified in the Sites Inventory to show the City's ability to accommodate its RHNA allocation. Specifically, the HEU identifies that there are sufficient housing sites to accommodate its share of affordable hous- ing through its inventory of potential housing sites located within vacant and underutilized non- vacant opportunity sites which promote infill development and are served by adequate Packet Page 246 of 846Attachment 4 Page 5 of 40

;

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 5 City of Fairfield, California infrastructure. The housing sites have been identified as part of the City's coordinated planning actions underway for the comprehensive update of the City's General Plan, which envisions new development concentrated in the downtown core (the Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan Area), near the Fairfield Train Station (Train Station Specific Plan area), near the Fairfield Transportation Cen- ter, along key corridors such as North Texas Street, and other infill areas throughout the City. These areas will contain a mix of uses around major streets with good access to transit and will include housing, employment, and neighborhood commercial uses.

The HEU demonstrates that through implementation of the housing programs there will be suffi- cient housing sites to accommodate the City's fair share of affordable housing especially along com- mercial corridors, in specific plan areas, and infill sites where there are no infrastructure deficien- cies. These sites will allow residential development with expected densities ranging from 15 to 64 dwelling units per acre. Affordable housing development in these target areas will be enhanc ed through the City's actions to create sustainable revenue streams for affordable housing; infill hous- ing and small-lot development incentives development of design standards for 'missing middle' housing; permitting of sites included in prior cycles to develop with affordable housing by right; and rezoning to allow higher densities on certain parcels in areas that are more moderately re- sourced.

9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING:

The City of Fairfield is located in central Solano County in the Bay Area within the C alifornia Coastal Ranges at the southwestern edge of the Sacramento Valley, just north of the Suisun Bay and salt marsh. The Planning Area encompasses 278 square miles including the City of Fairfield (ap- proximately 41 square miles) and its Sphere of Influence (SOI) (approximately 11 square miles) which is generally coterminous with City boundary but includes a handful of areas surrounding the city limits, with the largest section located in the northeast area of the city limits, adjacent to Travis Ai r Force Base. The Planning Area also includes the sur rounding unincorporated areas in Green Valley and Suisun Valley, as in the current General Plan, and the Suisun Marsh Prot ection Plan area (225 square miles). Although Fairfield does not have jurisdiction in are as out sid e of its city limits, and all HEU sites are located within the city limits. The Planning Area is bounded by Napa County, the Vacaville mountains, and Cement Hill grazing lands to the north; the Travis Reserve and unincorporated Solano County to the east; the City of Suisun, the Union Pacific Railro ad tracks, the Suisun Marsh, and I-680 in the southern portion; and unincorporated Solano County open space to the west.

Fairfield is located at strategic transportation crossroads at the convergen ce of inte rstates 680 and 80 (I-680 and I-80), two of the Bay Area's largest freeways , and at a mid-point betwe en Sacramento and San Francisco ( each 45 miles away ). Fairfield also provides the eastern gateway to Napa Valley, which lies 15 miles to the west and is easily accessed via Highway 12. In addition, Fairfield is acces- sible via public transportation, including Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) and Solano Express bus lines, and two Capital Corridor train stations that connect Fairfield to Auburn and San Jose via Sacramento and Oakland. T he city is also home to Travis Air Force Base, which is located four miles east of downtown. Known as the "Gateway to the Pacific," Travis handles more cargo and passenger t raffic through its airport than any other military air te rminal in the United States.

The city is surrounded by undeveloped hills on its western and northern borders. To its east and northeast are grazing and prairie grasslands. To the south, beyond the neighborin g city of Suisun City, is the largest remaining wetland around San Francisco Bay , the Suisun Marsh. Suisun Valley, Packet Page 247 of 846Attachment 4 Page 6 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 6 City of Fairfield, California one of the county's most productive and intensive agricultural regions, adjoins Fairfield and sepa- rates the central city from the Cordelia planning area.

10. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED:

No other agency is required to approve the Housing Element update, but it will be reviewed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development for the purpose of determining whether it complies with the requirements of the Housing Element Law.

11. NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION:

In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code 21080.3.1, the City notified those Native American Tribes both traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area. These tribes were notified via certified mail and email. As of this date, response and request for notifica- tions has been received by the Y ocha Dehe Win tun Nation.

12. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The project would have the following Potentially Significant Impacts to the resource areas listed below. A summary of the environmental factors potentially affected by this project, consisting of a Potentially Significant Impact or Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated, include:
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and Forestry □ Air Quality
Resources
□ Biological Resources □ Cultural Resources □ Energy
□ Geology/Soils □ Greenhouse Gas Emis-□ Hazards & Hazardous sions Materials
□ Hydrology/Water Quality □ Land Use/Planning □ Mineral Resources □ Noise □ Population/Housing □ Public Services
□ Recreation □ Transportation □ Tribal Cultural Re-
sources
□ Utilities/Service Systems □ Wildfire □ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Packet Page 248 of 846Attachment 4 Page 7 of 40

0 10 20
MILES
5 Lodi
Stockton
OaklandSan
Francisco
Richmond
Vallejo
Walnut
Creek
San
Ramon
Livermore
Tracy
Pittsburg
ConcordSan
Pablo
Antioch
Brentwood
Napa Fairfield
Vacaville
Davis
Woodland
Sonoma
Dublin
Hayward
Milpitas
San
Jose
Fremont
Palo
Alto
Mountain
View
Winters
Dixon
Rio
Vista
Martinez
Benicia
San
Bruno
South San
Francisco
Emeryville
Berkeley
Sacramento
Pleasanton
505
12 121
29 680
80 80
680
580
580
880
280 680
580
205
5 5
101
99 37
4 160
24 16
16 113
128
4 92
84 80
580
5 50
80 99
113
160
1 12
121
128
84 NAPA
SONOMA
MARIN

CONTRA COSTA

ALAMEDA
SAN

MATEO SANTA
CLARA

STANISLAUS

SAN JOAQUIN

SACRAMENTO
SOLANO
YOLO
Figure 1: Regional Location
Packet Page 249 of 846Attachment 4 Page 8 of 40

R o c kv ille R dShiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM angelsBlMainStCordelia St S
u
is
u
n
V
alle
y
R
dWaltersRdMa
n
k
a
s
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGre
e
n
V
alley
R
d
Red TopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad AvOhio St
C o u rageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StHilbornRdChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliver Rd
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Wate rman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia Rd
BusinessCenterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e lCamposPkwy
Travis Av
Paradise ValleyGolf Course
Rancho SolanoGolf Course
DunnellNatureParkMeadowGlenPark
CordeliaPark SouthbrookPark
GaryFalatiPark

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island StGame Refuge
AllenWittPark
LeeBellPark
TolenasPark
FairfieldLinearPark
HillviewPark
RollingHillsPark
Laurel CreekPark
VintageGreenValleyPark
DoverPark
MankasPark
RockvilleHillsRegionalPark
WoodcreekPark
SunrisePark
MeadowPark
Rolling HillsPark
VeteransPark TaborPark
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
GreenValley
ArmijoHS
FairfieldHS
SolanoCommunityCollege
FairfieldCity Hall
Solano CountyCourthouse
KaiserPermanente
TravisAirForceBase
Travis AFBAero Club
UR B A
N L
IM
IT
L
IN
E
UR

B

A

N

L

I
M

I
T

L

I
N
E
C e m e n tH i l l
E l k h o r nP e a k
K i r b yH i l l
L u c oH i l l
O k e l lH i l l
S u i s u nH i l l
S u l p h u rS p r i n g sM o u n t a i n
T w i nS i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\PlanningArea.mxd Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 3/10/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
Figure 2: Planning Area
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 AÝ
\
\.,
,C~--------r-·----:-··
",:··.... ·,!
ii ,,,·:~: .;,~ ... -~·t_ •'
,,/·· ¥.--;;~
. .,,;i ~ 1,ll>"-/2·~7 \1 --\! , --~~,d:~~-~-----1 : ~--e_.Jj '· \ --aali
'~~;·1
" I ;
! ( • .-!-~~.,. 11 I'
"!;~~-~..,. lL..---J:
[~_J
D
D
:·--····-. : !
:.. ...... J
--
Packet Page 250 of 846Attachment 4 Page 9 of 40

Travis
Air
Force
Base
C e m e n t
H ill
S u i s u n M a r s h P r o t e c t i o n
M a nag e m e n t A r e a ( S M P M A )
Air Base Pkwy
Travis Blvd dR ydobaePevA revoDH ilborn Rd
dR sretlaWdR yhtanrebAMankas Corner Rd
Cement Hill Rd
Travis Av
Waterman Blvd
G
r
e
e
n

V
a
l
l
e
y

R
d tS saxeT htroNTexas St lB nagruBevA noinUdR etaG htroNtS dn2dR naidireMRailroad AveRockville Rd McCrory Rd
Ol
i
v
e
r

R
d
P
i
t
tm
a
n
R
d evA tesnuSOhio St
East Tabor Ave
tS niaMevA kceBCement Hill Rd dR ydobaePSuisun PkwyDickson H illRd Corde l i a R d PennsylvaniaAveevA evilORedTop Rd
Lopes
RdB usinessCenterDrSuisunValleyRdTrain Station
Specific Plan
Heart of
Fairfield
Specific Plan
Figure 3: Potential Housing Sites by Site Type
0 1 2½
Miles
Housing Site Type
Pipeline
Specific Plan
Other Opportunity
Specific Plans
Highway
Ramp
Major
Local
Local (other)
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Water
Park
Golf Course
Rezoned Sites
AÝ
!"c$
AÝ
!"c$
:----...J
i
i =-------·
----
D .---.

I.__J
/
/ D
/ -
Packet Page 251 of 846Attachment 4 Page 10 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist City of Fairfield, California

13. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST:

This section analyzes the potential environmental impacts that may result from the proposed pro- ject. For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist (Section 2) are stated and answers are provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study.

The analysis considers the project's short-term impacts (construction-related), and its operational or day-to-day impacts. For each question, there are four possible responses. They include:

1. No Impact. Future development arising from the project's implementation will not have any measurable environmental impact on the environment and no additional analysis is required.

2. Less than Significant Impact. The development associated with project implementation will have the potential to impact the environment; these impacts, however, will be less than the levels or thresholds that are considered significant and no additional analysis is required.

3. Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The development will have the potential to generate impacts which may be considered as a significant effect on the environment, although mitiga- tion measures or changes to the project's physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less than significant.

4. Potentially Significant Impact. Future implementation will have impacts that are considered significant, and additional analysis is required to identify mitigation measures that could re- duce these impacts to less than significant levels.

Packet Page 252 of 846Attachment 4 Page 11 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 11 City of Fairfield, California V ;.;:: .,;: -~ OJ)"' -~ C. :; i CJ) -CJ) .§ V "' CJ) C. :S' :S ~ e t, -~ = .;S = = -"' "' -C. = ~ "C -= = .§ = "' -"' OJ V OJ -OJ ~ V -<.:: 0 ; ~ ~ <.:: .j 0 -~ OJ -~ C. = C. V ell =

13.1 AESTHETICS. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Sec- tion 21099, would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? n n n IX] b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building along a State-designated scenic □ □ □ [g] highway?
C. In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those □ □ □ [g] that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other re0.llations governing scenic quality?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect □ □ □ [g] day or nighttime views in the area? a-d. No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, and its adoption would not, in itself, produce environ- mental impacts. It consists of a housing program; no actual development is proposed as part of the HEU.

However, implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommodate development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation, which specifies a need for the production of 3,069 units. To accommodate this RHNA allocation, the HEU includes programs that would explore allowing mixed uses within vacant parcels and certain commercial areas in Cordelia and East of Oliver Road, in some cases allowing residential development densities to be increased to a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre and up to a maximum of 50 dwelling units per acre. The variety of housing types in Fairfield will be increased through establishing supportive development densities and lot size requirements. Affordable housing de- velopment in these target areas will be enhanced through the City's expedited permit procedures for devel- opments providing affordable to lower-income households.

There are no designated State scenic highways in the city and the closest eligible highway segment, State Route 29 from Vallejo to Napa, is not located in or near the City of Fairfield ( Caltrans, 2022). Further, all future projects would be required to adhere to General Plan policies, the City's Municipal Code, and the City's adopted Design and Development Guidelines regarding scenic resources, visual character, and light and glare. General Plan policies require development to be restricted from significantly encroaching on public views of ridgelines, agricultural areas, the Cement Hill Range, and the Suisun Marsh. Potential im- pacts to aesthetics associated with future residential development projects would be assessed at the time when the specific development projects are proposed, and mitigation measures would be adopted, as nec- essary, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact to visual resources because no development is proposed at this time.

Packet Page 253 of 846Attachment 4 Page 12 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 12 City of Fairfield, California -" >-::; CJ) " t: = "' = " = g_ "' C. "' -"' ·z e ·-= -s .§ C. = -C ~ "'O .5 " -" -" "' --= ~ ~ a "' = ~ rf. "' .3 "'

13.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES.

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agri- cultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the pro- ject:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Im- portance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farm- □ □ □ ~ land Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency or (for annexations only) as defined by the adopted policies of the Local Agency Formation Commission, to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act Con-□ □ □ ~ tract? C. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland □ □ □ ~ Production ( as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest □ □ □ ~ use? e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their loca- tion or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural □ □ □ ~ use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
a-e. No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program, and its adoption would not, in itself, produce environmental impacts. It consists of a housing program; no actual development is proposed as part of the HEU. Although implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommodate development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation, such development would not impact agricultural resources.

The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) primarily designates the city as Urban and Built-Up Land. However, some areas within the city are designated as Grazing Land, Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland (DOC, 2021). In addition, there are several par- cels within the City zoned for agriculture or are under a Williamson Act contract. As development antici- pated by the HEU would occur within urban infill sites and commercial corridors, this designated farmland would retain its existing use . While some HEU sites are located on Grazing Land, they do not occur on Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland. Further, CEQA defines Farm- land as Prime, Unique, and Farmland of Statewide Importance only. As such, the conversion of Grazing Land to a non-agricultural use would not constitute conversion of Farmland.

Finally, the City does not contain land zoned as forest land or timber property zoned as Timberland Pro- duction. While wooded areas in Fairfield may support more than 10 percent native tree coverage, imple- mentation of the HEU would involve developing on urban infill sites and would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland Packet Page 254 of 846Attachment 4 Page 13 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 13 City of Fairfield, California to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Adoption of the HEU would result in no impact to agriculture and forestry resources because no development is proposed at this time.

13.3 AIR QUALITY. Where applicable, the significance criteria estab- lished by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determina- tions. Would the ro·ect:
b. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under the applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed uantitative thresholds for ozone recursors)?
c. Ex ose sensitive rece tors to substantial ollutant concentrations? d. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of eo le?
□ □
□ □
'C
j
0 □
□
a-c. No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program; no actual development is proposed as part of the HEU. While implementation of the HEU would ultimately require rezones to accommodate the RHNA allocation, rezones would not be approved as part of the current action. Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, produce environmental impacts. However, implementation of the pro- grams contained in the document would accommodate development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation.

The City of Fairfield is located within the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin). The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the air pollution control agency for the Air Basin and is re- sponsible for air quality management plans (AQMP) to achieve air quality standards. The Air Basin is an area designated as non-attainment because it does not currently meet National Ambient Air Quality Stand- ards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for certain pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act and California Clean Air Act, respectively. Specifically, the Air Basin does not meet the NAAQS for ozone, PMlO, and PM2.5.

The HEU would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the State Implementation Plan or BAAQMD 's 2017 Clean Air Plan (CAP) because the growth anticipated in the HEU (RHNA allocation) is consistent with the Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG's) Plan Bay Area growth projections.

The CAP was informed by and developed in coordination with ABAG and Plan Bay Area. Because no de- velopment is currently proposed, the HEU would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, nor would it expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Future residential projects would be required to show consistency with the CAP and potential project-spe- cific long-and short-term impacts to air quality would be assessed at the time the projects are proposed.

Mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact to air quality because no development is proposed at this time.

Packet Page 255 of 846Attachment 4 Page 14 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 14 City of Fairfield, California d. No Impact. Residential development does not create substantial odors. According to the BAAQMD, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined an- imal facilities, composting stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. Potential odor emitters during construction include diesel exhaust and evaporative emissions generated by asphalt paving and the application of architectural coatings. Construction-related activities near existing receptors would be temporary in nature, and construction activities would not result in nuisance odors. Potential odor emitters during operations would include exhaust from vehicles and fumes from the reapplication of architectural coatings as part of ongoing building maintenance. However, odor impacts would be limited to circulation routes, parking areas, and areas immediately adjacent to recently painted structures. Although such brief exhaust-and paint-related odors may be considered adverse, they would not be atypical of de- veloped urban areas and would not affect a substantial number of people or rise to the level of a significant impact under CEQA . Because no development is currently proposed, development anticipated by the HEU would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) that would adversely affect a substantial number of people, and its adoption would have no impact from odors. 0:: 1 ·= 0:: ·= -~ .,, --·=
V"J -v:: ~ .!:P ->-" :S ~ V"J " t: = "' = 8. "' C. "' -"' ·= e --= -s .§ C. = -= ::i ~ .5 " -~ = ~ ~ -£ 5 ~ = ~ ~ 5 ~ j "'

13.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifi- cations, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status □ □ □ ~ species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations □ □ □ ~ or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U .S. Fish and Wild- life Service?
C. Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (in- eluding, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct □ □ □ ~ removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migra- tory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory □ □ □ ~ wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, □ □ □ ~ such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Nat- ural Community Conservation Plan , or other approved local, regional, or □ □ □ ~ state habitat conservation plan?
a-d. No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program . While implementation of the HEU would ultimately require rezones to accommodate the RHNA allocation, rezones would not be approved as part of the current action . Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, produce environmental impacts. However, implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommodate de- velopment required to meet the City's RHNA allocation .

Packet Page 256 of 846Attachment 4 Page 15 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 15 City of Fairfield, California Government Code Section 65583.2(c) requires that local jurisdictions determine their realistic capacity for new housing growth by means of a parcel-level analysis ofland resources with the potential to accommodate residential uses. The analysis of potential to accommodate new housing growth considered environmental factors which includes sensitive habitat. Although implementation of the programs contained in the docu- ment would accommodate development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation, future development would not be anticipated to significantly impact biological resources. Residential projects completed to meet the RHNA allocation are located downtown, along commercial corridors, and on infill sites within urban- ized areas or within nonvacant underutilized sites in developed areas. Infill sites are located within urban- ized areas where little or no native vegetation exists and where little potential exists for the occurrence of sensitive species habitat, riparian habitat, a sensitive natural community, federally protected wetlands, wild- life corridors, or nursery sites. Development anticipated by the HEU would also be required to comply with federal and State regulations related to biological resources, including the Federal Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, California Endangered Species Act, California Fish and Game Code, and the California Native Plant Protection Act as well as General Plan policies and the City's Municipal Code. However, de- pending on the location, future development in the city may have the potential to affect important biological resources. The potential impacts to various biological resources of future residential projects would be as- sessed at the time specific development projects are proposed. Mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact to biological resources because no development is proposed at this time. e-f. No Impact. Development anticipated by the HEU would be required to adhere to the existing City of Fairfield Tree Conservation Ordinance (Municipal Code, Section 25.36). Due to the lack of biological re- sources and heavily developed nature of the city, there are no Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Com- munity Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans adopted for the City. As a result, the HEU would not conflict with any local, regional, or state policies, plans, or ordinances protecting biological resources, and no impact would occur.

13.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a . Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeo- logical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of for- mal cemeteries?
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
a-c. No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program. While implementation of the HEU would ultimately require rezones to accommodate the RHNA allocation, rezones would not be approved as part of the current action. Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, produce environmental impacts. However, implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommodate de- velopment required to meet the City's RHNA allocation . The HEU would primarily involve facilitation of urban infill housing in established neighborhoods on existing lots and not in areas known to contain cul- tural resources or human remains. However, depending on the location, future development in the City has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Packet Page 257 of 846Attachment 4 Page 16 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 16 City of Fairfield, California CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeolog- ical resource pursuant to Guidelines Section 15064.5, or disturb human remains, including those interred outside of a formal cemetery. The HEU would not change or alter policies to protect cultural resources. The potential impacts to cultural resources of future residential projects would be assessed at the time specific development projects are proposed. Mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conform- ance with CEQA. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact to cultural resources because no development is proposed at this time.
s s . .:. -" :S ~ "' " t: = "' C 8., "' C. "' -"' ·= e ·-C -s .§ C.

C -= ::i o,:I .5 " -~ = ~ "' -£ ~ "' C ~ ~ 5 5i j "'

13.6 ENERGY. Would the project:
a. Result in potentially significant environmental impacts due to wasteful, inef- ficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project con-□ □ □ ~ struction or operation?
b. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy □ □ □ ~ efficiency? a and b . No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program. While implementa- tion of the HEU would ultimately require rezones to accommodate the RHNA allocation, rezones would not be approved as part of the current action. Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, produce environ- mental impacts. However, implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommo- date development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation. While energy resources would be con- sumed during construction of future residential development consistent with the HEU, potential impacts to energy resources of future residential projects would be assessed at the time specific development projects are proposed. Mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. In addition, individual residential development projects would be required to comply with the California's Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency Standards, which are updated periodically to allow for consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. This includes the update to Title 24, effective January 1, 2020, which requires that all new homes under three stories install solar panels.

Title 24 also applies to ADUs and requires them to include a solar energy system that can generate enough to offset the dwelling's annual electrical usage. Furthermore, individual residential development projects would also be subject to the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which addresses a variety of aspects of sustainable building practices involving water and energy conservation. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact to energy resources because no development is proposed at this time.

Packet Page 258 of 846Attachment 4 Page 17 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 17

13.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the ro·ect:
a. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk ofloss, in'ur , or death involvin :
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geolo- gist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geolo S ecial Publication 42 . ii. Stron seismic round shakin ?
iii. Seismic-related round failure, includin Ii uefaction? iv. Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of to soil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-site or off-site landslide, lateral s readin , subsidence, Ii uefaction or colla se? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or ro ert ?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or al- ternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the dis osal of wastewater?
f. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or uni ue eolo ic feature?
City of Fairfield, California
□ □ □ ~
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
□ □ □
a (i-iv). No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program. While implementa- tion of the HEU would ultimately require rezones to accommodate the RHNA allocation, rezones would not be approved as part of the current action. Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, produce environ- mental impacts. Although implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommo- date development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation, depending on the location, future develop- ment in the City has the potential to expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects from geologic hazards. This could include rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, and seismicity-related ground failure, including liquefaction, and landslides.

Similar to most areas in the San Francisco Bay Area, the City lies within a region known to be seismically active and is subject to periodic seismic shaking due to earthquakes along remote or regional faults. There- fore, the potential exists for people and structures associated with new residential projects to be exposed to strong ground shaking, ground failure, and soil instability. All future development consistent with the HEU would be conducted in accordance with the City's Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance (Municipal Code, Chapter 25, Article VI), the City's Hillside Development Overlay District guidelines (Municipal Code, Section 25.28.4), the current California Building Codes, and the specifications outlined in project- specific Geotechnical Investigations. Potential impacts related to seismic and geological hazards of future residential projects would be assessed at the time the specific development projects are proposed . Future Packet Page 259 of 846Attachment 4 Page 18 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 18 City of Fairfield, California projects would be required to comply with all relevant building standards and project-specific geotechnical design measures ensuring that impacts associated with seismic and geological hazards would be less than significant. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact related to geological hazards because no development is proposed at this time.
b. No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program. While implementation of the HEU would ultimately require rezones to accommodate the RHNA allocation, rezones would not be approved as part of the current action. Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, produce environmental impacts. However, implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommodate de- velopment required to meet the City's RHNA allocation. Future development consistent with the HEU would be required to comply with the provisions of the City's Municipal Code pertaining to grading and to stormwater controls. Specifically, these include the City's Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance (Munic- ipal Code, Chapter 25, Article VI) and the Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Municipal Code, Chapter 22B). Appropriate project-specific conditions and/or mitigation measures to re- duce potential impacts associated with soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact related to soil ero- sion because no development is proposed at this time.
c and d. No Impact. As described in the City General Plan Safety Element (2004), landslide and debris-flow hazards exist to various degrees in all of the hillside areas around Fairfield. A common cause of damaging landslides in the Bay Area is improper grading within hillside developments. Steeper slopes which contain many to very many landslides occur in Fairfield's rolling hills west oflnterstate 680. Further, day-rich top- soil with a high shrink-swell potential is common on the hillsides and valleys of the Fairfield Planning Area.

Potential impacts from landslides, liquefaction, and/or expansive soils associated with future residential development projects would be assessed at the time when the specific development projects are proposed.

Mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. Future projects would be required to comply wit h the provisions of the California Building Code and the Municipal Code's Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance to minimize exposure to potential geologic hazards. Recommen - dations of the project-specific Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation, which would ensure removal of un- suitable soils and proper fill and compaction, would o ccur during grading and construction activities to avoid assessed hazards. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact related to landslide, liq- uefaction and/or expansive soils because no dev elopment is proposed at this time. e. No Impact. Fairfield is served by established wastewater conveyance and treatment services operated by the Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District. Given that future development consistent with the HEU would be in urban infill sites in established neighborhoods, future development would connect to existing sewer trunk lines or future expansion of sewer trunk lines; the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewat er systems would not be required. As a result, no impact would occur. f. No Impact. Paleontologi cal resources are mineralized or fossilized remains of prehistor ic plants and a n- imals, as well as mineralized impressions or trace fossils that provide indirect evidence of the form and ac t iv ity of ancient organisms. To identify known fossil locations in the county for its General Plan EIR, the County of Solano conducted an online fossil locality search on May 13 , 2006, using the Berkeley N atural History Museums' online database, specifically data from the University of California Museum of Paleon- tology, Berkeley. Relevant paleontological and geological literature for Sol ano County and its vi cinity was reviewed for a characterization of the county's geology and paleontological sensitivity. The locality se ar ch identified 238 fossil localities within or directly adjacent to the county. Of this total, 69 localities consist of Packet Page 260 of 846Attachment 4 Page 19 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 19 City of Fairfield, California vertebrate specimens and 169 are invertebrate specimens. The localities occur in 12 distinguishable geologic formations, all of which are known to contain fossils. Most sedimentary geological units and some of the igneous geological units of Solano County are paleontologically sensitive.

Although not anticipated, sub-surface construction activities associated with the Project implementation, such as grading or trenching, could result in a significant impact to paleontological resources, if encoun- tered. Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of the unexpected discovery of human remains. Potential impacts to paleontological resources located within the housing sites would be assessed at the time the projects are proposed and minimized through compliance with existing regulations. Mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA and existing regulations. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact to paleontolog- ical resources because no development is proposed at this time. 0:: 1 ·= 0:: ·= -~ .,, ·-·= "' -v:: ~ .!:P ->-" :S 5 "' " t: = '" = g_ '" C. '" -'" ·= e ·-= -5 .§ C. = -= ::> o,:I .5 " -" -" ~ -0 = ~ ~ i ~ = ~ C. '" j '"

13.8 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may □ □ □ ~ have a significant impact on the environment? b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose □ □ □ ~ of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? a and b . No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program. While implementa- tion of the HEU would ultimately require rezones to accommodate the RHNA allocation, rezones would not be approved as part of the current action. Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, produce environ- mental impacts. However, implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommo- date development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation. According to the U.S. Environmental Pro- tection Agency, the burning of fossil fuels, along with deforestation, has caused the concentrations of heat- trapping greenhouse gasses (GHGs) to increase significantly in the earth's atmosphere (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2017). The increase in GHGs results in global warming, as more heat is trapped in the atmosphere. The potential impacts related to GHG emissions and global warming associated with future residential projects would be assessed at the time specific development projects are proposed. The City is currently in the process of preparing a new Climate Action Plan that will contain a series of measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the year 2050 consistent with established SB32 and EO B-55-18 targets.

Future projects consistent with the HEU would be required to show consistency with the GHG reduction measures in the City of Fairfield CAP as applicable under CEQA. Specifically, future project's inclusion of GHG reduction measures would assist the City in meeting its GHG reduction goals. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact related to GHG emissions because no development is proposed at this time.

Packet Page 261 of 846Attachment 4 Page 20 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 20 City of Fairfield, California 0:: $ .,!, 0:: ·= -~ = -·= .,, ·-
"' -v:: ~ .!:P ->-<.J :S ~ "' <.J t: = '" = g_ '" C. '" -'" ·-= e ·-= -s .§ C. = -= ::i ~ .5 " -~ = ~ "' -- = "' = ~ ~ '" ~ ~ 5-i .3 '"

13.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would
the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the rou-□ □ □ [8J tine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reason- ably foreseeable conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into □ □ □ [8J the environment?
C. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous mate- rials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed □ □ □ [8J school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, □ □ □ [8J would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use air-□ □ □ [8J port, would the project result in safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency □ □ □ [8J response plan or emergency evacuation plan? g. Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk □ □ □ [8J ofloss, injury or death involving wildland fires? a-c. No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program. While implementation of the HEU would ultimately require rezones to accommodate the RHNA allocation, rezones would not be approved as part of the current action. Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, result in potential impacts from hazards and hazardous material that may endanger residents or the environment. Because no devel- opment would occur as a result of approval of the HEU, approval of the HEU would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous material, nor create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Further, as a policy document, approval of the HEU would not result in the emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of existing or proposed schools. The potential impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials for future residential projects would be as- sessed at the time specific development projects are proposed. Mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. In addition, development anticipated by the HEU would be re- quired to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local regulations related to the transportation, use, and storage of hazardous materials. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact related to hazards and hazardous materials because no development is proposed at this time. d. No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program. While implementation of the HEU would ultimately require rezones to accommodate the RHNA allocation, rezones would not be approved as part of the current action. At the time of individual development proposals, the sites of pro- posed future residential projects would be evaluated using appropriate databases including the California Packet Page 262 of 846Attachment 4 Page 21 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 21 City of Fairfield, California Department of Toxic Substances Control's EnviroStor database which, pursuant to Government Code Sec- tion 65962.5, lists Federal Superfund, State Response, Voluntary Cleanup, School Cleanup, Hazardous Waste Permit, and Hazardous Waste Corrective Action site, and the State Water Resources Control Board's Geo Tracker database, which tracks authorized or unauthorized discharges of waste to land, or unauthorized releases of hazardous substances from underground storage tanks. The potential impacts related to any listed hazardous materials sites associated with any specific future residential projects would be assessed at the time the projects are proposed mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact related to hazardous material sites because no development is proposed at this time.
e. No Impact. The City of Fairfield is not located within a private airstrip or airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport.

The Nut Tree Airport in Vacaville and Napa County Airport in Napa are located approximately 9.6 miles and 12. 7 miles to the northeast and west of the city, respectively. However, the City of Fairfield is located within the vicinity of Travis Air Force Base (AFB), a United States Air Force base located three miles east of the central business district of Fairfield . Development anticipated by the HEU involves infill residential development on previously developed parcels within the existing neighborhoods of the city. Further, all development would comply with the Travis AFB Land Use Compatibility Plan (LUCP) criteria. Therefore, implementation of the HEU would result in no impact related to airport hazards. f. No Impact. The HEU would be consistent with all related General Plan policies. This includes policies addressing the City's emergency response plans. Approval of the HEU would not result in the construction of any projects. All future development would be reviewed to ensure that they are consistent with and would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, including the Solano County Emergency Operation Plan (EOP). However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact related to emergency or evacuation plans because no development is proposed at this time. g. No Impact. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has mapped areas in Solano County with significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors .

These zones, referred to as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ), are classified by the CAL FIRE Director in accordance with Government Code Sections 51175-51189 to assist responsible local agen- cies identify measures to reduce the potential for losses of life, property, and resources from wildland fire.

According to the map of Very Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs) for Solano County, the city is not within a VHFHSZ, nor is it in the vicinity of one. Approval of the HEU would not result in any specific development projects and would not, in itself, expose people to wildfire hazards. Future development would be also required to show fire safety measures consistent with the California Building Code and the City's regulations related to fire safety and ensure that it would not interfere with emergency response plans related to risk from fire (see also Section 13.20 of this study). Therefore, approval of the HEU would result in no impact relative to wildland fires.
-'-' >-::l CJ) ~ t: = "' =;~ "' Q. " Q. "' ·z e -~ " -s .§ Q. "~ = ::i-,:, .5 i ~ " -" ~ -~ ~ i ~ " ~ ..:l "'

13.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:

Packet Page 263 of 846Attachment 4 Page 22 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 22 City of Fairfield, California -" ::S ~ CJ) " t: = "' = g_ "' C. "' -"' ·z e -~ = -s .§ C.

C -= ~ '"O .5 ., -" -., "' --C ~ ~ i "' = ~ rf. "' .3 "' a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or oth-□ □ □ ~ erwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? b. Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable ground-□ □ □ ~ water management of the basin
C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addi- tion of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site; n n n IXl ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner □ □ □ ~ which would result in flooding on-or off-site; iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial □ □ □ ~ additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. impede or redirect flood flows? n n n IXl
d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to □ □ □ ~ project inundation? e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or □ □ □ ~ sustainable groundwater management plan? a and c (i-iv). No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program. While imple- mentation of the HEU would ultimately require rezones to accommodate the RHNA allocation, rezones would not be approved as part of the current action. Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, produce environmental impacts. However, implementation of the programs contained in the document would ac- commodate development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation. Residential projects completed to meet the RHNA requirement are expected to be located on infill sites in urbanized areas, and the City has procedures and regulations in place to ensure that there would be no significant impacts associated with water quality. Future development consistent with the HEU would be required to adhere to all applicable federal, State, and local regulations, including the City's Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance (Municipal Code, Chapter 22B) which requires projects to incorporate construction and post- construction BMPs to ensure storm water runoff is controlled in a manner that would minimize water quality degradation, ensure that drainage patterns were not altered, and substantial erosion would not oc- cur. Construction activities must also comply with the NPDES Construction General Permit which requires standard erosion control measures and BMPs identified in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implemented during construction to reduce sedimentation in waterways and any loss of top- soil. Development associated with the HEU would be required to comply with the City's MS4 requirements and prepare a stormwater control plan, which would require construction-site control and erosion control BMPs to reduce impacts related to stormwater runoff. Conformance with federal, State, and local regula- tions would also ensure that future projects would not result in increased rates or amounts of surface runoff, exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or impede or redirect flood flows.

Project-specific effects would be assessed at the time future development projects are proposed. Mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact related to polluted run-off because no development is proposed at this time.

Packet Page 264 of 846Attachment 4 Page 23 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 23 City of Fairfield, California b. No Impact. The City of Fairfield falls within the Suisun-Fairfield Valley Groundwater Basin. Implemen- tation of the HEU would primarily involve facilitation of housing on existing urban infill lots. All develop- ment associated with the HEU would be subject to the applicable provisions of Chapters 22A and 22B of the Municipal Code regarding water efficient landscaping and stormwater management and drainage plans.

Compliance with these regulations would ensure that future development would not result in substantial increases of impervious surfaces such that groundwater recharge would be hindered. No impact to ground- water would occur.
d. No Impact. Each of the potential housing sites were reviewed on the City's land use and zoning maps.

Potential development constraints were then identified, including Federal Emergency Management Agency flood panels. Sites with a high risk of flood hazard were excluded from the inventory. Development would also be required to comply with Chapter SA of the Municipal Code, Flood Damage Prevention, and the City's Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. Compliance with these regulations would limit the risk of loss and damage due to flooding to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, potential impacts related to flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, and risk release of pollutants due to project inundation, would be assessed at the time future development projects are proposed. Mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact related to flooding because no development is proposed at this time. e. No Impact. As discussed above, future development consistent with the HEU would be required to ad- here to all applicable federal, State and local regulations with respect to water quality. The Suisun-Fairfield Valley Groundwater Basin is not designated as a priority basin, thus is not required to prepare a sustainable groundwater management plan. As a result, no plan has been prepared for the basin. For these reasons, future development consistent with the HEU would not substantially degrade water quality or conflict with a sustainable groundwater management plan, and no impact would occur. s s . .!. ii: = = -.!:!' l)l) ·-·.;
<J) -
V) ~ .!:P -~ .., ~::: <J) .., t = "' = ., = g_ "' 0.. "' -"' ·.: a ·-= -5 .§ 0.. = -= ::i o,:I .§ ., -~ = ~ ~ -1 = ~ = .j "' ~ ~ ~ "l "'

13.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community? n n n IX] b. Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating □ □ □ ~ an environmental effect?
a. No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program. While implementation of the HEU would ultimately require rezones in appropriate locations to accommodate the RHNA allocation, rezones would not be approved as part of the current action. Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, produce environmental impacts. However, implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommodate development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation. Although implementation of the programs contained in the document would encourage residential development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation, such residential projects are expected to be located on commercial corridors and infill sites within urbanized areas and existing neighborhoods. Because commercial corridors and infill sites are part of the existing urban fabric, projects developed on them would not be likely to physically divide an established community. Potential impacts would be evaluated at the time specific development projects are Packet Page 265 of 846Attachment 4 Page 24 of 40

1 1
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 24 City of Fairfield, California proposed. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact related to physically dividing a com- munity because no development is proposed at this time. b. No Impact. The HEU would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The plan identifies strategies and programs to conserve and improve the existing housing stock, pro- vide housing for special needs populations, supply enough new housing to meet the City's fair share of the region 's need, preserve at-risk affordable housing units, and strategically further fair housing opportunities.

To accommodate the RHNA allocation, the plan includes programs that would explore amending the zon- ing ordinance and allowing mixed uses within certain commercial areas and corridors, in some cases allow- ing residential development densities to be increased to a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre. The va- riety of housing types in Fairfield will be increased through establishing supportive development densities and lot size requirements. Affordable housing development in these target areas will be enhanced through the City's expedited permit procedures for developments providing affordable to lower-income households.

The land use designations associated with the plan are not under consideration at this time and the amend- ments will be processed as part of the proposed 2050 General Plan update. Related zoning amendments will be processed after adoption of the 2050 General Plan. Adopting the HEU would be inconsistent with the City's existing General Plan until land use and zoning amendments are adopted and implemented. Once the City has adopted the proposed 2050 General Plan update, a comprehensive update to the Zoning Code will follow to ensure that the Zoning Code is consistent with and effectively implements the 2050 General Plan. Future development that implements the plan could not occur until any necessary General Plan amendments and rezoning are adopted. However, adopting the plan does not specifically propose any de- velopment projects, meaning no physical environmental impacts would occur. While the proposed 2050 General Plan update is currently inconsistent with the adopted General Plan, no physical environmental impacts would occur from this inconsistency. When adopting the 2050 General Plan, the plan would be consistent with the updated Land Use Element and Land Use Map. Any potential environmental impacts associated with adopting the Land Use Plan would be evaluated and mitigated, as necessary, during the environmental review process for the proposed 2050 General Plan update . Therefore, no conflict would remain upon adopting the 2050 General Plan. Adopting the proposed 2050 General Plan update, and ad- dressing the zoning code amendments within the required timeframe, would result in consistency between the Land Use Element and HEU. Therefore, adopting the plan would not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations, and no impact would occur.

On September 28, 2021, Governor Newsom approved Assembly Bill (AB) 1398 to ensure that cities and counties are adequately rezoning to meet their housing needs. AB 1398 reduces the allowable timeframe for rezoning for jurisdictions that do not adopt a housing element that HCD finds to be in substantial compliance with state law within 120 days of the statutory dead- line . Previously three years were allowed for the rezoning if the Housing Elemen t was adopted within 120 days of the sta tutory deadline. AB 1398 requires a jurisdiction that do es not adopt a housing element that HCD finds to be in substantial compliance with state law within 120 days of the statutory deadline to complete rezoning no later than one year from the statutory deadline for the adoption of the housing element. AB 1398 amends Government Code Sections 65583, 65583.2, and 65588.

Packet Page 266 of 846Attachment 4 Page 25 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 25 City of Fairfield, California 0:: 0:: 0:: ·= -~ :'3 .~ ;;:; ~ ·=
V') -.!:P ->- -~ V') <.J t: = '" = ~ = g_ '" C. '" -'" ·-= e ·~ = -s .§ C. = -= ::i o,:I .5 " -~ = ~ ~ -0 = ~ = ~ C. '" £ (1:1 5-i .3 '"

13.12 MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be □ □ □ ~ of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource re- covery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land-use □ □ □ ~ plan?
a and b. No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program. While implementa- tion of the HEU would ultimately require rezones to accommodate the RHNA allocation, rezones would not be approved as part of the current action. Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, produce environ- mental impacts. However, implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommo- date development required to meet City's RHNA allocation. According to the 2008 Solano County General Plan, Solano County is rich in a number of nonfuel mineral resources. Mineral resources mined or produced within Solano County include mercury, sand and gravel, clay, stone products, calcium, and sulfur. There are numerous known mineral resource zones (MRZs) located in Fairfield and there are several HEU sites located in these zones. The State requires local jurisdictions to adopt policies that restrict designated mineral resource sites from premature development and protect surrounding communities from impacts associated with mineral extraction. The County's General Plan policies related to mineral resources facilitate the preservation of areas with important mineral resources by preventing residential, commercial, and indus- trial development that would be incompatible with mining practices to the extent feasible. Adherence to the County's General Plan policies would ensure that impacts to mineral resources would result in less than significant impacts in project areas. The potential impacts related to mineral resources from implementa- tion of the HEU programs would be assessed at the time specific development projects are proposed. Miti- gation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. Therefore, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact related to mineral resources because no development is proposed at this time.

Packet Page 267 of 846Attachment 4 Page 26 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 26 City of Fairfield, California i.:: $ .,!, i.:: ·= .!:/' = -·= .,, ·-
"' -v:: ~ -~ ->-<.J :S ~ "' <.J t: =; z. "' -; ~ "' ·.: e ·-= -= .§ C. = -= ::i ~ .§ " -~ = ~ "' -0 = ] ~ ~ C. "' ~ ~ 5-i

13.13 NOISE. Would the project result in:
a. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in □ □ □ [8J the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generation of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration □ □ □ [8J or groundborne noise levels? C. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a □ □ □ [8J public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a-b. No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program. While implementation of the HEU would explore allowing mixed uses within certain commercial areas and corridors in Cordelia and east of Oliver Road, in some cases allowing residential development densities to be increased to accom- modate the RHNA allocation, rezones would not be approved as part of the current action. Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, produce environmental impacts. However, implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommodate development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation.

The majority of development is expected on commercial corridors, infill sites within urbanized areas, or within vacant underutilized sites. During construction activities associated with future residential develop- ment, the potential would exist for temporary or periodic increases in noise levels and/or ground-borne noise and vibration levels on and adjacent to project sites. The degree of such increases would depend on the type and intensity of construction activity, equipment type used, duration of equipment used, and dis- tance between the noise source and noise receiver. Residential development also has the potential to result in incremental increases in long-term noise levels generated by increased vehicular traffic as well as new stationary sources of noise. Adherence to the City's Municipal Code Chapter 25 Noise Regulations and compliance with General Plan Noise Element Polices would ensure that any such noise and vibration in- creases, both temporary and permanent, would result in less than significant impacts within project areas.

The potential impacts related to noise for future residential projects would be assessed at the time specific development projects are proposed. Mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conform- ance with CEQA .
c. No Impact. The City of Fairfield is not located within a private airstrip or airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted. The Nut Tree Airport in Vacaville and Napa County Airport in Napa are located approximately 9.6 miles and 12 .7 miles to the northeast and west of the city, respectively. However, the City of Fairfield is located within the vicinity of Travis Air Force Base (AFB), a United States Air Force base located three miles east of the central business district of Fairfield. Travis AFB is home to three U.S.

Air Force command units with two runways oriented from northeast to southwest. The noise contours for Travis AFB are included in the 2015 Travis Air Force Base Land Use Compatibility Plan. While the City is affected by the overflight of airplanes from the Travis AFB, development anticipated by the HEU involves infill residential development on previously developed parcels within the existing neighborhoods of the city.

Further, all development would comply with the Travis AFB Compatibility Plan (LUCP) criteria. Therefore, future development consistent with the HEU would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels, and no impact would occur.

Packet Page 268 of 846Attachment 4 Page 27 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 27 City of Fairfield, California 0:: $ .,!, 0:: ·= -~ = -·= .,, ·-
"' -v:: ~ .!:P ->-" :S ~ "' " t: = "' = g_ "' C. "' -"' ·-= e ·-= -s .§ C. = -= ::i ~ .5 " -~ = ~ "' -0 = "' = ~ C. "' ~ (1:1 5-i .3 "'

13.14 POPULATION & HOUSING. Would the project:
a. Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for ex -□ □ □ [8J ample, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the □ □ □ [8J construction of replacement housing elsewhere? a. No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, and its adoption would not, in itself, produce environmental impacts. It consists of a housing program; no actual development is proposed as part of the HEU. While implementation of the HEU would explore programs allowing mixed uses in commercial areas and corri- dors, thereby increasing minimum densities, to accommodate the RHNA allocation, rezones would not be approved as part of the current action. The City anticipates completing a comprehensive General Plan Up- date shortly after adoption of the Housing Element, where any impacts resulting from designation changes on sites will be evaluated; this will occur prior to any rezoning.

The HEU utilizes the 2023-2031 RHNA to plan for and accommodate population growth. Implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommodate development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation, which specifies a need for the production of 3,069 units. To accommodate this RHNA allocation, the HEU includes programs that would explore allowing mixed uses within certain commercial areas and corridors in Cordelia and east of Oliver Road. In some cases, allowing residential development densities to be increased to a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre and up to a maximum of 50 dwelling units per acre. The variety of housing types in Fairfield will be increased through establishing supportive densities and lot size requirements. This type of development is designed to focus on redevelopment and revitalization of areas already served by infrastructure and would not require extensions of roads or other infrastructure. With the implementation of rezoning and additional programs in the HEU to increase hous- ing capacity, there would be adequate land available to accommodate the City's RHNA allocation. There- fore, the HEU would result in no impact associated with population growth, either directly or indirectly. b. No Impact. The HEU includes programs that would explore allowing mixed uses within certain com- mercial areas and corridors in Cordelia and east of Oliver Road, to accommodate the RHNA allocation, thereby increasing capacity for new housing. Additionally, the HEU requires adequate supply of housing at all income levels, including an update the Land Use Element and Zoning Code to facilitate the development of diverse housing options and replacement of any existing or protected units demolished during redevel- opment. The HEU also protects the existing housing stock, especially affordable units, by supporting reha- bilitation and protecting units at risk of conversion to market-rate housing. For these reasons, future devel- opment consistent with the HEU would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere, and no impact would occur. $ 0:: ' 0:: = -~ :-2 -~ ·= "' t: v:: ~ .:::P ->-£ ! "' ~ t: = "' -~ C. -~ = = C. "' .5 -s .§ C. = = ::i '"'=' .5 " = ~ = ~ "' -~ "' = ~ "' ~ (1:1 5-i .3 "'

13.15 PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project:

Packet Page 269 of 846Attachment 4 Page 28 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 28
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physi- cally altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i) Fire Protection?
ii) Police Protection?
iii) Schools?
iv) Parks?
v) Other ublic facilities?
City of Fairfield, California
a (i-v). No Impact. The Fairfield Fire Department provides fire services within the City of Fairfield. The Fire Department is responsible for all aspects of fire service operations, including fire suppression, emer- gency medical services and fire prevention. The Fire Department currently has five fire stations covering all major portions of the city, with another station under construction at Business Center Drive in Cordelia.

The Fairfield Police Department provides police protection in the City. The Police Department is head- quartered at 1000 Webster Street, in Fairfield . The Department is divided into two bureaus: Operations and Support Services. Operations consists of Patrol, Traffic, Investigations and the Special Operations Divisions, while Support Services consists of Administrative staff, Community Services, Records and Dispatch Divi- sions. FPD divides the city into five Public Service Areas . Currently, 62% of all calls for service occur in the Central and South Public Service Areas of Fairfield. Officers are deployed throughout the 40 square miles in order to maintain a reasonable response time to calls for service; however, officers spend significant time responding back to the South and Central PSAs. The Investigations unit is moving to Cordelia, which will increase staffing in this area by approximately 30 members.

Both Fairfield-Suisun and Travis Unified School Districts (USD) provide school services for the City of Fairfield . Fairfield-Suisun USD boundaries encompass most of Fairfield, with the exception of the Travis Air Base and surrounding neighborhoods. Travis USD operates five elementary schools and three second- ary schools, while Fairfield-Suisun district operates 19 elementary schools, four middle schools, three high schools, five alternative schools, and one adult school. Based on its 2016 Facilities Master Plan, FSUSD enrollment is projected to decrease by 373 students from the 2015-2016 school year enrollment to the 2025-2026 school year. However, certain schools were projected to see moderate increases in enrollment, include Rolling Hills, Oakbrook, and Tolenas elementary schools; B. Gale Wilson and Matt Garcia middle schools; Armijo, Fairfield and Rodriguez high schools; and the Public Safety Academy. The State requires school districts to look at the overall capacity of the school district and send "overflow students" to other nearby schools until capacity becomes available.

The HEU is a policy document consisting of a housing program. Implementation of the programs contained in the HEU would accommodate development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation, which specifies a need for the production of 3,069 units. To accommodate this RHNA allocation, the HEU includes Packet Page 270 of 846Attachment 4 Page 29 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 29 City of Fairfield, California programs that would explore allowing mixed uses within certain commercial areas and corridors in Cor- delia and east of Oliver Road. Development anticipated by the HEU would primarily occur within existing service areas, and thus would be located close to existing fire and police stations. Residential development of this magnitude would be expected to increase the demand for public services, including schools. At this time, State and school district procedures redistribute students to nearby schools, so capacity demands are minimized and addressed. School districts do not have plans to construct new schools at this time. Addi- tionally, future housing projects associated with implementation of the HEU and future development asso- ciated with the General Plan Update will continue to be reviewed to ensure the adequate provision of public services, specifically schools, through the adequate facilities policies already in place in the City.

As discussed below in Section 13.19, Recreation, development anticipated by the HEU would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated. Future housing projects will continue to be reviewed to ensure the adequate provision of public services through the adequate facilities policies already in place in the City, including providing new parkland as per City standards. Development antici- pated by the HEU would also not have a significant impact due to inclusion of recreational facilities or required construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Finally, development anticipated by the HEU is not expected to place a substantial burden on other public facilities, such as administrative facilities and libraries. Should public service facilities need to be constructed in the future, construction of those facilities could result in environmental impacts. All new or expanded public service facilities would be subject to CEQA requirements for environmental assessment, which would allow for the identification and consideration of potential impacts and mitigation, although compli- ance would not necessarily guarantee that significant impacts would be avoided or mitigated. However, based on existing regulations, the construction of these public service facility projects would be required to implement measures to protect significant biological and cultural resources, reduce air and GHG emissions, and reduce noise, and thus environmental effects are expected to be minimal. As no development is pro- posed at this time, no impact associated with the provision of new or expanded public service facilities would occur.
-u ;:S~ t, ~ ~ a ~ " ·E e " -"'" -~ = -= e = -5 ~ .,:j --.§ OJ -~ -0 = -= ,2:l ~ = ~ "'" " i 13 ~ .3 13

13.16 RECREATION. Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recre- ational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility □ □ □ ~ would occur or be accelerated?
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of rec- reational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the envi-□ □ □ ~ ronment?
a and b. No Impact. The City of Fairfield Parks and Recreation Department provides parks and recreation services for the Fairfield community. Parks and Recreation operates and maintains 24 parks, facilities, and golf courses, two neighborhood centers, an adult recreation center, and a nature park and education center.

As discussed in Section 13.14, Population and Housing, the adoption of the HEU itself would not produce environmental impacts that would directly or indirectly result in population growth. The HEU is a policy Packet Page 271 of 846Attachment 4 Page 30 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 30 City of Fairfield, California document, consisting of a housing program. Implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommodate development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation, which specifies a need for the production of 3,069 units. To accommodate this RHNA allocation, the HEU includes programs that would explore allowing mixed uses within certain commercial areas and corridors in Cordelia and east of Oliver Road. Additional residential development may result in the increased use of existing recreational facilities or the need for construction or expansion of recreational facilities to meet the needs of new resi- dents. Should new or expanded recreational facilities be constructed in the future, construction of those facilities could result in environmental impacts. All new or expanded recreational facilities would be subject to CEQA requirements for environmental assessment, which would allow for the identification and con- sideration of potential impacts and mitigation, although compliance would not necessarily guarantee that significant impacts would be avoided or mitigated. However, based on existing regulations, the construction of these recreational projects would be required to implement measures to protect significant biological and cultural resources, reduce air and GHG emissions, and reduce noise, and thus environmental effects are expected to be minimal. As no development is proposed at this time, no impact associated with the provi- sion of new or expanded recreational facilities would occur. ,..:: s .,!, ,..:: ·= -~ ~-':! ·= "' - -" :S ~ "' " t: = "' ; ~ "' C. "' -"' ·-= e -~ = -5 .§ 0. = -= ::i .,:;; .§ " -" -" ] ! -= £ ~ a ~ ~ "'

13.17 TRANSPORTATION. Would the project:
a. Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation □ □ □ ~ system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? b. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivi-□ □ □ ~ sion (b )? C. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e .g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e .g., farm equip-□ □ □ ~ ment)?
d. Result in inadequate emergency access? n n n IXl
a. No Impact. The City's General Plan Circulation Element identifies the existing transportation conditions in the city. Existing and future roadways are included in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The city is served by the Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST), which consists of eight local routes serving the cities of Fairfield and Suisun City, including a stop at the Suisun/Fairfield Amtrak station which connects to the larger San Francisco Bay Area region. The City's current Circulation Element includes an inventory of existing bicycle and pedestrian trails.

As discussed in Section 13.14, Population and Housing, the adoption of the HEU itself would not produce impacts that would directly or indirectly result in population growth; thus, the HEU would also not result in a direct increase to the City's circulation system. The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program. Implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommodate development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation, which specifies a need for the production of 3,069 units. To accommodate this RHNA allocation, the HEU includes programs that would explore allowing mixed uses within certain commercial areas and corridors in Cordelia and east of Oliver Road . In some cases, allowing residential development densities to be increased to a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre and up to a maximum of 50 dwelling units per acre. New residential development would typically be expected to result in additional vehicular trips and the increased use of streets (for all modes of transportation); however, the Packet Page 272 of 846Attachment 4 Page 31 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 31 City of Fairfield, California HEU identifies suitable sites for residential development that have capacity for demand. The development anticipated by the HEU would occur within commercial corridors, urban infill sites and nonvacant un- derutilized sites. Future development would be consistent with the City's Circulation Element, which in- cludes considerations of how local traffic will circulate through the City under both existing and future conditions, as well as addressing the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users. Therefore, future development consistent with the HEU would be expected to generate fewer vehicular trips and more multi- modal trips than conventional development. As a result, future development consistent with the HEU would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. Potential conflicts with transportation plans associated with fu- ture residential projects would be assessed at the time specific development projects are proposed. Mitiga- tion measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact related to conflicts with transportation plans because no development is proposed at this time.
b. No Impact. Because it is a policy document, consisting of a housing program, implementation of the HEU would not result in impacts related to consistency with adopted transportation plans, transportation facilities, safety, and VMT. The HEU includes programs that would explore amending the zoning ordinance and allowing mixed uses within certain commercial area corridors, in some cases allowing residential de- velopment densities to be increased to a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre and up to a maximum of 50 dwelling units per acre. Implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommo- date development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation. Potential traffic impacts related to in- creased Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) with future residential projects would be assessed at the time specific development projects are proposed. Mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conform- ance with CEQA. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact related to VMT because no development is proposed at this time.
c-d. No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program. Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, produce environmental impacts. Implementation of the HEU would include programs that would explore amending the zoning ordinance and allowing mixed uses within certain commercial areas and corridors, in some cases allowing residential development densities to be increased to a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre. Implementation of the programs contained in the document would accom- modate development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation. Access locations for future development consistent with the HEU development would be designed to the City's standards. Potential traffic impacts related to traffic hazards and emergency access with future residential projects would be assessed at the time specific development projects are proposed. Mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact related to traffic haz- ards and emergency access because no development is proposed at this time.

Packet Page 273 of 846Attachment 4 Page 32 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 32 City of Fairfield, California 0:: $ .,!, 0:: ·= -~ ~-'!:: ·= "' -v:::;; .!:P -
>-" :S ~ "' " t: = .. ; ~ .. C. .. -.. ·= e ·-C -= .§ C.

C -= ::i "'O .§ " -" -" "' --C £ ~ i ] ~ ~ ~ ..

13.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural re- source, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site , fea- ture, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Re- sources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public □ □ □ ~ Resources Code section 5020 .l(k)?
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and sup- ported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision I of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In ap-□ □ □ ~ plying the criteria set forth in subdivision(c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
a (i and ii). No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program. While implemen- tation of the HEU would ultimately require rezones to accommodate the RHNA allocation, rezones would not be approved as part of the current action. Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, produce environ- mental impacts. However, implementation of the programs contained in the document would accommo- date development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation. Future development would be required to follow the protocol pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18 regarding notification and consultation with Native American Tribes. As a result, tribal cultural resources would be properly identified, and miti- gation measures would be proposed to reduce impacts on these resources. The potential impacts to tribal cultural resources of future residential projects would be assessed at the time specific development projects are proposed. Mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. How- ever, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact to tribal cultural resources because no development is proposed at this time.
$ 1 ·= 0:: C -~ .,, ·-·=
V, -v:::;; .!:P -
>-" :S ~ "' " t: = .. C 8., .. C. .. -.. ·= e ·-C -5 .§ C.

C -= ::i o,:I .§ ~ = " -" "' -~ ~ i "' C ~ (f, .. .3 ..

13.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the pro-
ject:
a. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or □ □ □ ~ telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
b. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably □ □ □ ~ foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Packet Page 274 of 846Attachment 4 Page 33 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 33 City of Fairfield, California 0:: $ .,!, 0:: ·= -~ = -·= .,, ·-
"' -v:: ~ .!:P ->-<.J :S ~ "' <.J t: = '" = g_ '" C. '" -'" ·-= e ·-= -s .§ C. = -= ::i ~ .5 " -~ = ~ "' -0 = "' = ~ C. '" ~ ~ 5-i .3 '" C. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves, or may serve, the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects □ □ □ [8J projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? d. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid □ □ □ [8J waste reduction goals?
e. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and □ □ □ [8J regulations related to solid waste? a. No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program. Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, produce environmental impacts. However, implementation of the programs contained in the document would explore amending the zoning ordinance and allowing mixed uses within certain commercial areas and corridors; in some cases, allowing residential development densities to be increased to a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre, to accommodate development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation. New residential development would be expected to increase the burden on existing util- ities and service systems involving water, wastewater treatment storm water drainage, and solid waste dis- posal. Nonetheless, because the development anticipated by the HEU would occur primary on vacant or underutilized sites already served by well-established utilities service systems, there would not be a signifi- cant need for the expansion of existing systems of the construction of new systems, in compliance with applicable statutes and regulations . Surface water supplied to the City of Fairfield is treated at two treatment plants, Waterman Water Treatment Plant and North Bay Regional Water Treatment Plan, which are both located in Fairfield, while wastewater generated in the City is treated at Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District, also located in Fairfield. The Waterman Water Treatment Plant has a capacity of 16 to 30 millions gallons per day (MGD), while the North Bay Regional Water Treatment Plan treats up to 40 MGD. The typical flow for the Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District is between 10 to 15 MGD. As a result, these facilities have sufficient remaining capacity to treat the full increase in water demand and sewage attributable to future development consistent with the HEU . However, should upgrades to infrastructure be required as a result of new devel- opment, construction of those facilities could result in environmental impacts. All new or expanded infra- structure projects would be subject to CEQA requirements for environmental assessment, which would allow for the identification and consideration of potential impacts and mitigation, although compliance would not necessarily guarantee that significant impacts would be avoided or mitigated. However, based on existing regulations, the construction of these infrastructure projects would be required to implement measures to protect significant biological and cultural resources, reduce air and GHG emissions, and reduce noise, and thus environmental effects are expected to be minimal. As no development is proposed at this time, no impact associated with the provision of new or expanded infrastructure would occur. b. No Impact. The City's potable water sources are supplied by the Solano County Water Agency (SCWA).

SCW A obtains its water from the Solano Project, the State Water Project, Settlement Water, and recycled water. The SCW A currently considers the Solano Project a reliable water source subject to minor reductions during droughts. The City operates its own distribution systems, which contain more than 270 miles of water mains and provide water to more than 20,000 service connections within the city limits, filtered and disinfected by the two aforementioned treatment plants in Fairfield. As stated in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the City of Fairfield, there are adequate supplies to meet demand under normal, single dry year, and five consecutive dry year conditions through the year 2045 ( City of Fairfield Packet Page 275 of 846Attachment 4 Page 34 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 34 City of Fairfield, California 2021). Future development would be required to ensure that adequate water supplies would be available to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. The potential impacts related to water supply for future residential projects would be assessed at the time specific devel- opment projects are proposed. Mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact related to water supply because no development is proposed at this time.
c. No Impact. As discussed above, the wastewater treatment facilities serving the City of Fairfield has suffi- cient remaining capacity to treat the full increase in sewage attributable to future development consistent with the HEU. The potential impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity for future residential projects would be assessed at the time specific development projects are proposed. Mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact related to wastewater treatment capacity because no development is proposed at this time. d and e. No Impact. Republic Services is the City's exclusive franchised hauler for the City's solid waste, recyclables, and green waste. It is assumed their services have sufficient capacity to receive solid waste gen- erated by future development consistent with the HEU. Additionally, future projects would be required to show that they would not generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals, and would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulation related to solid waste. The potential impacts related to solid waste for future residential projects would be assessed at the time specific development projects are proposed. Miti- gation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact related to solid waste because no development is proposed at this time. s s ,,!, ii: = = -·.; .!:!' .,, ·-
<J) -v:: ~ .!:P -~ u :S ~ <J) u t = " = g_ " Q, " -" ·.: e ·-= -5 .§ Q, = -= ::i -d .§ " -" -" ~ -- = £ ~ i ~ = .j (1 " "l "
I 3.20WILDFIRE. If located in or near state responsibility areas or land classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency □ □ □ ~ evacuation plan? b. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a □ □ □ ~ wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
C. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) □ □ □ ~ that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing im- pacts to the environment?
d. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope in-□ □ □ ~ stability, or drainage changes?
a-d. No Impact. The HEU is a policy document, consisting of a housing program. Therefore, its adoption would not, in itself, produce environmental impacts. However, implementation of the programs contained in the HEU would explore amending the zoning ordinance and allowing mixed uses within certain Packet Page 276 of 846Attachment 4 Page 35 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 35 City of Fairfield, California commercial areas and corridors. In some cases, this would potentially allow residential development den- sities to be increased to a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre. Implementation of the programs con- tained in the document would accommodate development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection ( CAL FIRE) has mapped areas in Solano County with significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors. These zones, re- ferred to as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ), are classified by the CAL FIRE Director in accordance with Government Code Sections 51175-51189 to assist responsible local agencies identify measures to reduce the potential for losses of life, property, and resources from wildland fire. The City is located within a Local Responsibility Area in a highly urbanized environment that is near areas of wildfire risk. The City of Fairfield is not located in a state responsibility area or land; however, parts of Fairfield are adjacent to areas classified as a high and moderate fire hazard severity zones (CALFIRE 2007). Future de- velopment consistent with the HEU would be reviewed for consistency with fire protection development standards and hazard abatement in accordance with state, regional, and local policies. Specifically, individ- ual projects would be required to lower fire risk through best practices such as weed abatement, adequate emergency vehicle access, use of non-combustible building materials, and adequate water pressure to en- sure fire safety. The potential impacts related to wildland fire for future residential projects would be as- sessed at the time specific development projects are proposed. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impact related to wildfire because no development is proposed at this time. ,..:: ,..:: ,..:: ·= --.,!, -~ ~--:; ·= "' - -" ::S ~ "' " t: = '" ; ~ '" C. '" -'" ·.: E -~ = -= .§ C. = -= ~ "'O .§ ., -" -" "' -- = ~ 5 ~ "' = ~ i '" ..:l '"

13.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFI-
CANCE. Does the project:
a. Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, sub- stantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten □ □ □ ~ to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number, or restrict the range, of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively consid- erable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental ef- □ □ □ ~ fects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
C. Have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse □ □ □ ~ effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a-c. No Impact. As discussed throughout the above portions of the Initial Study Checklist, the HEU is a policy document and its adoption would not, in itself, produce environmental impacts. Although imple- mentation of the programs contained in the document would accommodate development required to meet the City's RHNA allocation, the HEU does not identify, describe, promote, entitle, or permit any particular residential development project. The act of adopting the updated HEU does not, therefore, have the poten- tial to result in environmental impacts, either limited or cumulative, affecting habitat; plant or animal com- munities; rare, endangered, or threatened species; historic resources; or human beings. Potential impacts Packet Page 277 of 846Attachment 4 Page 36 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 36 City of Fairfield, California resulting from the development of future residential projects would be assessed at the time specific devel- opment projects are proposed. Mitigation measures would then be adopted as necessary, in conformance with CEQA. However, adoption of the HEU would result in no impacts because no development is pro- posed at this time.

14. PREPARATION. THE INITIAL STUDY FOR THE SUBJECT PROJECT WAS PREPARED BY:

Dyett & Bhatia, Urban and Regional Planners, on behalf of the City of Fairfield.

I 5. DETERMINATION. (REDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT) BASED ON THIS INITIAL EVALUATION:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a [X] NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be pre- pared.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVI- RONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
[ ] I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially sig- nificant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been ade- quately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that r e- main to be addressed.
[ ] I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, be- cause all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEG- ATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigati on m eas ures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and nothing further is required.

16. DE MINIMIS FEE DETERMINATION (CHAPTER 1706, STATUTES OF 1990-AB 31 58)
[X] It is hereby found that this project involves no potential for any adverse effe ct, either individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and that a "Certificate o f Fee Exemption" shall be prepared for this projec t.
[ ] It is hereby found that this project could potentially impact wildlife, individually or cumulatively, and therefore fees shall be paid to the County Clerk in accordance with Se ction 71 l .4(d) of the Fish and Game Code.

Packet Page 278 of 846Attachment 4 Page 37 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 37 City of Fairfield, California

17. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: THE INITIAL STUDY FOR THIS

PROJECT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL DETER-
MINATION. CONTAINED IN SECTION V. PRECEDING. IS HEREBY AP- PROVED:

Dave Feinstein, Community Development Director
City of Fairfield
Packet Page 279 of 846Attachment 4 Page 38 of 40

Initial Study/Environmental Checklist 38

18. REFERENCES
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
2017 Clean Air Plan. April.

California Air Resources Board (CARB)
2020 Ambient Air Quality Standards. October.

California Department of Conservation (DOC)
City of Fairfield, California
2021. California Important Farmland Finder. Available: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/ .

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) 2007 Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA -Solano County. Available: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/me- dia/6817 /fhszs_map48.pdf.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
2022. California State Scenic Highways. Available: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscape- architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways.

Fairfield, City of
2002 General Plan Environmental Impact Report
2004 General Plan Update
2017 Climate Action Plan
2021 Municipal Code
2021 Urban Water Management Plan
Solano, County of
2008 General Plan
2008 General Plan Environmental Impact Report
2015 Travis Air Force Base Land Use Compatibility Plan
2017 Emergency Operation Plan (EOP)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA)
2017 Climate Change: Basic Information. Available at: https://l 9january2017snapshot.epa.gov/cli- matechange/climate-change-
Packet Page 280 of 846Attachment 4 Page 39 of 40

Packet Page 281 of 846Attachment 4 Page 40 of 40

2023-2031
Housing
Element
Draft
City of Fairfield
Department of
Housing and
Community
Development
Review Draft
October 6, 2022
Packet Page 282 of 846Attachment 5 Page 1 of 565

Prepared by
This is a draft document that has not been adopted by the City of Fairfield or approved by any City department.

Packet Page 283 of 846Attachment 5 Page 2 of 565

0 Table of Contents
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Housing Element: Components .......................................................................................... 7

1.2 Public Participation ............................................................................................................ 9

1.3 Relationship to the General Plan ...................................................................................... 16 2 Community Profile and Needs Assessment ...................................................................... 18

2.1 Community Profile ........................................................................................................... 19

2.2 Population Characteristics ................................................................................................ 22

2.3 Household Characteristics ................................................................................................ 25

2.4 Employment ..................................................................................................................... 28

2.5 Special Needs Groups ....................................................................................................... 29

2.6 Housing Market Characteristics ....................................................................................... 54

2.7 Housing Conditions .......................................................................................................... 65

2.8 Housing Costs and Affordability ....................................................................................... 66

2.9 Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion ............................................................................ 75

2.10 Energy Conservation ....................................................................................................... 78

2.11 Projected Housing Need ................................................................................................. 79 3 Assessment of Fair Housing ............................................................................................. 82

3.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity .......................................................................... 83

3.2 Segregation and Integration ............................................................................................. 84

3.3 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence ................................. 100

3.4 Disparities in Access to Opportunity .............................................................................. 102

3.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs & Displacement Risk ................................................. 110

3.6 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................................................. 116 4 Housing Resources and Opportunities ........................................................................... 121

4.1 Financial Resources ........................................................................................................ 121

4.2 Administrative Resources ............................................................................................... 126

4.3 Other Housing Resources and Considerations ............................................................... 128 Packet Page 284 of 846Attachment 5 Page 3 of 565

1 5 Housing Constraints ....................................................................................................... 131

5.1 Governmental Constraints ............................................................................................. 131

5.2 Non-Governmental Constraints ..................................................................................... 174 6 Housing Action Plan ....................................................................................................... 181

6.1 Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................... 181

6.2 Programs ........................................................................................................................ 187

6.3 Quantified Objectives ..................................................................................................... 200 Appendix A. Evaluation of Prior Housing Element .............................................................. 202 A.1 Regional Housing Need Allocation Progress .................................................................. 202 A.2 Evaluation of Goals, Policies, and Actions ...................................................................... 203 Appendix B. Community Outreach ....................................................................................... 216 Appendix C. Sites Inventory ................................................................................................. 218 C.1 Sites Inventory Context .................................................................................................. 218 C.2 Sites Inventory Overview ............................................................................................... 219 C.3 Credit Towards the RHNA ............................................................................................... 223 C.4 Availability of Land ......................................................................................................... 231 C.5 Fair Housing Assessment of the Sites Inventory ............................................................ 244 Packet Page 285 of 846Attachment 5 Page 4 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 2 List of Figures
Figure 2-1 Regional Location ......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 2-2 Planning Area ............................................................................................................... 21 Figure 3-1: Fairfield Neighborhood Segregation .......................................................................... 88 Figure 3-2: Fairfield Diversity Index .............................................................................................. 89 Figure 3-3: Persons with Disabilities ............................................................................................. 92 Figure 3-4: Percent of Children Residing in Married-Couple Households .................................... 93 Figure 3-5: Percent of Children Residing in Female Householder Households ............................ 94 Figure 3-6: Percent of Adults Living with a Spouse ...................................................................... 95 Figure 3-7: Low-Moderate Income Population ............................................................................. 97 Figure 3-8: Poverty Status (2014), Fairfield ................................................................................... 98 Figure 3-9: Poverty Status (2019), Fairfield ................................................................................... 99 Figure 3-10: R/ECAP and RCAA Locations, Fairfield Region ......................................................... 101 Figure 3-11: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Composite Score ............................................................ 105 Figure 3-12: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Economic Score .............................................................. 107 Figure 3-13: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Education Score .............................................................. 108 Figure 3-14: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Environmental Score ...................................................... 109 Figure 3-15: Homeowner Cost Burden, 2019 .............................................................................. 112 Figure 3-16: Renter Cost Burden, 2019 ....................................................................................... 113 Figure 3-17: Overcrowded Households, Fairfield ........................................................................ 114 Figure 3-18: Sensitive Communities in Fairfield .......................................................................... 115 Figure C-1: Housing Sites Inventory by Income Category ........................................................... 221 Figure C-2: Housing Sites Inventory by Site Type Category ......................................................... 222 Figure C-3: Pipeline Projects by Income Category ....................................................................... 228 Figure C-4: Future Development Rendering Example, 252 North Texas Street ..................... 236 Figure C-5: Housing Sites Inventory by TCAC Opportunity Area ................................................. 246 Figure C-6: Opportunity Sites that Affirmatively Further Fair Housing ....................................... 247 Figure C-7: TCAC Composite Opportunity Areas and Environmental Constraints ...................... 248

Packet Page 286 of 846Attachment 5 Page 5 of 565

3 List of Tables
Table 2-1: Projected Population (2010-2040) ............................................................................... 22 Table 2-2: Population by Age City of Fairfield (2000-2019) ........................................................... 23 Table 2-3: Population by Race City of Fairfield (2000-2019) ......................................................... 24 Table 2-4: Household Characteristics City of Fairfield (2019) ....................................................... 25 Table 2-5: HUD Income Levels by Household Size (Solano County, 2021) .................................... 27 Table 2-6: Households by Household Income Level ...................................................................... 27 Table 2-7: Employment by Industry .............................................................................................. 28 Table 2-8: Household Income Distribution by Race (City of Fairfield) ........................................... 30 Table 2-9: Poverty Status by Race (City of Fairfield) ..................................................................... 30 Table 2-10: Senior and Youth Population by Race (City of Fairfield) ............................................. 31 Table 2-11: Senior Households1 by Income and Tenure (City of Fairfield) .................................... 31 Table 2-12: Cost-Burdened Senior Households1 by Income Level (City of Fairfield) ..................... 32 Table 2-13: Seniors (Age 65 and Over) by Type of Disability (City of Fairfield) ............................. 33 Table 2-14: Senior Housing ............................................................................................................ 34 Table 2-15: Fairfield Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence1 ......................... 38 Table 2-16: Fairfield Household Size by Tenure ............................................................................ 39 Table 2-17: Fairfield Cost Burden by Household Size .................................................................... 40 Table 2-18: Fairfield Household Type by Tenure ........................................................................... 41 Table 2-19: Fairfield Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status1 .......................................... 41 Table 2-20: Fairfield 2020 Homeless Strategy ............................................................................... 42 Table 2-21: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status in Solano County ................... 44 Table 2-22: Racial/Ethnic Group Share of General and Homeless Population in Solano County .. 44 Table 2-23: Persons Entering the Homeless System of Care in Fairfield, 2019 - 2020 .................. 46 Table 2-24: Shelter and Housing Inventory1, 2020 ........................................................................ 48 Table 2-25: Migrant Worker Student Population1 ........................................................................ 51 Table 2-26: Travis Air Force Base Personnel ................................................................................. 51 Table 2-27: Travis Air Force Base Housing Affordability1 .............................................................. 53 Table 2-28: Fairfield and Surrounding Areas Household Tenure, 2019 ........................................ 55 Table 2-29: Fairfield Housing Tenure by Race/Ethnicity, 2019 ...................................................... 57 Table 2-30: Fairfield Housing Tenure by Income Level, 2019 ........................................................ 58 Table 2-31: Fairfield Housing Tenure by Housing Type, 2019 ....................................................... 58 Table 2-32: Fairfield Housing Type Trends, 2010 – 2020 .............................................................. 59 Table 2-33: Overcrowding1 Severity by Region ............................................................................. 60 Table 2-34: Overcrowding1 by Income Level and Severity in Fairfield .......................................... 61 Table 2-35: Fairfield Vacant Units by Type, 2019 .......................................................................... 63 Table 2-36: Housing Permitting in Fairfield, 2015 – 2019 ............................................................. 64 Packet Page 287 of 846Attachment 5 Page 6 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 4 Table 2-37: Fairfield Substandard Housing Issues ......................................................................... 65 Table 2-38: City of Fairfield Housing Affordability by Income Group ............................................ 67 Table 2-39: Fairfield Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), 2010 - 2020 .............................................. 68 Table 2-40: Fairfield and Regional Area Rents, 2009 – 2019 ......................................................... 70 Table 2-41: Fairfield and Suisun City Monthly Gross Rental Rates, 2019 ...................................... 72 Table 2-42: Mobile Home Park Space Rents ................................................................................. 72 Table 2-43: Cost-Burdened Households in Fairfield by Income and Tenure1 ................................ 74 Table 2-44: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion ........................................................................... 75 Table 2-45: Fairfield Assisted Housing Inventory .......................................................................... 76 Table 2-46: 2023 – 2031 Fairfield Regional Housing Needs Allocation ......................................... 80 Table 3-1: Population Growth by Race/Ethnicity, Solano County, 2010 - 2040 ............................ 85 Table 3-2: Population Growth by Race/Ethnicity, Fairfield, 2000 - 2019 ...................................... 86 Table 3-3: Family Households with Children in Fairfield, 2019 ..................................................... 91 Table 3-4: Poverty Rates in Fairfield, 2019 .................................................................................... 96 Table 3-5: Domain and Indicators for HCD/TCAC Opportunity Maps ......................................... 104 Table 3-6: Summary of Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors and Priorities ........................ 117 Table 4-1: Assisted Housing Units ............................................................................................... 121 Table 4-2: Resources Available for Housing and Community Development Activities  ............... 123 Table 4-3: Publicly-Owned Land .................................................................................................. 129 Table 5-1: General Plan Residential Land Use Designations ....................................................... 132 Table 5-2: Residential Zoning Districts ........................................................................................ 133 Table 5-3: Permitted Residential Uses in Residential Zoning Districts1 ....................................... 134 Table 5-4: Permitted Residential Uses by Non-Residential Zoning District1 ................................ 135 Table 5-5: Overlay Zones ............................................................................................................. 136 Table 5-6: Permitted Residential Uses in Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan Zoning Districts1 ........ 138 Table 5-7: Residential Development Standards .......................................................................... 139 Table 5-8: Commercial Development Standards ......................................................................... 141 Table 5-9: PD Overlay Zone Development Standards ................................................................. 142 Table 5-10: Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan Development Standards .......................................... 144 Table 5-11: Small Lot Single-Family Development Standards ..................................................... 147 Table 5-12: Alternative Multifamily Development Standards ..................................................... 148 Table 5-13: Residential Parking Requirements ............................................................................ 149 Table 5-14: Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Standards ................................................... 152 Table 5-15: Basic Standards of Street Design .............................................................................. 154 Table 5-16: Residential Development Permit Requirements ...................................................... 162 Table 5-17: Residential Permit Review Processing ...................................................................... 163 Table 5-18: Planning Fees ............................................................................................................ 165 Packet Page 288 of 846Attachment 5 Page 7 of 565

5 Table 5-19: Typical Permit and Development Fees ..................................................................... 168 Table 5-20: Typical Building Permit and Impact Fees .................................................................. 170 Table 5-21: Northern California Project Fees1 ............................................................................. 172 Table 5-22: Average Single-Family Land Costs, 2019 .................................................................. 177 Table 6.1 Policies and Relationship to Implementing Programs/Actions ................................... 184 Table 6-2: Programs/Actions that Affirmatively Further Fair Housing ........................................ 198 Table 6-3: City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Quantified Objectives ..................................................... 200 Table A-1 City Progress Report: Evaluating Objectives and Policies Since 2014 (Based on 2014- 2022 Fairfield Housing Element) ................................................................................................. 204 Table C-1: Fairfield Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2023-2031 ............................................ 219 Table C-2: Summary of Residential Capacity to Accommodate the 2023-2031 RHNA ............... 220 Table C-3: Progress Toward the 2023-2031RHNA ....................................................................... 223 TABLE C-4: Pipeline Units by Affordability Level ......................................................................... 225 Table C-5: Projected Rent and Sales Price Affordability .............................................................. 229 Table C-6: Approved Affordable Housing Projects ...................................................................... 230 Table C-7: Approved ADU Building Permits per Year in Fairfield ................................................ 230 Table C-8: Affordability Breakdown of Projected ADUs in Fairfield ............................................ 230 Table C-9: Other Opportunity Sites ............................................................................................. 231 TABLE C-10: GENERAL PLAN ZONE/SPECIFIC PLAN DENSITY RANGES ......................................... 233 TABLE C-10: Underutilized Site Capacity Modifier ...................................................................... 234 TABLE C-11: HoF ESTIMATED SITE CAPACITY .............................................................................. 235 TABLE C-12: TSSP ESTIMATED SITE CAPACITY ............................................................................. 235 Table C-13: Other Opportunity Sites, Land Use and Existing Zoning ........................................... 237 TABLE C-13: Sites in Two or More Prior Housing Elements ......................................................... 238 Table C-14: Vacant and Non-Vacant Opportunity Sites .............................................................. 239 Table C-15a: Nonvacant Opportunity Site Analysis ..................................................................... 240 Table C-15b. Underutilized/Nonresidential Entitlements and Conversion ................................. 242 Table C-16c: Vacant Parcels, Nonresidential to Residential Zoning ............................................ 243 Table C-16: Parcels that Affirmatively Further Fair Housing ....................................................... 245 Table C-17: Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory ........................................................... 250 Table C-17b: Housing Element 2023-2031 Sites Inventory ......................................................... 250

Packet Page 289 of 846Attachment 5 Page 8 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 6 List of Charts
Chart 2-1: Fairfield and Surrounding Areas Population Growth, 1990–2020 ............................... 22 Chart 2-2: Fairfield and Surrounding Areas Population by Race, 2019 ......................................... 24 Chart 2-3: Population by Disability Status, 2019 ........................................................................... 35 Chart 2-4: Fairfield Disability by Type, 2019 .................................................................................. 36 Chart 2-5: Households by Household Size in Fairfield and Surrounding Areas ............................ 39 Chart 2-6: Fairfield Household Size by Household Income Level .................................................. 40 Chart 2-7: Farm Operations and Farm Labor in Solano County and Napa County, 2002 – 2017 . 50 Chart 2-8:Fairfield Household Tenure, 2000 – 2019 ..................................................................... 54 Chart 2-9: Fairfield Housing Tenure by Age, 2019 ......................................................................... 55 Chart 2-10: Fairfield Housing Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence ................................ 56 Chart 2-11: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity in Fairfield ..................................................... 60 Chart 2-12:Overcrowding by Race/Ethnicity in Fairfield ............................................................... 62 Chart 2-13: Age of Fairfield Housing Stock .................................................................................... 64 Chart 2-14: Fairfield & Regional Area Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), 2001-2020 ..................... 69 Chart 2-15: Fairfield and Regional Area Owner-Occupied Unit Values, 2019 ............................... 70 Chart 2-16:Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units, 2019 ........................................................ 71 Chart 3-1: Fairfield and Regional Dissimilarity Index ..................................................................... 87 Chart 3-2: HMDA Loan Denial Rates by Race/Ethnicity ................................................................. 90 Chart 3-3: Opportunity Indices – Total Population ..................................................................... 103 Chart 3-4: Opportunity Indices – Population Living Below the Federal Poverty Line .................. 103 Chart 3-5: Cost Burden by Race in Fairfield ................................................................................. 110 Chart 5-1: Building Permits by Affordability, 2014-2020 ............................................................. 156 Chart 5-2: Home Loan Application Decisions, 2020 .................................................................... 179 Chart A-1. Comparison of 5th and 6th Cycle RHNA ..................................................................... 202

Packet Page 290 of 846Attachment 5 Page 9 of 565

Chapter 1: Introduction
7 1 Introduction
The City of Fairfield Housing Element addresses the needs of Fairfield residents from 2023-2031.

It sets forth actions the City will undertake to support production of an adequate supply of safe, affordable housing for existing and future residents, preserve and rehabilitate existing affordable housing stock, protect tenants from displacement pressures, and affirmatively further fair housing throughout the entire city, so that everyone has access to opportunity.

The 2023-2031 Fairfield Housing Element is one component of a larger effort: an update to the City of Fairfield’s General Plan and development of a Climate Action Plan. The General Plan Update represents a “once-in-a-generation” opportunity for Fairfield residents to chart the course for the city’s future over the next 30 years. The Fairfield General Plan will be made up of several “elements” covering a wide range of topics important to the future of Fairfield, including economic develop- ment, continued viability of Travis Air Force Base, land use, transportation, open space, noise, con- servation, and safety. The policies and programs for housing will bear a close relationship to City policies contained in the Land Use Element. The amount of housing needed, for example, depends in part on the amount of commercial and industrial development planned. A direct link exists be- tween jobs and the demand for housing. The Land Use Element also dictates the distribution and density of housing throughout the city. In sum, the Housing Element determines how much and what type of housing is needed, while the Land Use Element provides for the location, distribution, and density of housing.

The 2023-2031 Housing Element sets forth the City’s housing priorities and goals—as well as its vision for both short- and long-term development—to create a fair and just city. State law mandates that the Housing Element be updated every eight years to reflect changing conditions, community objectives, and goals. This Housing Element also provides an evaluation of the 2015-2023 Housing Element, including an assessment of prior programs and strategies.

1.1 Housing Element: Components
In California, all cities must adopt a General Plan composed of at least seven elements, including the Housing Element. While the Housing Element is influenced by State law, it is essentially a local document. The Fairfield Housing Element, in tandem with the rest of the General Plan Update, is designed to assess and shape the community’s housing progress and needs.

Nonetheless, among all General Plan elements, the State of California has the most extensive set of requirements pertaining to Housing Elements. In accordance with State law, the Housing Ele- ment must include:
• A description of outreach conducted in preparation of the element • An analysis of progress in implementing the previous Housing Element and effectiveness of its programs and actions
• An assessment of existing and projected housing needs Packet Page 291 of 846Attachment 5 Page 10 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 8 • An analysis of special housing needs, such as those of older adults and people with disabil- ities
• An analysis of existing assisted housing units at risk of conversion from affordable to mar- ket rate
• An analysis and inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting housing needs • An affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) analysis, which guides the analysis of each set of requirements
• An inventory of adequate sites suitable for construction of new housing sufficient to meet needs at all economic levels
• A program that sets forth specific actions to address housing needs, with identification of responsible agencies and timelines
This Housing Element consists of the following major components:
• An analysis of the City’s demographic and housing characteristics and trends (Chapter II) • An evaluation of land, financial, and administrative resources available to address the City’s housing goals (Chapter III)
• A review of potential constraints, both governmental and non-governmental, to meeting the City’s housing needs (Chapter IV)
• A Housing Action Plan for the 2023-2031 planning period, including housing goals, poli- cies, programs and quantified objectives (Chapter V)
• A review of the City’s accomplishments and progress in implementing the previous Hous- ing Element (Appendix A)
• Materials used for public participation and community outreach (Appendix B) • A detailed inventory of sites for meeting the projected housing needs (Appendix C) • The 2022 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing (Appendix D) In preparing the Housing Element, various data sources are utilized. The decennial Census and the American Community Survey (ACS) provide the basis for population and household characteris- tics. Some population and housing unit data are also provided by the California State Department of Finance (DOF). Housing market information is drawn from both public agencies and private organizations. City records also provide data regarding housing development and rehabilitation, program accomplishments, units at risk of conversion, and housing construction and demolition activity.

Packet Page 292 of 846Attachment 5 Page 11 of 565

Chapter 1: Introduction
9 1.2 Public Participation
Section 65583(c)(5) of the Government Code states that "The local government shall make diligent effort to achieve public participation of all the economic segments of the community in the devel- opment of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort." Public participation played an important role in the formulation and refinement of the City’s housing goals and policies.

The City of Fairfield is in the process of preparing a comprehensive update to the General Plan.

Due to the statutory deadline for the Housing Element, this Housing Element is being updated on a parallel but separate track from the General Plan. Extensive public outreach has been conducted to inform this Housing Element update.

Involving the community is an integral part of the Housing Element process. The City of Fairfield utilized the following strategies to solicit input from the community for the City’s 2023-2031 Hous- ing Element and facilitate a meaningful dialogue about housing needs and priorities in Fairfield.

FAIRFIELD FORWARD WEBSITE AND E-BLASTS
The Housing Element is one part of a broader planning effort, Fairfield Forward 2050, which en- compasses a comprehensive (the first in over 20 years) update to the General Plan and development of a Climate Action Plan. While the Housing Element deals with housing issues most directly, the other interrelated planning efforts are significantly intertwined with the City’s long-range housing production objectives. The project website, www.fairfieldforward.com , serves as a one-stop shop for interested parties to learn about the different plans, read project documents and resources, sign up for the project mailing list or upcoming opportunities for participation, and contact appropriate City staff at any point in the planning process. The Fairfield Forward e-blasts promote website up- dates, surveys, and new documents, and provides updates on the project status. As of October, 2022, the General Plan update process is about halfway complete. A Draft Preferred Plan has been prepared and community outreach completed. Final decision-maker direction will be provided at the end of this year. The Draft Preferred Plan includes several additional housing opportunities not shown in the Housing Element, reflecting the longer planning horizon.

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
As part of the General Plan update, the City held small group stakeholder interviews, which were designed to bring together key individuals representing agencies, businesses, and community groups for one-on-one or small group discussions with project staff. Representatives from 26 or- ganizations participated. The purpose of the interviews was to learn from the knowledge and ex- pertise of these stakeholders regarding conditions in Fairfield, and to ensure that the General Plan’s vision and policies accurately reflect the priorities of the groups these stakeholders represent. The format was a relatively free-form discussion; interviewers from the project staff used a list of ques- tions as a framework and prompts for the discussion, with identification of key issues and priorities left to the interviewees. The stakeholder interview summary is available at https://www.fairfieldfor- ward.com/reports-products.

Packet Page 293 of 846Attachment 5 Page 12 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 10 Key issues pertaining to housing raised in stakeholder meetings were:
• Homelessness. When asked for their top one or two priorities for Fairfield to focus on in its General Plan update, almost all stakeholders noted addressing homelessness as a key issue. Many stakeholders stated that homelessness must be addressed in order to address other pressing issues in the city. For example, stakeholders representing neighborhood groups, environmental groups, business advocates, and developers discussed the impact that the visibility of homelessness has on perceptions of safety in the City’s public spaces, and how this affects both businesses and parks. In particular, Fairfield’s Downtown and Linear Park Trail were locations that were brought up by numerous stakeholders as areas heavily affected by the presence of unhoused communities. Other stakeholders, particularly those representing faith organizations, public schools, and private employers from healthcare agencies, discussed homelessness from a socioeconomic and public health lens.

These representatives discussed the connections between and impacts of homelessness on physical and mental health and the need for wrap-around services to address homelessness.

Faith leaders discussed the need for affordable housing to match the range of experiences and needs among the unhoused, and that economic development plans must also incorpo- rate the needs of the unhoused. This feedback was incorporated as part of Goal D and policies D-2, D-3, and D-5; Action 7.1; and Program 8 in the Housing Action Plan. • Need for Housing Diversity. An issue for some stakeholders was the lack of a variety of housing options in Fairfield. Travis Air Force Base (AFB) representatives wanted to see larger rental units where military families—that are not interested in home-ownership be- cause they may not stay in the community for a long period—could live, that the market is not catering to. Many large private employers stated that many of their entry-level or mid- tier employees struggle with finding housing that is affordable to them, which can create problems in recruitment and retention. They felt that Fairfield is lacking in housing options outside single-family ownership homes. Thus, according to stakeholders, Fairfield needs diverse housing options such as rental family housing to meet the needs of Travis AFB’s relatively transient workforce, smaller and more affordable live-work units to attract younger couples or single people wanting to live in mixed-use areas, and workforce hous- ing to allow entry-level employees to live in Fairfield before they may be able to move on to home ownership. The majority of stakeholders believed that Fairfield should focus its new housing on infill development within its existing neighborhoods. This feedback was incorporated as part of Goal A, policies A-2, A-3, A-5, A-7, and A-8; and actions 1.3, 2.1,

2.3, 2.4, 3.3, and 6.3.

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONS
On October 5 and 8, 2021, the City conducted two focus group discussions focused on housing, with representatives from CAMINAR Solano, Bethel Community Church, SHELTER Inc, EAH Housing, De Novo Homes, AG Spanos Developers, Seeno Housing, Lewis Planned Communities, Republic Urban Properties, and Mid-Pen Housing. Summaries of these discussions are found in Appendix B. Issues raised in these meetings included:
• Development Feasibility. Nonprofit developers noted that TCAC opportunity maps make it harder to fund projects that are not in high opportunity areas, and that increased density is required to be eligible for state funding even though the market in Fairfield does not Packet Page 294 of 846Attachment 5 Page 13 of 565

Chapter 1: Introduction
11 always support that. Both nonprofit and for-profit developers described high city fees and lack of staff availability. For-profit developers described the importance of smaller units and making housing “affordable by design.” Both for-profit and nonprofit developers en- couraged the City to look at flexible zoning and development standards, including reducing setbacks and reducing parking requirements. Policy B-3 and actions 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 address this feedback.
• Zoning Commercial Land to Residential. Some housing developers in the City have sought to convert their commercial-designated land to residential and noted that there seemed to be an overabundance of commercial land (it should be noted that some of this land is in the City’s westernmost area, known as Cordelia, zoned for neighborhood com- mercial uses, where residents have long desired and been promised a supermarket and ad- ditional neighborhood retail). This specific issue was deliberated in great detail in both the Planning Commission and the City Council study sessions on housing, where several com- munity members also commented on this issue and sought to preserve neighborhood com- mercial opportunities. Policy A-5 and Action 6.1 address residential opportunities in Cor- delia that affirmatively further fair housing and rezone select parcels in the area to allow housing.
• Partnerships and Education on Affordable Housing and Services. Among housing ad- vocacy groups and nonprofits, key themes included lack of resources for extremely-low- income Fairfield residents, lack of awareness among the public about where affordable housing is available, increased partnership with agencies or entities that provide wrap- around services, and help with credit, financial education, and ensuring services are located where people are, including daycare, mental health services, and others. Policies B-1, C-5, D-2, D-5, and D-10; and actions 2.2, 3.2, 3.3, 4.1, 5.1, 7.1, 7.5, and 8.1 address resources that serve extremely low-income residents, locate affordable housing in resource-rich ar- eas, and provide education and closer coordination with other agencies.

ONLINE SURVEYS
The planning team conducted two surveys over the course of the project. The first survey was con- ducted online and was available from February 3 to March 15, 2021, through a link from the project website. The survey focused on identifying community priorities and issues for housing, mobility, economic development, conservation and open space, community facilities, and other areas in the General Plan. The survey was promoted through multiple avenues, including:
• Promotion on the project website
• A postcard mailed to all residential addresses in the City of Fairfield • E-newsletters to interested parties who have signed up to receive email notifications re- garding the update
• Posts to City social media accounts on Facebook and Instagram • Targeted Facebook ads

The survey was available in three languages and received 272 responses in English, six responses in Spanish, and zero responses in Tagalog for a total of 278 responses. A survey summary is available at https://www.fairfieldforward.com/reports-products .

Packet Page 295 of 846Attachment 5 Page 14 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 12 Thirty eight percent of respondents commented that homelessness was the main issue that they wanted to see improved. Eight percent commented on housing affordability and availability; some of these respondents connected housing and homelessness. • Respondents were asked about where they would prefer to see new housing growth in Fair- field. Downtown (in the Heart of Fairfield area) and along major streets (North Texas Street or Air Base Parkway) were each selected by 54 percent of respondents as preferred locations see new housing. The Sites Inventory locates housing sites in the Heart of Fairfield area but also balances considerations related to equitable distribution of housing in other parts of the City.

• Respondents were asked to select their top three choices between different types of housing they wanted to see more of in Fairfield over the next 30 years; more than half of all respond- ents selected mixed-use, single-family, and the preservation of existing housing as their top three choices. Respondents ranked apartments and condominiums last, with only one-fifth of survey-takers putting this option in their top three.

The second survey was available from October 11 to October 25, 2021, through a link from the project website. The survey focused on reviewing three “Land Use Alternatives”, which represent different strategies for accommodating new development and achieving the community’s aspira- tions. Feedback received on these Alternatives will help develop one preferred strategy for shaping growth in Fairfield. The survey was available in English, Spanish, and Tagalog, and received 397 responses in English and one response in Spanish for a total of 398 responses. • Respondents were asked about their preferences for new residential development in the future. A balance of housing types was the most popular selection, favored by 44 percent of respondents. Other favored ideas included major transformation of North Texas Street and the Solano Town Center mall into revitalized, mixed-use centers with higher density housing.

COMMUNITY WORKSHOPS
The community workshops were held virtually over Zoom due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The first workshop took place on a weekday evening (February 11, 2021), and the second on a weekend morning (February 13, 2021). Both workshops focused on providing an overview of the following General Plan topics, land use and mobility; housing; open space, conservation, recreation, public facilities; economic development; and public safety. The workshops followed a similar structure, including an informational presentation and interactive polling, followed by small breakout group discussions, and report back discussions. Peak attendance (not including City staff and the planning team) for the two workshops was 37 and 26 members of the public, respectively.

At the first two workshops, one of the most salient topics across all discussion groups was the need to address homelessness. Participants stressed the need for long-term solutions to provide housing.

They discussed the pressing need for comprehensive services for unhoused individuals to address mental health, transitional housing, job training, and other needs in order to achieve long-term housing stability. Addressing homelessness was typically brought up in the context that it would be Packet Page 296 of 846Attachment 5 Page 15 of 565

Chapter 1: Introduction
13 a necessary step in revitalizing Fairfield’s Downtown and park spaces to increase feelings of safety.

In addition to housing solutions to address homelessness, participants also discussed the particular housing needs of seniors. They brought up universal design features as a means to ensure seniors’ ability to age in place, as well as the need for more diverse types of housing for seniors beyond just dedicated senior living facilities, such as smaller homes for those looking to downsize. In line with the broad desire for a focus on in-fill development, workshop participants expressed a desire for more mixed-use development Downtown along Texas and West Texas Streets to help support busi- nesses by bringing in more residents. Some brought up that more residential uses would also help to improve the “eyes on the street” factor. As described above, Goal D and policies D-2, D-3, and D-5; Action 7.1; and Program 8 in the Housing Action Plan address homelessness in Fairfield. Uni- versal design is included in Action 7.4.

The third public workshop for the Fairfield Forward 2050 project was held on October 16th, 2021 at the Fairfield Civic Center Library. Forty-two members of the public attended. Among attendees, there is strong support for infill development and mixed-use nodes, especially as an alternative to developing in the Suisun Valley. A few participants indicated that more transit-oriented develop- ment, particularly around the Transportation Center, is a preferable strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and preserve agricultural land. However, several picked up on challenges of infill redevelopment, questioning the feasibility of higher density redevelopment of existing uses. Other popular concepts included redevelopment of North Texas Street and the Solano Town Center Mall areas as places appropriate for higher density housing in mixed-use settings. While City Council has indicated support for these sites as well, development challenges may prevent these sites from redeveloping into housing over the eight-year period. However, these sites will be important areas of study for additional housing and mixed use development as part of the concurrent General Plan Update.

The fourth workshop, held on Zoom on May 9, 2022, was primarily focused on the Housing Ele- ment and solicited people’s thoughts on where housing would be best located, and what preliminary strategies or areas of focus they would like to see included in the Housing Element. After a brief presentation, discussion was held in two small groups. Several participants expressed that the Cor- delia area of the City (which is designated as a “moderate resource” tract in the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD)/California Tax Credit Allocation Committee mapping methodology) was already strained in terms of educational, roadway, and other infra- structure capacity and would not be appropriate for more high-density housing. Participants did, however, describe North Texas, Solano Town Center Mall, downtown Fairfield, and around transit- rich areas such as the train stations as being more appropriate and better locations to access com- munity services. However, there was some support for housing as part of mixed-use development to balance the existing community’s desire for more commercial uses. Other participants noted they were not able to find housing in Fairfield that fit their income or needs, or needs of an aging population, and that a more diverse mix of housing types should be added to Fairfield’s existing predominance of single-family homes. Slides and a meeting summary are provided in Appendix B.

As described above, Goal A, policies A-2, A-3, A-5, A-7, and A-8; and actions 1.3, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 3.3, and 6.3 address housing diversity in Fairfield. Needs of an aging population are addressed in actions

7.1 and 7.4.

Packet Page 297 of 846Attachment 5 Page 16 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 14 GENERAL PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) is an advisory body appointed by the Fairfield City Council to provide input to the planning team, and engage community members and stakeholders and act as “community ambassadors” in the development of the Fairfield General Plan Update.

There have been six GPAC meetings thus far; summaries are available at https://www.fairfieldfor- ward.com/meeting-documents.

At the first meeting, GPAC members expressed a desire to see a greater variety of housing types in Fairfield beyond ownership of single-family homes. Such options included live-work units, town- homes, condos, and mixed-use and multi-family housing. Members also emphasized importance of providing enough affordable housing, noting the importance of dedicated housing for homeless, affordable and accessible options for seniors, and workforce housing to meet the needs of entry- level workers, military families, teachers, and others. One member noted the importance of adding new housing while still providing resources to maintain Fairfield’s existing aging housing stock.

Suggested locations for new and increased housing included downtown Fairfield and along North Texas Street. In addition to policies and actions previously described, Programs 3 and 4 address long-term housing affordability and housing rehabilitation loans to preserve housing in existing neighborhoods.

POP-UPS AND SUPPEMENTAL SURVEY
In an effort to engage populations that historically have been excluded from planning decisions, the team’s community outreach consultant attended various pop-up events in the community. Flyers are included in Appendix B. Outreach included:
• Outreach to restaurants, stores, and Latino-owned businesses along North and West Texas (20+ businesses) in April 2021
• 4th of July event outreach (~150 people reached)
• La Favorita grocery outreach (April 17, 2021) (~50 people reached at event; ~300 clients and staff over course of 3 weekends for flyering over the weekends of April 9th, 16th, and 23rd, 2021)
• Downtown farmer’s market outreach (June 3rd, July 1st) The community consultant also conducted a guided bilingual survey with four Spanish-speaking participants. All four indicated that housing affordability was an issue they faced, followed by housing quality issues (three responses.)

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
The City of Fairfield’s Sixth Cycle Draft Housing Element was available for public review at www.fairfieldforward.com/housing-element from August 23, 2022, to September 22, 2022. Notice of the draft’s availability was sent through the Fairfield Forward listserv and City social media chan- nels. Members of the public submitted 17 comments through the website; public comment was also received at a Planning Commission meeting on September 14th, 2022. Themes from outreach re- ceived during the public comment period, as well as how this draft incorporates or addresses this input, is provided below:

Packet Page 298 of 846Attachment 5 Page 17 of 565

Chapter 1: Introduction
15 • Concern about Cordelia-area infrastructure and accommodating more housing. A ma- jority of comment letters came from existing residents in the City’s Cordelia area, reiterat- ing concerns about adequate public infrastructure to support additional housing in this area of Fairfield, including need for additional parks, schools, perceived need for additional police service, and neighborhood-serving commercial retail. As described in Appendix C, location of additional housing in Cordelia attempts to balance equitable distribution of housing, especially lower income housing, in more moderately resourced areas across the City, with these concerns. As such, the Sites Inventory locates a modest 8.7 percent of the total RHNA allocation in Cordelia.

The Housing Element is being drafted concurrently with an update to the General Plan. As the General Plan process continues, there will be further opportunities to incorporate higher density housing as part of mixed use development. Several parcels larger than ten acres are reserved for more thorough analysis and planning consistent with Cordelia resi- dents’ vision for more complete neighborhoods with additional public services, more com- mercial development, and improved transit connections to the remainder of the city.

• Recommendations to bolster affirmatively further fair housing information.

One comment letter requested additional clarity on linkages between housing policies and actions, as well as direct references to programs that affirmatively further fair housing.

These clarifications are made in Table 6-1 and 6-2 in Chapter 6: Housing Action Plan. • Renter protection program suggestions. Two public comments, received after the Plan- ning Commission and the City Council meetings that took place during the public com- ment period, recommended additional renter protection programs or actions, including rent stabilization programs beyond state requirements, a tenant ‘Bill of Rights’, a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance with requirements beyond protections enacted by the State, and a Community or Tenant Right to Purchase program. Many of these actions/programs re- quire City Council direction and a robust public education process. As such, they will be presented to City Council for consideration in the final Housing Element draft.

• Other housing action suggestions. Fairfield residents suggested several additional hous- ing actions to support Fairfield’s aging population, including additional actions to support ‘missing middle’ housing development; strengthen ADU/JADU development; incorporate universal design principles; and community education on missing housing types in the City. Action 2.5 and language in actions 3.2, 5.1, and 7.4 was added to Chapter 6: Housing Action Plan to address these recommendations.

• Sites Inventory questions. To address questions raised related to the Sites Inventory, Ap- pendix C now includes analysis of each non-vacant site, as well as evidence in Table C-16b that Fairfield has a history of underutilized commercial site conversion and entitlement.

Packet Page 299 of 846Attachment 5 Page 18 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 16 1.3 Relationship to the General Plan
A comprehensive update of the City of Fairfield’s General Plan, last comprehensively updated al- most 20 years ago, is currently underway and is likely to be completed in fall 2023. The updated General Plan will provide the framework for land use, circulation, infrastructure, parks and recre- ation, facilities, and other components of the city that affect people’s daily lives.

Development policies contained in the Land Use Element establish the location, type, intensity and distribution of land uses throughout the city, and defines the land use build-out potential. The Draft 2040 General Plan Land Use Element will likely provide residential designations for multiple new sites, allows mixed-use development in several areas, and increases allow development densities and building heights in several parts of the city. It also includes both minimum and maximum densities for several higher density residential designations. The acreage designated for a range of commercial and office uses creates employment opportunities for people at a range of income and educational levels, which, in turn, affects the current and future demand for housing at the various income levels in the city. The goals, policies, and programs contained within this Housing Element will also inform the strategies included in the Land Use Element. As the Housing Element will be adopted prior to the Land Use Element update, the general distribution, location and extent of land uses as well as population density and building intensity standards carried out by the current Zon- ing Code are used to determine the City’s ability to accommodate residential development. Some initial amendments to the Zoning Code along with initial zoning map changes will allow for certain areas, particularly those in moderate resource areas of the city, to develop housing by right and at higher densities.

The Circulation Element of the General Plan also affects the implementation of the Housing Ele- ment. The Circulation Element will include policies for a balanced circulation system in the city, and proposes development at various corridors and near transit hubs such as the Fairfield-Vacaville and Fairfield-Suisun Train Station. These locations, where much of the new housing would be lo- cated, will also include mixed-use boulevards, with enhanced landscaping, street trees, bike lanes, and pedestrian amenities to better connect Fairfield.

The Housing Element update builds upon and is consistent with these and other General Plan ele- ments. As General Plan update elements are developed, they will be The City will maintain internal consistency with the General Plan as part of the Annual Report prepared in accordance with Section 65400 of the California Government Code.

Packet Page 300 of 846Attachment 5 Page 19 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
17 This page left intentionally blank
Packet Page 301 of 846Attachment 5 Page 20 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 18 2 Community Profile and Needs Assessment
This section outlines the characteristics of the community and identifies those characteristics that may have significant impacts on housing needs in the community, including anticipated population and household growth. This assessment is essential for developing a successful strategy to meet a variety of housing needs in the City of Fairfield. Since these changes have not occurred in a vacuum, the regional context is also presented. The Housing Needs Assessment is presented in the following 11 sections:
• Community Profile
• Population Characteristics
• Household Characteristics
• Employment
• Special Needs Groups
• Housing Market Characteristics
• Housing Conditions
• Housing Costs and Affordability
• Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion
• Energy Conservation
• Projected Housing Need
The assessment provided in each section can be used to help identify programs that are needed to ensure that the existing and future housing stock meets the housing needs of every segment of the City's population. Analysis in each of these subsections informs the housing programs and policies provided a subsequent chapter of the Housing Element.

The Association of Bay Area Governments-Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG- MTC) has produced Local Housing Needs Data packets for jurisdictions in the ABAG-MTC region that have been pre-approved by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). These data packets largely rely on 2015-2019 5-year American Community Survey (ACS) and 2013-2017 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) estimates, among other sources. Where the ABAG-MTC data packet does not provide sufficient information, alternate data sources are used.

Packet Page 302 of 846Attachment 5 Page 21 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
19 2.1 Community Profile
The City of Fairfield is the county seat of Solano County, located in the western and central portion of the county. The city is located in the North Bay subregion of the San Francisco Bay Area region, midway between San Francisco and Sacramento. The city is bordered by the City of Vacaville to the north and Suisun City to the south. The Interstate 80 (I-80), I-680, and State Route 12 (SR 12) connects Fairfield to the wider Bay Area region. It is also connected to the region via public trans- portation – including via the Fairfield-Vacaville railroad station, the Suisun-Fairfield station, and the Fairfield Transportation Center. Capitol Corridor trains, operated by Amtrak California, utilize the Fairfield-Vacaville station. The regional and local settings are depicted in Figures 2-1 and 2-2, respectively.

Fairfield is shaped by the unique interaction of open space, agriculture, topography, environment, traffic circulation, and military development. Major features include the hills to the northwest, Suisun Marsh to the southeast, Travis Air Force Base to the east, and two interstate freeways that bisect the city in a northeastern/southwestern and a southern direction. Suisun Valley, a productive agricultural area, is located between central Fairfield and the city’s Cordelia area.

History and geography have combined to create distinct neighborhoods. I-80 separates the gener- ally older neighborhoods to the south and east from newer subdivisions to the north and west. I- 680 also defines Cordelia, a neighborhood that has seen substantial development since the 1970s.

Cordelia residential neighborhoods can be found off Lopes Road and Green Valley and Suisun Val- ley Roads. The newest growth area is located in northeastern Fairfield to the east of Peabody Road and north of Travis Air Force Base. A new Capital Corridor Train Station opened in 2017 and will be the centerpiece for this growing community.

The City is also planning for redevelopment in existing neighborhoods. The Heart of Fairfield Spe- cific Plan addresses opportunities for redevelopment and infill in the historic Downtown core of Fairfield. This Plan incorporates new housing development, including mixed use and live-work development.

Packet Page 303 of 846Attachment 5 Page 22 of 565

0 10 20
MI LES
5 Lodi
Stockton
OaklandSan
Francisco
Richmond
Vallejo
Walnut
Creek
San
Ramon
Livermore
Tracy
Pittsburg
ConcordSan
Pablo
Antioch
Brentwood
Napa Fairfield
Vacaville
Davis
Woodland
Sonoma
Dublin
Hayward
Milpitas
San
Jose
Fremont
Palo
Alto
Mountain
View
Winters
Dixon
Rio
Vista
Martinez
Benicia
San
Bruno
South San
Francisco
Emeryville
Berkeley
Sacramento
Pleasanton
505
12 121
29 680
80 80
680
580
580
880
280 680
580
205
5 5
101
99 37
4 160
24 16
16 113
128
4 92
84 80
580
5 50
80 99
113
160
1 12
121
128
84 NAPA
SONOMA
MARIN

CONTRA COSTA

ALAMEDA
SAN

MATEO SANTA
CLARA

STANISLAUS

SAN JOAQUIN

SACRAMENTO
SOLANO
YOLO
Figure 2-1: Regional Location
Packet Page 304 of 846Attachment 5 Page 23 of 565

R o c kv ill e R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM a n gelsBlMainStCordelia StSuisunValleyRd WaltersRdMankas C
ornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
een
Va
ll
ey
RdRedTopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railr
oa
d
Av
Ohio St
C o u r a ge D r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOli
v
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sin essC en te rDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
P
k
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park Southbrook
Park
Gary
Falati
Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
Allen
Witt
Park
Lee
Bell
Park
Tolenas
Park
Fairfield
Linear
Park
Hillview
Park
Rolling
Hills
Park
Laurel Creek
Park
Vintage
Green
Valley
Park
Dover
Park
Mankas
Park
Rockville
Hills
Regional
Park
Woodcreek
Park
Sunrise
Park
Meadow
Park
Rolling Hills
Park
Veterans
Park Tabor
Park
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Armijo
HS
Fairfield
HS
Solano
Community
College
Fairfield
City Hall
Solano County
Courthouse
Kaiser
Permanente
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

B

A

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I
N

E
UR

B

A

N

L

I
M

I
T

L

I
N
E
C e m e n t
H i l l
E l k h o r n
P e a k
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
O k e l l
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
S u l p h u r
S p r i n g s
M o u n t a i n
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\PlanningArea.mxd Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 3/10/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
Figure 2-2: Planning Area
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 AÝ
Packet Page 305 of 846Attachment 5 Page 24 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 22 2.2 Population Characteristics
According to the California Department of Finance (DOF), the total population of the City of Fair- field in 2020 was 116,981, an increase of 11.1 percent since 2010 (105,321). As shown in Table 2-1, ABAG projects that by 2040 the population of Fairfield will increase approximately 40 percent from the 2010 reported Census population. The City’s current existing General Plan projected a buildout population of approximately 136,600, but recent specific plans will potentially impact the ultimate population of the City. The ABAG projections show a lower population in 2010 than the U.S. Cen- sus count.

Table 2-1: Projected Population (2010-2040)
2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
105,065 103,845 106,815 111,485 119,980 122,010 126,900 Source: Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2040 ABAG-MTC has also provided DOF estimates of population growth indexed to the population in the year 1990 for Fairfield and surrounding regions. Shown in Chart 2-, these data points represent the population growth in each of the geographies relative to their populations in 1990. The break between 2009 and 2010 is due to the differences between population estimates in 2009 and census counts in 2010. DOF uses the decennial census to benchmark subsequent population estimates. As evidenced in the plot, Fairfield has seen a higher relative growth rate than both Solano County and the Bay Area during the 1990 to 2020 period.

Chart 2-1: Fairfield and Surrounding Areas Population Growth, 1990–2020 Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (California Department of Finance, E-5 series) Packet Page 306 of 846Attachment 5 Page 25 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
23 POPULATION BY AGE
Current and future housing needs are usually determined in part by the age characteristics of a community’s residents. Each age group has distinct lifestyles, family type and size, incomes, and housing preferences. Consequently, evaluating the age characteristics of a community is important in determining its housing needs.

According to the 2019 American Community Survey five-year estimates, the City’s median age is

34.8, which is 3.3 years younger than Solano County’s median age of 38.1. The difference in median age suggests that the City of Fairfield still has a younger population than the overall population of Solano County, which may be due in part to the younger families frequently assigned to Travis Air Force Base and the attraction (which could be location, affordable housing, industry, etc.) for younger households to relocate to Fairfield at the beginning of their careers. Despite this, the data in Table 2-2 confirms that older age groups in Fairfield are nonetheless growing to hold a larger share of the overall population; 9.0 percent of the population was age 65 and over in 2000 compared to 12.2 percent in 2019. This data from ABAG-MTC is based on U.S. Census and American Com- munity Survey data.

RACE AND ETHNICITY
Table 2-3 presents the racial and ethnic composition of the City of Fairfield’s population in 2010 as reported in the ABAG-MTC data sets, which are based on the U.S. Census. Fairfield is an increas- ingly diverse city. As shown in Table 2-3 the largest single racial group in the population remains “White, non-Hispanic”, with 36,310 persons making up 31.5 percent of the population (a decrease of over 10,000 persons between 2000 and 2019). Overall, the “non-White” population continued to increase, with Asian populations increasing from 12.2 percent to 17.8 percent of the population from 2000 to 2019 and, notably, the Hispanic or Latinx population increasing from 19.8 percent to

29.3 percent. The percentage of the population that identifies as Hispanic or Latinx is now almost equivalent to the population that identifies as non-Hispanic White.

Table 2-2: Population by Age City of Fairfield (2000-2019) Age Group 2000 2010 2019
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
0-4 years 8,163 8.5% 7,789 7.4% 8,398 7.3%
5-14 years 16,068 16.7% 15,634 14.8% 16,046 13.9%
15-24 years 15,128 15.7% 16,322 15.5% 15,108 13.1%
25-34 years 14,336 14.9% 14,691 13.9% 18,377 15.9%
35-44 years 15,765 16.4% 14,226 13.5% 14,879 12.9%
45-54 years 11,521 12.0% 15,200 14.4% 14,687 12.7%
55-64 years 6,563 6.8% 10,684 10.1% 13,700 11.9%
65-74 years 4,846 5.0% 5,715 5.4% 8,349 7.2%
75-84 years 2,955 3.1% 3,594 3.4% 3,828 3.3%
85+ years 833 0.9% 1,466 1.4% 1,910 1.7%
Total 96,178 100.0% 105,321 100.0% 115,282 100.0%
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook, 2021
Packet Page 307 of 846Attachment 5 Page 26 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 24 Table 2-3: Population by Race City of Fairfield (2000-2019) Race/Ethnicity 2000 2010 2019
Numbe
r
Percent Numbe
r
Percent Numbe
r
Percent
American Indian or Alaska Native
(Non-Hispanic)
518 0.6% 462 0.4% 475 0.4%
Asian/API (Non-Hispanic) 11,128 12.2% 16,314 15.5% 20,525 17.8% Black or African American (Non-His-
panic)
14,097 15.5% 15,979 15.2% 17,103 14.8%
White (Non-Hispanic) 47,094 51.7% 37,091 35.2% 36,310 31.5% Other Race or Multiple Races (Non-
Hispanic)
270 0.3% 6,686 6.3% 7,148 6.2%
Hispanic or Latinx 18,050 19.8% 28,789 27.3% 33,721 29.3% Total 91,157 100.0% 105,32
1 100.0% 115,28
2 100.0%
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook, 2021
Further, in 2019 Fairfield had a similar racial and ethnic composition to Solano County, although the City had smaller share of non-Hispanic White residents. As shown in Chart 2-2, Fairfield also had a smaller share of non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Asian/API residents, as well as a larger share of non-Hispanic Black or African American and Hispanic or Latinx residents compared with the Bay Area.

Chart 2-2: Fairfield and Surrounding Areas Population by Race, 2019 Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002)
Packet Page 308 of 846Attachment 5 Page 27 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
25 2.3 Household Characteristics

HOUSEHOLD SIZE
According to ACS data (2015-2019), the average household size in Fairfield is around 3.1 persons, a slight increase from 3.0 in 2011. Fairfield’s average is slightly higher than the average for Solano County as a whole (2.9), reflecting the larger number of young families in Fairfield. However, a majority of both owners (68.9 percent) and renters (72.5 percent) consist of one, two, or three per- son households, (a slight increase over 2011 percentages). Larger households with more than four persons make up 31.1 percent of owners and 27.5 percent of renters.

HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
A summary of household characteristics in the City of Fairfield and Solano County is provided in Table 2-4. A family household is a household consisting of two or more people residing together and related by birth, marriage, or adoption. A non-family household consists of a householder liv- ing alone (a one-person household) or where the householder shares the home exclusively with people to whom they are not related. According to the ACS data (2015-2019) as analyzed by ABAG- MTC, the majority (76.3 percent) of households in Fairfield are family households. The percentage of family households is higher than that in Solano County as a whole (71.7 percent) and in the Bay Area overall (66.4 percent).

Table 2-4: Household Characteristics City of Fairfield (2019) City of Fairfield Solano County Bay Area
Household Type Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Married Couple Family Households 19,949 54.3% 76,686 51.2% 1,399,714 51.2% Female-Headed Family
Households
5,353 14.6% 21,305 14.2% 283,770 10.4%
Male-Headed Family Households 2,720 7.4% 9,486 6.3% 131,105 4.8% Single-person Household 6,752 18.4% 33,203 22.2% 674,587 24.7% Other Non-Family Household 1,977 5.4% 9,185 6.1% 242,258 8.9% Total 36,751 100% 149,865 100% 2,731,434 100%
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook, 2021

HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Household income is one of the most significant factors affecting housing choice and opportunity.

Income largely determines a household’s ability to purchase or rent housing. While higher-income households have more discretionary income to spend on housing, lower- and moderate-income households are limited in the range of housing they can afford. Typically, as household income decreases, cost burdens and overcrowding increase.

Packet Page 309 of 846Attachment 5 Page 28 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 26 To evaluate housing affordability, housing need, and eligibility for housing assistance, income levels are defined by guidelines adopted each year by the California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). For Solano County, the applicable Area Median Income (AMI) for a family of four in 2021 is $99,300. This is an increase of 29.5 percent from the 2014 median income of $76,700. HUD has defined the following income categories for Solano County, based on the median income for a household of four persons for 2021:
• Extremely low-income: 30 percent of AMI and below ($0 to $29,150) • Very low-income: 31 to 50 percent of AMI ($29,151 to $48,550) • Low-income: 51 to 80 percent of AMI ($48,551 to $77,600) • Moderate-income: 81 to 120 percent of AMI ($77,601 to $119,150) • Above moderate-income: 120 percent or more of AMI ($119,151 or more) Table 2-5 shows the HUD definitions for Solano County’s maximum annual income level for each income group, adjusted by household size. This data is used when determining a household’s eligi- bility for federal, state, or local housing assistance and used when calculating the maximum afford- able housing payment for renters and buyers.

Packet Page 310 of 846Attachment 5 Page 29 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
27 Table 2-5: HUD Income Levels by Household Size (Solano County, 2021) Maximum Income Level
Household Size Extremely Low Very Low Low Median Moderate 1 Person $20,450 $34,000 $54,350 $69,500 $83,400
2 Persons $23,350 $38,850 $62,100 $79,450 $95,300
3 Persons $26,250 $43,700 $69,850 $89,350 $107,250
4 Persons $29,150 $48,550 $77,600 $99,300 $119,150
5 Persons $31,500 $52,450 $83,850 $107,250 $128,700
6 Persons $35,580 $56,350 $90,050 $115,200 $138,200
7 Persons $40,120 $60,250 $96,250 $123,150 $147,750
8 Persons $44,660 $64,100 $102,450 $131,100 $157,300
Source: HUD Income Limits 2021
The ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook for 2021 divides Fairfield’s population by HUD income levels. The Data Workbook relies on data from the HUD Comprehensive Housing Afford- ability Strategy 2013-2017 release. This income data is based on the ACS 2013-2017 estimates, and thus does not align exactly with categories aligning to the 2021 HUD established income levels.

Table 2-6 provides this data. Fairfield’s distribution of households at each income level is similar to that of both Solano County and the Bay Area overall.

Table 2-6: Households by Household Income Level
City of Fairfield Solano County Bay Area
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
0%-30% of AMI 3,637 10.2% 16,350 11.1% 396,952 14.7%
31%-50% of AMI 3,855 10.8% 15,014 10.2% 294,189 10.9%
51-80% of AMI 5,425 15.2% 22,925 15.6% 350,599 13.0%
81%-100% of AMI 3,570 10.0% 14,370 9.8% 245,810 9.1%
>100% of AMI 19,285 53.9% 78,700 53.4% 1,413,483 52.3%
Total 35,722 100% 147,359 100% 2,701,033 100%
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook, 2021

Packet Page 311 of 846Attachment 5 Page 30 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 28 2.4 Employment
According to data from the ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (2021), which relies on the ACS 2019 five-year estimates, there are 54,405 persons in the labor force in the City of Fairfield.

As seen in Table 2-7, the largest industry represented among Fairfield workers is Health and Edu- cational Services (33.9 percent), followed by Manufacturing, Wholesale, and Transportation (18.6 percent). Fairfield’s distribution across the employment industries approximately mirrors that of Solano County as a whole, though when compared to the Bay Area overall Fairfield has a signifi- cantly smaller portion of its workforce represented in the Financial and Professional Services in- dustry.

Table 2-7: Employment by Industry
City of Fairfield Solano County Bay Area
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Agriculture & Natural
Resources 1,021 1.9% 3,047 1.5% 30,159 0.7%
Construction 4,043 7.4% 17,713 8.6% 226,029 5.6%
Financial &
Professional Services 7,802 14.3% 31,848 15.4% 1,039,526 25.8% Health & Educational
Services 18,424 33.9% 67,520 32.6% 1,195,343 29.7%
Information 943 1.7% 3,542 1.7% 160,226 4.0%
Manufacturing,
Wholesale, &
Transportation
10,113 18.6% 36,020 17.4% 670,251 16.7%
Retail 6,302 11.6% 23,492 11.3% 373,083 9.3%
Other 5,757 10.6% 23,796 11.5% 329,480 8.2%
Total 54,405 100% 206,978 100% 4,024,097 100%
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook, 2021

Packet Page 312 of 846Attachment 5 Page 31 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
29 2.5 Special Needs Groups
Certain groups have greater difficulty in finding suitable affordable housing due to their special needs and circumstances. This may be a result of employment and income, family characteristics, disability, or household characteristics. Consequently, certain residents in the City of Fairfield may experience more instances of housing cost burdens, overcrowding, or other housing problems. The categories of special needs addressed in this Element include:
• Extremely low-income households
• Elderly households
• Persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities • Large households
• Female-headed households
• Persons experiencing homelessness
• Farmworkers
• Military employees of Travis Air Force Base

EXTREMELY LOW-INCOME RESIDENTS
California State Housing Law requires local governments to address the needs of “Extremely Low- Income” populations, which refers to households with incomes below 30 percent of the Area Me- dian Income (AMI) for the community. In addition to those families making less than 30 percent of AMI, the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) is a threshold established by the federal government that remains constant throughout the country (and thus does not correspond to AMI). Federal statistics can also help the City quantify the extent of the extremely low-income population. The federal government defines poverty as a minimum level of income (adjusted for household size and com- position) necessary to meet basic food, shelter, and clothing needs. For 2021, the FPL for a family of four is $26,500, which is less than the $29,150 threshold for 30 percent of AMI. This means that some households that qualify as extremely low-income in Fairfield are not considered as living be- low the FPL. This is indicative of the higher cost of living in Solano County as compared to other areas of the country.

As seen in Table 2-8, 10.2 percent of Fairfield residents fall below 30 percent of AMI. This data, from the ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (2021), is based on the HUD Comprehen- sive Housing Affordability Strategy ACS tabulation 2013-2017 release. American Indian or Alaska Natives (non-Hispanic) have the highest rate of extremely low-income households (26.1 percent) followed by Black or African American (non-Hispanic) households (16.9 percent), followed by His- panic or Latinx households (11.8 percent). Among White (non-Hispanic) households, 7.9 percent are extremely low-income, and among Asian or Asian Pacific Islander households, 7.6 percent are extremely low-income. Those who identify as some other race or multiple races (non-Hispanic) have lowest rate of extremely low-income households at 6.6 percent).

Packet Page 313 of 846Attachment 5 Page 32 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 30 Table 2-8: Household Income Distribution by Race (City of Fairfield) Racial/Ethnic Group
0%-30%
of AMI
31%-50%
of AMI
51%-80%
of AMI
81%-100%
of AMI
>100%
of AMI
American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-
Hispanic 26.1% 26.1% 21.7% 0.0% 26.1%
Asian/API, Non-Hispanic 7.6% 9.9% 12.2% 7.8% 62.5%
Black or African American, Non-Hispanic 16.9% 12.6% 14.1% 8.6% 47.9% White, Non-Hispanic 7.9% 7.4% 14.1% 10.6% 59.9%
Other Race or Multiple Race, Non-
Hispanic 6.6% 5.0% 15.9% 11.3% 61.3%
Hispanic or Latinx 11.8% 17.0% 19.6% 11.2% 40.4%
All Households 10.2% 10.8% 15.2% 10.0% 53.9%
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook, 2021
According to ACS 2019 five-year estimates, Fairfield has a poverty rate of 8.6 percent. This is slightly lower than the poverty rate of 9.5 percent in Solano County overall. Poverty rates have dropped in Fairfield and Solano County overall since 2012, from 12.9 percent and 11.9 percent, respectively. Table 2-9 displays the poverty status by race among Fairfield residents. Poverty is high- est among those who identify as American Indian or Alaska Native (30.5 percent) and lowest among those who identify as Asian or Asian Pacific Islander (5.6 percent).

Table 2-9: Poverty Status by Race (City of Fairfield)
Racial/Ethnic Group Percent Below Federal Poverty Line
American Indian or Alaska Native, Hispanic and Non-Hispanic 30.5% Asian/API, Hispanic and Non-Hispanic 5.6%
Black or African American, Hispanic and Non-Hispanic 12.0% White, Hispanic and Non-Hispanic 7.0%
White, Non-Hispanic 6.1%
Other Race or Multiple Races, Hispanic and Non-Hispanic 13.2% Hispanic or Latinx 10.7%
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook, 2021

ELDERLY RESIDENTS
Elderly residents have many different housing needs, depending on their age, level of income, current tenure status, cultural background, and health status. Elderly households may need assistance with personal and financial affairs, networks of care to provide services and daily assistance, and even pos- sible architectural design features that would accommodate disabilities that would help ensure con- tinued independent living. Table 2-10 shows the distribution of Fairfield seniors by racial group com- pared to the population of other age groups. The majority of seniors in Fairfield identify as White (56.8 percent), followed by Asian or Asian Pacific Islander (22.2 percent), and Black or African Amer- ican (15.2 percent). Fairfield’s seniors are slightly less diverse than its other age groups.

Packet Page 314 of 846Attachment 5 Page 33 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
31 Table 2-10: Senior and Youth Population by Race (City of Fairfield) Age 0-17 Age 18-64 Age 65+
Race Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
American Indian or Alaska
Native (Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
73 0.2% 372 0.5% 116 0.8%
Asian/API (Hispanic and
Non-Hispanic)
4399 15.0% 13,502 18.8% 3,126 22.2%
Black or African American
(Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
3,769 12.6% 11,706 16.3% 2,146 15.2%
White (Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)
13,392 45.8% 35,510 49.4% 8,004 56.8%
Other Race of Multiple Race
(Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)
7,701 26.3% 10,861 15.1% 695 4.9%
Total 29,244 100% 71,951 100% 14,087 100%
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook, 2021
One of the potential elderly housing needs that may require a specific governmental response is low incomes among older adults. As seen in Table 2-11, according to the ABAG-MTC Housing Data Needs Workbook, 12.2 percent of older adults aged 62 and over in Fairfield have an income below 30 percent of AMI, which is higher than among the overall population. As they age, older adults may face additional housing costs to ensure their homes remain accessible and to eliminate threats to health and safety. Like all lower income residents, many older adult residents may be facing overpayment problems or are unable to find affordable rental units at all. As seen in Table 2-11, senior renters are much more likely to fall into the extremely low-income or low-income categories than seniors who own their homes.

Table 2-11: Senior Households1 by Income and Tenure (City of Fairfield) Owner Occupied Renter Occupied All Senior Households
Income Group Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0%-30% of AMI 345 6.0% 635 27.3% 980 12.2%
31%-50% of AMI 650 11.3% 459 19.8% 1,109 13.8%
51%-80% of AMI 1,200 20.9% 365 15.7% 1,565 19.4%
81%-100% of AMI 544 9.5% 225 9.7% 769 9.5%
>100% of AMI 3,000 52.3% 640 27.5% 3,640 45.1%
Total 5,739 100% 2,324 100% 8,063 100%
Notes:

1. Senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older.

Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook, 2021
Packet Page 315 of 846Attachment 5 Page 34 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 32 Table 2-12 shows the percentage of those senior households at each income level that spend less than 30 percent of their income on housing costs, between 30 and 50 percent of their income on housing costs, and more than 50 percent of their income on housing costs. Those senior households considered extremely low-income (making less than 30 percent of AMI) are the group most likely to be spending more than 50 percent of their overall household income on housing costs at 62.8 percent.

Other potential elderly housing needs that may require a specific governmental response include:
• Assisted living facilities. Assisted living facilities provide elderly residents with the oppor- tunity to maintain an independent housing unit while receiving needed medical services and social support. Congregate care facilities include housing with medical and health ser- vices.
• Relocation assistance. Some elderly residents need assistance in relocating to a dwelling that better suits their space and income needs.
• Mobility impairment. Mobility-impaired elderly residents requiring special accessibility features in their dwelling units. Mobility impairment may require that special accessibility features be included in the design and construction of a home. Mobility impairment can also create a need for a living arrangement that includes health, meals, cleaning, and/or other services as part of the housing package. A number of living arrangements are possi- ble, from senior citizen developments with individual dwelling units to assisted living fa- cilities to 24-hour support services. Table 2-13 shows the prevalence of different types of disabilities among seniors over age 65 in Fairfield. The most prevalent type of disability is ambulatory difficulty, experienced by 23.9 percent of Fairfield seniors. An ambulatory dif- ficulty refers to a mobility impairment that causes significant difficulty walking or climbing stairs.

Table 2-12: Cost-Burdened Senior Households1 by Income Level (City of Fairfield) % of Income Used for Housing Costs 0%-30% of
AMI
31%-50% of
AMI
51%-80%
of AMI
81%-100%
of AMI
>100% of
AMI
50% of Income 62.8% 53.7% 21.1% 9.6% 2.5%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Notes:

1. Senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook, 2021
Packet Page 316 of 846Attachment 5 Page 35 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
33 Table 2-13: Seniors (Age 65 and Over) by Type of Disability (City of Fairfield) Disability Percentage of Seniors
With an ambulatory difficulty1 23.9%
With an independent living difficulty2 15.7%
With a hearing difficulty 14.8%
With a self-care difficulty3 10.2%
With a cognitive difficulty4 9.8%
With a vision difficulty 6.2%
Notes:

1. Ambulatory difficulty refers to having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs.

2. Independent living difficulty refers to having difficulty doing errands alone due to a physical, mental, or emotional problem.

3. Self-care difficulty refers to having difficulty bathing or dressing.

4. Cognitive difficulty refers to having difficulty remembering, concentrating or making decisions due to a physical, mental, or emotional problem.

Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook, 2021
Senior Housing
Currently, the Fairfield has 854 units specifically reserved for senior housing (Table 2-14). Of that total, 383 units are restricted to be affordable. Thus, there is one designated senior housing unit for approximately every 10 senior households in Fairfield. However, many senior households may pre- fer to stay in their existing residences well into retirement. Senior housing may be most attractive to the oldest cohort (85 years and older), and the 854 existing units may be adequate for current populations in that cohort. However, the City will continue to support the construction of senior housing, particularly near services such as shopping, medical care, and recreation, to prepare for the aging population.

Packet Page 317 of 846Attachment 5 Page 36 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 34 Table 2-14: Senior Housing
Facility Name Address Units Affordable Project Type
Rockville Terrace Business Center Drive 160 No Assisted Living Paradise Valley Estates Paradise Valley Drive 70 No
Cottages (20);
Apartments (50)
Senior Manor 1101 Union Ave 84 Yes
Woodcreek Senior
Commons
Woodcreek Drive at
Oliver Road 96 No
Dover Woods 2801 Dover Avenue 200 Yes
The Village at Ranch Solano
Rancho Solano
Parkway 1451 No Assisted Living
Parkway Plaza 188 East Alaska Ave. 99 Yes
All one-bedroom
units
Notes:

1. Includes an additional 52 memory care units.

Source: City of Fairfield, 2021

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Persons with disabilities have physical or mental impairments that require special housing designed for self-sufficiency. According to 2019 American Community Survey estimates compiled by ABAG, 13,038 persons (11.6 percent of the non-institutionalized population) in Fairfield had a disability.

This proportion is about equivalent to Solano County and slightly higher than that of the Bay Area, see Chart 2-3.

Packet Page 318 of 846Attachment 5 Page 37 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
35 Chart 2-3: Population by Disability Status, 2019
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18101)
Disability can further be broken down into six categories. The Census Bureau provides the follow- ing definitions for these disability types:
• Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. • Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing even with glasses. • Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making deci- sions.
• Ambulatory difficulty: has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. • Self-care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or bathing. • Independent living difficulty: has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping.

These disability types are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability; thus, these counts should not be summed. Chart 2-4 provides a breakdown of Fairfield’s adult population by disability type. The most prevalent disability was am- bulatory difficulty at 5.6 percent.

Packet Page 319 of 846Attachment 5 Page 38 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 36 Chart 2-4: Fairfield Disability by Type, 2019
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107)

Further, residents with disabilities may have more difficulty in finding employment. In Fairfield, according to 2019 ACS estimates compiled by ABAG, approximately 14.6 percent of the civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years to 64 years in the labor force with a disability were unemployed, while only 5.2 percent of those with no disability were unemployed. The census considers individuals to not be in the labor force if they are not employed and are either not available to take a job or are not looking for one. This category typically includes discouraged workers, students, retired workers, stay-at-home parents, and seasonal workers in an off season who are not looking for work.

Given the barriers faced by persons with disabilities, the provision of affordable and barrier-free housing is essential to meet their housing needs. There are two approaches to housing design for residents with disabilities: adaptability and accessibility. Adaptable housing is a design concept in which a dwelling unit contains design features that allow for accessibility and use by mobility-im- paired individuals with only minor modifications. An accessible unit has the actual special features installed in the house (grab bars, special cabinetry). To address these needs, the State requires de- sign or accessibility modifications, such as access ramps, wider doorways, assist bars in bathrooms, lower cabinets, elevators and the acceptance of service animals.

Packet Page 320 of 846Attachment 5 Page 39 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
37 Developmental Disabilities
Since January 2011, per SB 812 as codified in Section 65583, housing elements are required to ad- dress the housing needs of individuals with a developmental disability within the community. The analysis must include an estimate of the number of persons with developmental disabilities, an as- sessment of the housing need, and a discussion of potential resources. According to Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code a "developmental disability" means a disability that originates before an individual attains age 18 years, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual which includes intellectual disability, cer- ebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term shall also include disabling conditions found to be closely related to intellectual disability or to require treatment similar to that required for individ- uals with an intellectual disability, but shall not include other disabling conditions that are solely physical in nature.

Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because developmental disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) is responsible for overseeing the co- ordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabil- ities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions through a network of 21 regional centers and state-operated facilities.

DDS consumer data compiled by ABAG provides an estimate of the number of Fairfield residents with a developmental disability. Table 2-15 below shows that the vast majority of residents with a developmental disability live in the home of a parent/family/guardian. Further, approximately 59.9 percent (701 persons) of the population that has a developmental disability is over the age of 18, while 40.1 percent (470 persons) is under 18 years old.

Packet Page 321 of 846Attachment 5 Page 40 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 38 Table 2-15: Fairfield Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence1 Residence Type Number Percent
Home of Parent/Family/Guardian 834 71.1%
Community Care Facility 177 15.1%
Independent/Supported Living 110 9.4%
Intermediate Care Facility 28 2.4%
Foster/Family Home 15 1.3%
Other 9 0.8%
Total 1,173 100.0%

1. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction. Independent living difficulty refers to having difficulty doing errands alone due to a physical, mental, or emotional problem.

Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type, 2020)
There are a number of housing types appropriate for people living with a development disability:
rent subsidized homes, licensed and unlicensed single-family homes, inclusionary housing, Section 8 vouchers, special programs for home purchase, HUD housing, and SB 962 homes. The design of housing-accessibility modifications, the proximity to services and transit, and the availability of group living opportunities represent some of the types of considerations that are important in serv- ing this need group. Incorporating ‘barrier-free’ design in all, new multifamily housing (as required by California and Federal Fair Housing laws) is especially important to provide the widest range of choices for disabled residents. Special consideration should also be given to the affordability of housing, as people with disabilities may be living on a fixed income.

LARGE FAMILIES
Large families are those households of five or more related individuals. The special need of this group is for housing of sufficient size and number of bedrooms that would prevent overcrowding.

Cost is an important consideration, as many large families do not have sufficient income to afford larger homes or apartments. As shown in Table 2-16, the 2019 American Community Survey re- ported 5,870 large households with five or more members, including 3,503 owner-occupied house- holds and 2,367 renter-occupied households. About 16.1 percent of owner-occupied households and 15.8 percent of renter-occupied households were considered large households.

Packet Page 322 of 846Attachment 5 Page 41 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
39 Table 2-16: Fairfield Household Size by Tenure
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Housing Type Number Percent Number Percent
1 Person Household 3,414 15.7% 3,338 22.3%
2 Person Household 6,739 30.9% 4,188 28.0%
3 Person Household 4,356 20.0% 2,663 17.8%
4 Person Household 3,777 17.3% 2,406 16.1%
5 Or More Person Household 3,503 16.1% 2,367 15.8%
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009)
In comparison to surrounding jurisdictions, Fairfield had a higher proportion of large family households. Chart 2-5 shows that while about 16.0 percent of households in Fairfield are considered large households, only 13.1 percent in Solano County and 10.8 percent in the Bay Area are. Of the large families within Fairfield, approximately 37.3 percent are considered lower-income house- holds (i.e., households below 80 percent AMI). This is only slightly higher than the proportion for all other household types at 35.3 percent (see Chart 2-6).

Chart 2-5: Households by Household Size in Fairfield and Surrounding Areas Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11016)
Packet Page 323 of 846Attachment 5 Page 42 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 40 Chart 2-6: Fairfield Household Size by Household Income Level Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Com- prehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

In addition to household income, cost burden can be used to determine the extent of housing needs for large family households. Cost burden indicates that a household is paying between 30 percent and 50 percent of their income towards rent, while severe cost burden indicates that a household is paying over 50 percent of their income towards rent. As shown in Table 2-17, about 37.2 percent of large families experience some level of cost burden, while 34.8 percent of all other household types experience cost burden. Large families are more likely to experience severe cost burden.

Table 2-17: Fairfield Cost Burden by Household Size
Large Family (5+ Persons) All Other Household Types
Income Category Number Percent Number Percent
No Cost Burden 19,028 62.8% 3,385 65.2%
Cost Burden 6,110 20.2% 1,355 26.1%
Severe Cost Burden 5,138 17.0% 450 8.7%
Total 30,276 100.0% 5,190 100.0%
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Com- prehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release) Packet Page 324 of 846Attachment 5 Page 43 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
41 FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
Female-headed families, including those with children, are identified as a special needs group, be- cause they are more likely to be low-income and face difficulty in finding affordable housing. As shown in Table 2-18 there were about 5,353 female-headed households and 2,720 male-headed households in Fairfield. These households were 14.6 percent and 7.4 percent, respectively, of Fair- field’s total number of households. Female-headed households represented about 10.7 percent of owner-occupied households and 20.2 percent of renter-occupied households.

Table 2-18: Fairfield Household Type by Tenure
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Household Type1 Number Percent Number Percent
Married-Couple Family Households 13,866 63.6% 6,083 40.7% Female-Headed Family Households 2,336 10.7% 3,017 20.2% Male-Headed Family Households 1,295 5.9% 1,425 9.5%
Householders Living Alone 3,414 15.7% 3,338 22.3%
Other Non-Family Household 878 4.0% 1,099 7.3%

1. For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other.

Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25011)
Of the 5,353 female-headed households in Fairfield, about 64.6 percent of them had minor children under 18 years-old. Table 2-19 below shows the number of these households that were below the poverty line. About 27.5 percent of female-headed households with children were under the poverty line, while only 6.9 percent of households without children were. This demonstrates that female- headed households with children are more likely to have greater housing needs and face difficulties in finding affordable housing.

Table 2-19: Fairfield Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status1 Households With Children Households Without Children
Poverty Level Number Percent Number Percent
Above Poverty Level 2,508 72.5% 1,763 93.1%
Below Poverty Level 952 27.5% 130 6.9%

1. The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income.

Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015- 2019), Table B17012)

Packet Page 325 of 846Attachment 5 Page 44 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 42 PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
Starting in 2016, the Community Action Partnership of Solano Joint Powers Authority (CAP Solano JPA) led the development of a Strategic Plan, Neighbors Helping Neighbors: Forward To- gether, the 5-Year Regional Strategic Plan to Respond to Homelessness in Solano County. Ap- proved in March of 2017 with a No Place Like Home (NPLH) addendum added in 2019, the re- gional Strategic Plan focused on responding to homelessness both immediately and in the long- term and represented an important and necessary collaboration in Solano County. The plan and its subsequent addendum helped identify specific, key changes to move the needle on homelessness in Solano County, from a regional perspective. The City of Fairfield was a leader in the development of that Regional Plan and has continued to be a leader in implementing the goals described in the Regional Plan to address homelessness in Solano County.

Table 2-20: Fairfield 2020 Homeless Strategy
Strategy Actions
Protect the Health and
Safety of Fairfield Residents
• Enforce existing City ordinances/laws in respect to criminal activities in and about homeless locations.
• Act as liaison to residents, businesses, and community agencies. • Reduce blight through swift encampment and debris removal.

Increase Housing
Opportunities &
Displacement Support
• Seek and secure grant funding for all types of shelter & housing within continuum of services.
• Explore and implement innovative housing solutions based on proven outcomes.
• Develop public/private partnerships to build full continuum of housing opportunities that includes wrap around services.

Strengthen System of Care
Services & Programs
• Seek and secure grant funding for homeless housing, prevention and diversion.
• Support public/private partnerships to provide direct outreach to homeless.
• Quickly and efficiently connect persons in need to appropriate resources.

Improve Public Policy and
Community Engagement
• Update and support local and state policies that protect residents & reduce homeless related criminal activity.
• Enhance access to housing & homeless services through public awareness education strategy.
• Increase awareness of housing, homeless issues and City efforts in Fairfield.

Strengthen Regional
Capacity to Address
Homelessness
• Support CAP Solano JPA regional efforts to respond to homelessness. • Support efforts to streamline Coordinated Entry approach to expedite referrals for housing & supportive services.
• Partner with County on housing and shelter sustainability & supportive services.

Source: City of Fairfield, Homeless Services Division, 2020 Packet Page 326 of 846Attachment 5 Page 45 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
43 The City of Fairfield’s Homeless Strategy is aligned with the goals of the 5-Year Regional Plan and aims to coordinate resources and services with the goal of reducing the number of people experi- encing homelessness in the City of Fairfield. In 2020, the City Council created a Homeless Services Division in the City Manager’s Office to oversee the City’s response to homelessness. As part of its Homeless Strategy, the City Manager’s Office completed a Gaps Analysis Report in 2021 to better understand gaps and barriers to services within the local homeless system of care. The City’s 2020 Homeless Strategy is outlined in Table 2-20.

Regional Homeless Demographics
A common method to assess the number of homeless persons in a jurisdiction is through a Point- in-Time (PIT) Count. The PIT Count is a census of sheltered and unsheltered persons conducted by a Continuum of Care, defined by HUD as “a regional or local planning body that coordinates housing and services funding for homeless families and individuals.” Each Bay Area county is its own CoC; Solano County’s CoC is known as Housing First Solano.

The Point-in-Time (PIT) Count has two variants: sheltered and unsheltered. The sheltered PIT count is conducted on an annual basis and counts the number of persons who are in emergency shelter or transitional housing. The sheltered PIT count also collects demographic information such as age, gender, length of time homeless, income, and housing history. The unsheltered PIT count, conducted biannually, counts the number of persons who are observed on the street. The PIT count is conducted on a single day/night during the last ten days of January, and is therefore not meant to represent the overall number of individuals who experience homelessness over the course of a year.

The PIT Count represents one of many metrics that provides information on persons experiencing homelessness and should be considered in the context of other key data sources when assessing the state of homelessness in a community. However, CAP Solano does conduct a comprehensive PIT Count, most recently producing the 2019 PIT Comprehensive Report. Together, these data sources can illuminate important trends affecting populations experiencing homelessness and can produce a more accurate representation of the state of homelessness within a community than the PIT Count can provide alone.

Table 2-21 provides an estimate of the population experiencing homelessness by household type and shelter status in Solano County. According to the 2019 PIT Count, there were 219 sheltered persons and 932 unsheltered persons in Solano County.

Packet Page 327 of 846Attachment 5 Page 46 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 44 Table 2-21: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status in Solano County Shelter Status
People in
Households
Composed Solely of
Children Under 18
People in
Households with
Adults and
Children
People in
Households
without Children
Under 18 Total
Sheltered – Emergency
Shelter
0 40 98 138
Sheltered – Transitional
Housing
0 31 50 81
Unsheltered 5 8 919 932
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports, 2019) A significant racial/ethnic disparity of the population experiencing homelessness is also apparent in Solano County, with Black or African American residents vastly overrepresented. Table 2-22 shows that in 2019 Black or African American residents made up 37.2 percent of the population experiencing homelessness while only being 13.9 percent of the overall population in the county.

The table also shows that Asian/Asian Pacific Islander (API) and White residents are underrepre- sented among the population experiencing homelessness. Further, Hispanic/Latinx residents of any race are underrepresented among the population experiencing homelessness.

Table 2-22: Racial/Ethnic Group Share of General and Homeless Population in Solano County Racial/Ethnic Group Share of Homeless Population Share of Overall Population American Indian or Alaska Native
(Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)

2.9% 0.5%
Asian / API (Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic)

7.0% 16.4%
Black or African American
(Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)

37.2% 13.9%
White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 38.6% 52.6%
Other Race or Multiple Races
(Hispanic and Non-Hispanic)

14.3% 16.6%
Hispanic/Latinx 16.2% 26.1%
Non-Hispanic/Latinx 83.8% 73.9%
Note: The data from HUD on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for individuals experiencing homelessness does not specify racial group identity. Accordingly, individuals in either ethnic group identity category (Hispanic/Latinx or non- Hispanic/Latinx) could be of any racial background.

Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports, 2019) Packet Page 328 of 846Attachment 5 Page 47 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
45 Local Homelessness Demographics
Per HCD's requirements, jurisdictions also need to supplement county-level data with local esti- mates of people experiencing homelessness. According to the 2019 PIT Comprehensive Report, nearly 53.0 percent of respondents in Solano County reported having stayed in Fairfield over the past year. The 2019 PIT Count identified 277 persons experiencing homelessness in the City of Fairfield, including 224 unsheltered persons (e.g., persons who were living in a place not meant for habitation) and 53 persons who were sheltered (e.g., persons who were staying at an emergency shelter or transitional housing program). This was a 50 percent decrease (–279 persons) since the 2017 PIT Count, when 556 homeless persons were identified in the City. While significant progress to increase shelter capacity and promote service entry has occurred since 2019, Unsheltered num- bers were particularly high and sheltered numbers were low since Mission Solano, a major shelter in the county, was undergoing transition with reduced capacity available.

While the 2019 PIT Count indicates that the number of persons experiencing homelessness in the city is decreasing, this does not necessarily reflect the increase in “visible” homelessness – including more seriously impaired or disabled persons. This includes both the growth of informal tent en- campments and the number of persons living in vehicles, like camper vans. With increased enforce- ment of encampment site cleanup and additional services available in the city, residents experienc- ing homelessness are more visible because they can no longer stay in “permanent” encampments.

CAP Solano’s Coordinated Entry System (Resource Connect Solano) provides an additional source of local data via information entered in the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS).

Between February 1, 2019, and July 31, 2020, 1,036 unduplicated persons in Fairfield utilized Re- source Connect Solano’s services. It should be noted that not all persons using Resource Connect Solano’s services actively experience homelessness, as Resource Connect Solano also provides rental assistance, homelessness prevention, utility assistance, and other services. During this same period, 263 unduplicated persons experiencing homelessness in Fairfield were assessed as part of Resource Connect Solano, a decrease from 420 persons experiencing homelessness assessed during the same six-month period in 2019.

It is important to highlight two factors that may have impacted data on persons assessed by Coor- dinated Entry in HMIS. As Resource Connect Solano did not begin entering data into HMIS until August 2017, it is likely the case that at least some of the persons recorded as having entered the homeless system between February 1, 2019, and July 31, 2020, did not become homeless for the first time during this period. In other words, it is possible that some clients first engaged a homeless service provider prior to their assessment by Resource Connect Solano.

In addition, in keeping with the State’s shelter-in-place order in March 2020, and subsequent public health guidelines introduced in response to COVID-19, Resource Connect Solano suspended in- person assessments at physical access points in the spring of 2020. As some clients without access to phone or video conferencing technology may have been unable to complete an assessment with the Coordinated Entry System operator, it is possible that the number of persons assessed by the Coordinated Entry System between February 1 and July 31, 2020, may underestimate the true num- ber of persons who accessed Resource Connect Solano services during this period.

Packet Page 329 of 846Attachment 5 Page 48 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 46 Table 2-23: Persons Entering the Homeless System of Care in Fairfield, 2019 - 2020

Persons Entering the
Homeless System
Persons Enrolled in a Shelter or Permanent Housing
Program for Formerly Homeless Persons
Demographic Group Number Percent Number Percent
Race
American Indian or Alaska
Native
22 2% 32 4%
Asian 23 2% 21 2%
Black or African American 503 49% 335 38%
Multiple Races 69 7% 82 9%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander
16 2% 17 2%
White 403 39% 392 45%
Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino 145 14% 148 17%
Non-Hispanic/Non-Latino 891 86% 731 83%
Gender
Female 557 54% 411 47%
Male 479 46% 468 53%
Age
Children (under 18) 259 25% 178 20%
Adults (18 and over) 777 75% 701 80%
Household Types
Households with Children and
Adults
397 38% 298 34%
Households without Children 614 59% 575 65%
Households with Only Children 25 2% 6 1%
Total
All Persons 1,036 100% 879 100%
Source: City of Fairfield, Fairfield Gaps Analysis, 2021 The demographics of the persons who used the homeless system of care during the 2019 to 2020 period is available in Table 2-23. An estimated 879 unduplicated persons in Fairfield were enrolled in a shelter or housing program during the period. Between February 1, 2020 and July 31, 2020, an estimated 433 unduplicated persons in the city were enrolled in a shelter or housing program. This is a slight decrease from an estimated 471 persons who were enrolled at a shelter or housing pro- gram during the same period in 2019. Similar to Solano County, there was an overrepresentation of Black or African American individuals experiencing homelessness in Fairfield. Further, Black or African American individuals were less likely to enroll in a shelter or housing program relative to other homeless populations.

Packet Page 330 of 846Attachment 5 Page 49 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
47 In addition to the demographics discussed, of the persons who used the homeless system of care 354 (34 percent) were chronically homeless, 133 (13 percent) were survivors of domestic violence, 84 (8 percent) were aging adults (62-years-old or older), and 68 (7 percent) were unaccompanied youth. Further, 528 (51 percent) self-reported some form of disability, including 267 (26 percent) who reported having a mental health problem, 170 (16 percent) who reported having a chronic health condition, 164 (16 percent) who reported having a physical disability, and 127 (12 percent) who reported having an addiction to drugs or alcohol.

Local Homeless Housing Facilities
There are a variety of shelter types to meet the different needs of the homeless population. Identified below are the five types of facilities that provide shelter for homeless individuals and families in Fairfield: emergency shelters, transitional housing, safe haven beds, Rapid Re-Housing beds, and permanent supportive housing. Table 2-24 indicates the number of available beds by housing type in Fairfield (as of 2020).
• Emergency Shelter – Defined as a “homeless shelter” in the Fairfield Municipal Code, an emergency shelter is an establishment providing short-term transient shelter to homeless persons including incidental support functions, such as food service and counseling. • Transitional Housing – Defined in the Fairfield Municipal Code as a service-providing in- termediate shelter to persons for up to nine months. Transitional housing will offer, either on or off-site, access to social services, counseling, and other programs to assist formerly homeless residents in the transition to permanent housing. This classification does not in- clude facilities licensed for residential care by the State of California or homeless shelters. • Safe Haven – A safe haven is a form of supportive housing that serves hard-to-reach home- less persons with severe mental illness who are on the street and have been unwilling to participate in supportive services.
• Rapid Re-Housing – Rapid re-housing provides short-term rental assistance and services in order to help people obtain housing quickly. Available beds correspond to the number of vouchers available for tenant-based Rapid Re-Housing programs in Solano County. • Permanent Supportive Housing – Permanent supportive housing is an intervention that combines affordable housing assistance with voluntary support services to address the needs of chronically homeless people.

Packet Page 331 of 846Attachment 5 Page 50 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 48 Table 2-24: Shelter and Housing Inventory1, 2020
Shelter or Housing Type
Total
Beds
Percent of
Total Inventory
Beds for Households
w/o Children
Beds for Households
w/ Children
Emergency Shelter 137 30% 109 28
Transitional Housing 45 10% 45 0
Safe Haven 0 - 0 0
Rapid Re-Housing 177 39% 129 48
Permanent Supportive Housing 98 21% 98 0
Total Beds 457 100% 381 76

1. Beds for Households w/ Only Children excluded, as no shelter or housing type has any beds for this household type.

Source: City of Fairfield, Fairfield Gaps Analysis, 2021 Per Table 2-24, at the time of the 2020 Housing Inventory Count, there were 457 shelter and hous- ing beds available to homeless and formerly homeless persons in Fairfield. There were 182 tempo- rary beds, including 137 shelter beds (30 percent of total beds) and 45 transitional housing beds (10 percent), as well as 275 (60 percent) permanent housing beds, including 177 rapid re-housing “beds” or vouchers (39 percent) and 98 permanent supportive housing beds (21 percent). There were no safe haven beds at the time of the 2020 Housing Inventory Count.

In November 2020, the City Council approved Urgency Ordinance No. 2020-19 to implement a temporary shelter permit program. The temporary shelter program allows religious facilities and other assembly uses to obtain a permit to provide shelter for homeless individuals and families on a temporary basis. The BayNorth Church of Christ established one such temporary shelter for homeless individuals and families who are at high-risk for contracting COVID-19. However, the BayNorth emergency shelter ended on April 30, 2021, as did the urgency ordinance.

Further, as part of the statewide Project Roomkey effort, non-congregate emergency shelters are available to individuals who are at high-risk of serious complications from COVID-19. While the State’s non-congregate emergency shelter program successfully placed 67 persons experiencing homelessness in Fairfield into temporary emergency shelter by July 31, 2020, social distancing re- quirements at other site-based shelter and housing programs likely contributed to the slight decline in the number of persons enrolled in shelter and housing programs observed during this period.

State law requires that jurisdictions provide suitable sites for these various housing types, including “by right” permitting for emergency shelters and low barrier navigation centers, among other re- quirements. A low barrier navigation center, as defined by Government Code Section 65660, is a “Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experi- encing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.” The availa- bility of sites for such shelters and other State requirements is addressed in the Housing Constraints chapter of this Housing Element.

Packet Page 332 of 846Attachment 5 Page 51 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
49 FARMWORKERS
Farmworkers are traditionally defined as people whose primary incomes are earned through per- manent or seasonal agricultural labor. Farmworkers are generally considered to have special hous- ing needs due to their limited income and the often unstable nature of their employment. In addi- tion, farmworker households tend to have high rates of poverty, live disproportionately in housing that is in the poorest condition, have very high rates of overcrowding, and have low homeownership rates. Given the high rate of urbanization in Fairfield over the past 30 years, along with changes in local agriculture industries, farmworker residents are likely to be permanent, rather than migrant farmworkers. The special housing needs among the permanent farmworker population are for the same type of financial assistance that other low-income residents would require.

Although farmworkers still represent a special housing need in many communities, the advent of mechanization in harvesting crops, new planting techniques, and changes in the types of crops grown have substantially reduced the overall number of farmworkers and the proportion of mi- grant farmworkers. Urbanization has further decreased agricultural employment in Solano County.

There are no working farms within the city limits, except for limited cattle grazing operations, in- cluding leased operations on City-owned open space properties.

In Solano County, there has been a steady and continued decrease in the number of seasonal and permanent farmworkers. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Census of Farmworkers, between 2002 and 2017 Solano County has experienced a 64.7 percent decrease in the number of seasonal farmworkers (i.e., those that have worked on a farm 150 days or less). The number of permanent farmworkers has also decreased significantly since 2002 but was relatively stable during the 2007 to 2017 period. In 2017, there were 2,513 farmworkers in total. Neighboring Napa County, on the other hand, has seen a steady increase in the number of permanent farmwork- ers between 2002 and 2017, although its seasonal farmworker total has decreased as well. See Chart 2-7 for these trends.

Packet Page 333 of 846Attachment 5 Page 52 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 50 Chart 2-7: Farm Operations and Farm Labor in Solano County and Napa County, 2002 – 2017 Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor)
In the local setting, estimating the size of the agricultural labor force can be especially problematic due to undercounts and inconsistent definitions across government agencies. According to the Census, there were 1,021 Fairfield residents employed in the agriculture and natural resources in- dustry in 2019 – about 1.9 percent of the labor force. This is similar to Solano County (1.5 percent), but higher than the Bay Area (0.7 percent). Determining the breakdown by seasonal and permanent workers can be even more difficult. Data from the California Department of Education provides one local estimate by tracking the student population of migrant workers, available in Table 2-25.

The number of migrant workers in Fairfield’s student population has increased from 11 during the 2016-2017 academic year to 109 during the 2019-2020 academic year. Solano County has also seen an increase, while the Bay Area has seen a steady decrease during the same period. Napa County saw a major increase between the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 academic years, but these numbers have decreased since.

Packet Page 334 of 846Attachment 5 Page 53 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
51 Table 2-25: Migrant Worker Student Population1
Academic Year Fairfield Solano County Napa County Bay Area 2016-2017 11 339 903 4,630
2017-2018 47 429 1,173 4,607
2018-2019 74 454 1,090 4,075
2019-2020 109 446 1,078 3,976

1. The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.

Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data, Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020)

The number of seasonal farmworkers in Napa County, especially compared to Solano County, re- mains high. The population of permanent farmworkers has also increased. Since rents are relatively lower in Fairfield than in comparable cities in Napa County, some farmworkers are living in Fair- field but commuting to Napa. The City has recently identified an increase of such workers, many of whom live in overcrowded units and units in substandard conditions, particularly in inexpen- sive motels and extremely low-income apartments. There have been several incidents where ex- treme overcrowding was identified in motels that provided rooms by the week to migrant workers.

It is difficult to quantify the extent of this trend, as some farmworkers prefer to stay out of reach of the City. Although no program currently exists to quantify the number of farmworkers that live in the city but work elsewhere, the City hopes to collect this information in the near future. Action 7-5 in the Housing Action Plan (Chapter 5) are designed to better understand and accommodate farmworker housing needs.

MILITARY EMPLOYEES OF TRAVIS AIR FORCE BASE
Travis Air Force Base (AFB) is located in the northeastern part of the city. The base has a long history of supporting humanitarian airlift operations at home and around the world. As of 2019, the base had over 12,000 military members and civilian employees. Table 2-26 describes the break- down by personnel type.

Table 2-26: Travis Air Force Base Personnel
Personnel Type Number Percent
Active Duty Military 7,276 39.5%
Air Force Reserve 2,664 14.4%
Dependents 5,575 30.2%
Civil Service 1,759 9.5%
Other Civilians 1,165 6.3%
Total 18,439 100.0%
Source: Travis Air Force Base, Economic Impact Analysis, FY 2019 Packet Page 335 of 846Attachment 5 Page 54 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 52 Known as the “Gateway to the Pacific,” Travis Air Force Base handles more cargo and passenger traffic through its airport than any other military air terminal in the United States. Travis AFB has a major impact on the community as a number of military families and retirees have chosen to make Fairfield their permanent home. In 2020, Travis AFB was the single largest employer in the City of Fairfield and Solano County, and the total economic impact of the Base was over $2.1 billion during fiscal year (FY) 2019. The Base also contributes a large number of highly skilled people to the local labor pool, including through the David Grant USAF Medical Center. The Medical Center provides postgraduate training programs in a variety of medical fields, and serves about 130,000 TRICARE eligible patients in the immediate San Francisco-Sacramento vicinity and more than 377,000 Department of Veteran Affairs Northern California Health Care System eligible annually.

By nature of their employment, enlisted military personnel are mobile and have relatively low in- come levels. Housing needs for this group include rental housing that is affordable to low- and moderate-income households and available on a monthly basis (in contrast to a long-term lease).

Military personnel with dependents also need affordable family housing with recreational amenities for children. Currently, a number of dormitories, visiting quarters and temporary lodging facilities are available at the base. Balfour Beatty Communities owns the family housing and is responsible for maintaining, repairing, constructing and managing the community. As of FY 2019, Balfour Beatty operated 1,278 privatized on-base housing units with a capacity for 5,112 persons. These units include a mixture of two-, three-, and four-bedroom units that are similar in appearance and amenities to private housing in the local market.

To ensure that housing needs are met for personnel, housing must be flexible and affordable. Mil- itary pay and basic allowance for housing (BAH) constitute the major sources of income for per- sonnel. Monthly pay rates depend on years of service and can be topped out for each enlisted rank, while BAH is adjusted if the enlistee has any dependents. Table 2-27 describes the income category of enlisted personnel based on 2019 Solano County median incomes. As is shown, many enlistees would be considered lower income, especially those in a larger household with dependents. No enlistee is considered extremely low-income or above moderate-income. In the past, strict owner- occupancy requirements for affordable housing have been an issue for base personnel, especially when personnel are rotated or leave the service. However, in recent years there has been more flex- ibility, including allowing personnel who own homes to rent them out for a period of time.

Packet Page 336 of 846Attachment 5 Page 55 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
53 Source: City of Fairfield, City Manager’s Office, 2020 Table 2-27: Travis Air Force Base Housing Affordability1 Enlisted Rank Monthly Pay + BAH2 Annual Income Income Category3,4 Low Top Out Low Top Out Low Top Out
Household of Four (with dependents)
E3 – Airman First Class $4,432 $4,685 $53,186 $56,214 Very Low Very Low E4 – Senior Airman $4,646 $5,115 $55,746 $61,380 Very Low Very Low E5 – Staff Sgt. $4,973 $5,977 $59,681 $71,719 Very Low Low E6 – Technical Sgt. $5,214 $6,648 $62,564 $79,772 Very Low Low E7 – Master Sgt. $5,667 $8,075 $68,000 $96,901 Very Low Median E8 – Senior Master Sgt. $7,049 $8,901 $84,582 $106,808 Low Moderate E9 – Chief Master Sgt. $8,074 $10,241 $96,890 $122,890 Median Moderate 2Lt, Prior Enlisted $6,667 $7,636 $80,003 $91,634 Low Median 1Lt, Prior Enlisted $7,711 $8,617 $92,534 $103,406 Median Moderate Captain, Prior Enlisted $8,453 $10,163 $101,430 $121,954 Median Moderate 2Lt $5,774 $6,598 $69,293 $79,175 Low Low Income
1Lt $6,272 $7,682 $75,258 $92,182 Low Median
Captain $6,991 $9,656 $83,887 $115,870 Low Moderate
Single Household (without dependents)
E3 – Airman First Class $3,922 $4,175 $47,066 $50,094 Very Low Low E4 – Senior Airman $4,136 $4,605 $49,626 $55,260 Low Low E5 – Staff Sgt. $4,580 $5,584 $54,965 $67,003 Low Median E6 – Technical Sgt. $4,944 $6,378 $59,324 $76,532 Low Moderate E7 – Master Sgt. $5,475 $7,883 $65,696 $94,597 Median Moderate E8 – Senior Master Sgt. $6,932 $8,784 $83,178 $105,404 Moderate Moderate E9 – Chief Master Sgt. $7,900 $10,067 $94,802 $120,802 Moderate Moderate 2Lt, Prior Enlisted $6,592 $7,561 $79,103 $90,734 Moderate Moderate 1Lt, Prior Enlisted $7,570 $8,476 $90,842 $101,714 Moderate Moderate Captain, Prior Enlisted $8,273 $9,983 $99,270 $119,794 Moderate Moderate 2Lt $5,507 $6,331 $66,089 $75,971 Median Moderate
1Lt $6,212 $7,622 $74,538 $91,462 Moderate Moderate
Captain $6,850 $9,515 $82,195 $114,178 Moderate Moderate

1. Assumptions include:
- Annual Income = (Monthly Pay + BAH) x 12
- Base MFI/AMI is a household of four persons
- Single households consist of one person
- Married couples with double incomes would have to be calculated on a case-by-case basis

2. BAH – Basic Allowance for Housing.

3. Based on 2019 Solano County AMI – $85,700 for a four-person household, $60,000 for a one-person household.

4. Income categories are divided as follows: Very Low Income (50% of AMI), Low Income (80% of AMI), Median Income (100% of AMI), and Moderate Income (120% of AMI).

Packet Page 337 of 846Attachment 5 Page 56 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 54 2.6 Housing Market Characteristics
This section addresses the various housing characteristics and conditions, including the housing stock growth trends, tenure and vacancy rates, age and condition, housing costs, and affordability, among others.

HOUSING TENURE
Housing tenure has not changed significantly in Fairfield during the 2000 to 2019 period. About 60 percent of occupied households were owner-occupied in the years 2000, 2010, and 2019, while about 40 percent were renter-occupied during the same years. There was a slight decrease in the rate of owner-occupied units from about 60.4 percent in 2010 to 59.3 percent in 2019, however. As shown in Chart 2-8 below, the rate of increase of renter-occupied units has remained somewhat steady throughout the period while the rate for owner-occupied units appears to have somewhat slowed in the 2010 to 2019 period.

Chart 2-8: Fairfield Household Tenure, 2000 – 2019
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table H04; U.S. Census Bu- reau, Census 2010 SF1, Table H04; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003)
Fairfield’s household tenure breakdown is similar to that of Solano County and the Bay Area. While Fairfield has a lower proportion of owner-occupied units (59.3 percent) compared to Solano County (61.5 percent), it has a higher proportion when compared to the Bay Area (56.1 percent).

See Table 2-28 for these estimates.

Packet Page 338 of 846Attachment 5 Page 57 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
55 Table 2-28: Fairfield and Surrounding Areas Household Tenure, 2019 Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Region Number Percent Number Percent
Fairfield 21,789 59.3% 14,962 40.7%
Solano County 92,149 61.5% 57,716 38.5%
Bay Area 1,531,955 56.1% 1,199,479 43.9%
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003)
Other factors that influence household tenure include resident age, the year the resident moved into the unit, resident race/ethnicity, household income, and housing type. As shown in Chart 2-9, the age of a resident significantly influences whether they are renters or owners. For instance, the vast majority of units with residents aged 15-34 are renter-occupied, while all units with older res- idents are majority owner-occupied. There is a slight drop-off in owner-occupied units for elderly residents, reflecting the need for a variety of housing types for these residents – including group homes and affordable rental units.

Chart 2-9: Fairfield Housing Tenure by Age, 2019
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007)

Packet Page 339 of 846Attachment 5 Page 58 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 56 Additionally, the majority of units with residents that moved into their current residence 2009 or earlier are owner-occupied. As shown in Chart 2-10, this dramatically shifts for residents who moved in 2010 or later, where a growing majority of units are renter-occupied. This likely reflects both the age dynamics of homeownership and the lasting impacts to the housing market of the 2008 financial crisis. The number of young residents and residents who more recently moved to their residences who are renters indicates a need to target these populations and ensure that rental hous- ing remains affordable and that avenues to homeownership remain accessible.

Chart 2-10: Fairfield Housing Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25038)
The racial and ethnic breakdown of renters and homeowners provides additional context for the housing background of the City of Fairfield. As shown in Table 2-29, about 67.5 percent of house- holds with Non-Hispanic, White residents are owner-occupied, the highest proportion of owner- occupancy by race/ethnicity in Fairfield. The second highest proportion exists for households with Asian/API (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents at 66.2 percent, although this figure is not dis- aggregated by ethnicity or nationality. Households with Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents, on the other hand, only have a 44.3 percent owner-occupancy rate. This demonstrates that Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents of Fairfield are more likely to be renters than any other racial/ethnic group in the city.

Packet Page 340 of 846Attachment 5 Page 59 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
57 Table 2-29: Fairfield Housing Tenure by Race/Ethnicity, 2019 Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Racial/Ethnic Group1 Number Percent Number Percent
American Indian or Alaska Native
(Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 74 50.0% 74 50.0%
Asian / API (Hispanic and Non-
Hispanic) 3,859 66.2% 1,973 33.8%
Black or African American (Hispanic
and Non-Hispanic) 2,728 44.3% 3,425 55.7%
Other Race or Multiple Races
(Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 2,294 50.9% 2,214 49.1%
White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 12,834 63.8% 7,276 36.2% Hispanic or Latinx 4,383 51.1% 4,192 48.9%
White, Non-Hispanic 9,974 67.5% 4,794 32.5%

1. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the econ- omy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here.

The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.

Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I))
Household income is another important metric in assessing housing disparities. As shown in Table 2-30, it is evident that the majority of lower-income households (i.e., households below 80 percent of AMI) are renter-occupied, while the opposite is true of moderate- and above-moderate-income households. This likely indicates that homeownership is largely unaffordable to lower-income res- idents of Fairfield. Given the disproportionate racial/ethnic share of renters in the city, this high- lights a need to include programs that target both economic and racial/ethnic disparities in Fairfield in order to affirmatively further fair housing.

Packet Page 341 of 846Attachment 5 Page 60 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 58 Table 2-30: Fairfield Housing Tenure by Income Level, 2019 Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Income Group1 Number Percent Number Percent
0%-30% of AMI 918 25.2% 2,719 74.8%
31%-50% of AMI 1,320 34.2% 2,535 65.8%
51%-80% of AMI 2,680 49.4% 2,745 50.6%
81%-100% of AMI 1,795 50.3% 1,775 49.7%
Greater than 100% of AMI 13,320 69.1% 5,965 30.9%

1. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Com- prehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release) Homeownership rates are also significantly dependent on the type of housing available. Housing in Fairfield is majority owner-occupied in large part because most of its housing stock consists of de- tached, single-family homes. These units, as shown in Table 2-31, are about 79.9 percent owner- occupied. Multi-family housing, on the other hand, are about 96.5 percent renter-occupied. This suggests a need to tailor affordability programs to meet the specific needs of each housing type in order to maintain affordability for both renters and homeowners.

Table 2-31: Fairfield Housing Tenure by Housing Type, 2019 Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Housing Type Number Percent Number Percent
Detached Single-Family Homes 19,899 79.9% 5,012 20.1%
Attached Single-Family Homes 788 34.2% 1,514 65.8%
Multi-Family Housing 301 3.5% 8,322 96.5%
Mobile Homes 801 87.5% 114 12.5%
Boat, RV, Van, or Other 0 - 0 -
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032)

Packet Page 342 of 846Attachment 5 Page 61 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
59 HOUSING TYPE
As shown in Table 2-32, in 2020 more than two thirds (70.4 percent) of Fairfield’s housing stock consisted of detached, single-family homes. There were also 2,483 (6.2 percent) attached, single- family homes. Multifamily housing with five-plus units accounted for 15.9 percent of the housing stock, while those with two to four units were 5.0 percent of the housing stock. Overall, the housing stock in Fairfield increased by 8.2 percent between 2010 and 2020. The largest rate of growth was in detached, single-family homes which increased by 10.3 percent, from 25,665 units in 2010 to 28,320 units in 2020.

Table 2-32: Fairfield Housing Type Trends, 2010 – 2020
2010 2020 Percent
Change (2010
– 2020) Building Type Number Percent Number Percent
Single-Family Home: Attached 2,419 6.5% 2,483 6.2% 2.6% Single-Family Home: Detached 25,665 69.0%

28,320 70.4% 10.3%
Multifamily Housing: Two to
Four Units
2,015 5.4% 2,015 5.0% 0.0%
Multifamily Housing: Five-plus
Units
6,086 16.4% 6,403 15.9% 5.2%
Mobile Homes 999 2.7% 999 2.5% 0.0%
Totals 37,184 100.0% 40,220 100.0% 8.2%
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (California Department of Finance, E-5 series)

OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS
According to the U.S. Census, overcrowding occurs where there is more than 1.01 persons per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens) in an occupied housing unit and severe overcrowding occurs when there is more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding usually occurs when there is an in- adequate supply of affordable housing. In addition, as discussed above, larger households (with five or more members) typically experience higher levels of overcrowding. As shown in Table 2-33, 2,325 out of 36,751 housing units in Fairfield were either “overcrowded” or “severely overcrowded” (6.3 percent). This is higher than the rate in Solano County (5.3 percent) but lower than that of the Bay Area (6.9 percent).

Packet Page 343 of 846Attachment 5 Page 62 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 60 Table 2-33: Overcrowding1 Severity by Region
Not Overcrowded Overcrowded Severely Overcrowded
Region Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Fairfield 34,426 93.7% 1,722 4.7% 603 1.6%
Solano
County 141,897 94.7% 5,538 3.7% 2,430 1.6%
Bay Area 2,543,056 93.1% 115,696 4.2% 72,682 2.7%

1. The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Com- prehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release) In addition, renters tend to experience overcrowding at higher rates than homeowners. This is ev- ident among Fairfield residents, where rates of overcrowding or severe overcrowding are 12.0 per- cent and 2.4 percent among renter-occupied and owner-occupied units, respectively. As seen in Chart 2-11, severe overcrowding (more than 1.5 occupants per room) occurs more frequently among renters.

Chart 2-11: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity in Fairfield Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Com- prehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

Packet Page 344 of 846Attachment 5 Page 63 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
61 Renters may experience higher rates of overcrowding because they are more likely to be lower in- come than are homeowners. Lower-income households in Fairfield (those less than 80 percent of AMI), tend to have higher rates of overcrowding. As shown in Table 2-34, 12.8 percent of house- holds making between 31 and 50 percent of AMI have 1.0 to 1.5 occupants per room, and 3.3 per- cent have more than 1.5 occupants per room. For households making greater than 100 percent of AMI, these figures are 2.7 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively. One outlier is that households mak- ing between 81 and 100 percent of AMI (typically classified as moderate income), have a 4.5 percent rate of severe overcrowding. This could reflect a significant lack of appropriately-sized housing units for moderate-income households.

Table 2-34: Overcrowding1 by Income Level and Severity in Fairfield Income Group2 Overcrowded Severely Overcrowded
0%-30% of AMI 7.8% 3.0%
31%-50% of AMI 12.8% 3.3%
51%-80% of AMI 7.0% 0.7%
81%-100% of AMI 3.5% 4.5%
Greater than 100% of AMI 2.7% 0.7%

1. The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

2. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.

Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Com- prehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release) In addition to tenure, overcrowding can be a significant problem for various races or ethnicities.

Chart 2-12 below provides the breakdown of overcrowding rates for various racial/ethnic groups in Fairfield. According to the ABAG-MTC data workbook containing this data, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing mar- ket and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here.” In addition, “[t]he racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled ‘Hispanic and Non-Hispanic' are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.”
From this data, it is apparent that overcrowding is a significant problem for Hispanic or Latinx households (of any race), with about 17.0 percent of these households experiencing some level of overcrowding. Rates are lowest for Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) households. (1.8 percent), White, Non-Hispanic households (2.7 percent), and American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) households (0.0 percent – although this may be the result of insufficient data).

Packet Page 345 of 846Attachment 5 Page 64 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 62 Chart 2-12: Overcrowding by Race/Ethnicity in Fairfield Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014)

HOUSING VACANCY
Vacancy trends are a way of analyzing housing supply and demand. For example, if the housing demand is greater than the supply, the vacancy rate is likely to be lower and the price of housing tends to be increasing. The 2015-2019 ACS (as reported in the ABAG-MTC data workbook) re- ported that 1,621 (4.4 percent) of the 36,751 housing units in Fairfield were vacant, which is signif- icantly lower than the seven percent vacancy rate reported in 2010. This likely reflects the recover- ing housing market following the 2008 financial collapse. Fairfield vacancy rates are lower than those in Solano County (5.3 percent) and the Bay Area (6.3 percent). Table 2-35 summarizes dis- tribution of vacant housing units in the City, Solano County and the Bay Area in 2019.

Packet Page 346 of 846Attachment 5 Page 65 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
63 Table 2-35: Fairfield Vacant Units by Type, 2019
Vacancy Status City of Fairfield Solano County Bay Area For Rent 392 2,073 41,117
For Sale 155 734 10,057
For Seasonal, Recreational, or Occasional Use 119 890 37,301 Other Vacant 792 3,285 61,722
Rented, Not Occupied 35 451 10,647
Sold, Not Occupied 128 502 11,816
Total Vacant Housing Units 1,621 (4.4%) 7,935 (5.3%) 172,660 (6.3%) Note: Percentages are based on 2015-2019 ACS estimates of total occupied housing units. This includes 36,751 units in Fairfield, 149,865 units in Solano County, and 2,731,434 units in the Bay Area.

Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004)

AGE OF HOUSING STOCK
According to the ABAG-MTC data workbook estimates, about 40.2 percent of Fairfield’s housing stock in 2019 is at least 40 years old (constructed prior to 1980). About 37.7 percent of the housing stock was constructed between 1980 and 1999. Only 22.2 percent of the housing stock was con- structed in the last 20 years. Chart 2-13 shows the age of Fairfield housing stock as of 2019.

Packet Page 347 of 846Attachment 5 Page 66 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 64 Chart 2-13: Age of Fairfield Housing Stock
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034)
The number of building permits issued is also a useful metric in gauging the capacity of housing development. According to the ABAG-MTC data workbook, there were no permits for very-low- or low-income housing during the 2015 to 2019 period. However, according to the City’s Annual Progress Report, there were 94 deed restricted “very low” units and 95 “low” units permitted during 2020. During this same 2015-2019 period there were, however, 362 moderate-income housing per- mits and 2,065 above-moderate-income housing permits. Table 2-36 presents this breakdown.

Table 2-36: Housing Permitting in Fairfield, 2015 – 2019 Income Group Number of Permits
Very Low Income 0
Low Income 0
Moderate Income 362
Above Moderate Income 2,065
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2020) Packet Page 348 of 846Attachment 5 Page 67 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
65 2.7 Housing Conditions
Housing is considered substandard when physical conditions are determined to be below the min- imum standards of living, as defined by Government Code Section 17920.3. A building is consid- ered substandard if any of the following conditions exist:
• Inadequate sanitation
• Structural hazards
• Nuisances
• Faulty weather protection
• Fire, safety or health hazards
• Inadequate building materials
• Inadequate maintenance
• Inadequate exit facilities
• Hazardous wiring, plumbing or mechanical equipment
• Improper occupation for living, sleeping, cooking, or dining purposes • Inadequate structural resistance to horizontal forces • Any building not in compliance with Government Code Section 13143.2 Households living in substandard conditions are considered as being in need of housing assistance even if they are not actively seeking alternative housing arrangements. In addition to structural deficiency and standards, the lack of certain infrastructure and utilities often serves as an indicator of substandard conditions. According to 2019 American Community Survey estimates compiled in the ABAG-MTC data worksheet, about 1.3 percent of renters and 0.1 percent of owners lack com- plete kitchen facilities while 0.8 percent of renters and 0.0 percent of owners lack complete plumb- ing facilities, seen in Table 2-37. In total, there are 121 occupied housing units with incomplete plumbing facilities and 207 with incomplete kitchen facilities.

Table 2-37: Fairfield Substandard Housing Issues
Building Amenity Owner Renter
Kitchen 0.1% 1.3%
Plumbing 0.0% 0.8%
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049)

Packet Page 349 of 846Attachment 5 Page 68 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 66 2.8 Housing Costs and Affordability
The cost of housing is directly related to the extent of housing problems in a community. If housing costs are relatively high in comparison to household income, there will be a higher prevalence of housing cost burden and overcrowding. This section summarizes the cost and affordability of the housing stock.

HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Housing affordability can be inferred by comparing the cost of renting or owning a home in Fair- field with the maximum affordable housing costs to households at different income levels. In eval- uating affordability, the maximum affordable price refers to the maximum amount that could be afforded by households in the upper range of their respective income category. Households in the lower end of each category can afford less in comparison. The maximum affordable home and rental prices for residents of Fairfield are shown in Table 2-38. This information can generally show who can afford what size and type of housing. The affordability of the City's housing stock for each income group is discussed below. HCD has estimated the 2021 County Area Median Income (AMI) to be $99,300, which is about a 29.5 percent increase from the 2014 County AMI estimate ($76,700).

Packet Page 350 of 846Attachment 5 Page 69 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
67 Table 2-38: City of Fairfield Housing Affordability by Income Group

Affordable Monthly
Payment2
Housing Costs Maximum Affordable
Price
Household Size AMI Limits1 Renter Owner Utilities3
Taxes & In-
surance4 Renter Owner5
Extremely-Low-Income (<30% AMI)
1 Person (Studio) $20,450 $511 $511 $189 $179 $323 $37,407 2 Person (1 Bedroom) $23,350 $584 $584 $201 $204 $383 $46,515 3 Person (2 Bedroom) $26,250 $656 $656 $233 $230 $423 $50,190 4 Person (3 Bedroom) $29,150 $729 $729 $267 $255 $462 $53,898 5 Person (4 Bedroom) $31,500 $788 $788 $303 $276 $485 $54,256 Very-Low-Income (31%-50% AMI)
1 Person (Studio) $34,000 $850 $850 $189 $298 $662 $94,591 2 Person (1 Bedroom) $38,850 $971 $971 $201 $340 $770 $111,960 3 Person (2 Bedroom) $43,700 $1,093 $1,093 $233 $382 $859 $124,158 4 Person (3 Bedroom) $48,550 $1,214 $1,214 $267 $425 $947 $135,868 5 Person (4 Bedroom) $52,450 $1,311 $1,311 $303 $459 $1,008 $142,927 Low-Income (51%-80% AMI)
1 Person (Studio) $54,350 $1,359 $1,359 $189 $476 $1,170 $180,659 2 Person (1 Bedroom) $62,100 $1,553 $1,553 $201 $543 $1,352 $210,389 3 Person (2 Bedroom) $69,850 $1,746 $1,746 $233 $611 $1,513 $234,687 4 Person (3 Bedroom) $77,600 $1,940 $1,940 $267 $679 $1,673 $258,758 5 Person (4 Bedroom) $83,850 $2,096 $2,096 $303 $734 $1,793 $275,640 Moderate-Income (81%-120% AMI)
1 Person (Studio) $83,400 $2,085 $2,433 $189 $851 $1,897 $362,489 2 Person (1 Bedroom) $95,300 $2,383 $2,780 $201 $973 $2,182 $417,807 3 Person (2 Bedroom) $107,250 $2,681 $3,128 $233 $1,095 $2,448 $468,334 4 Person (3 Bedroom) $119,150 $2,979 $3,475 $267 $1,216 $2,712 $518,513 5 Person (4 Bedroom) $128,700 $3,218 $3,754 $303 $1,314 $2,915 $556,028

1. AMI limits based on 2021 HCD State Income Limits for Solano County, other assumptions are derived from Zillow estimates (as of May 6, 2021). The 2021 Solano County AMI is estimate is $99,300.

2. Affordable monthly payment for renters and owners is assumed to be one-twelfth of 30% of median income applicable for the number of bedrooms. The exception is moderate-income owners, whose affordable payment is assumed to be is one-twelfth of 35% of median income applicable for the number of bedrooms as specified by HCD, pursuant to HSC 50052.5(b)(4).

3. Utilities are estimated according to the 2020 Fairfield Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule. Estimates are based on the combined average cost of gas and electric heating, cooking and water heating, as well as other electric, water, trash, sewage, air conditioning, refrigeration, and range/microwave across all unit types (i.e., garden apartment, duplex, row or townhouse, manufactured home, and single-family home). Costs are assumed equivalent for owners and renters.

4. Taxes and insurance are assumed to be 35% of monthly affordable housing costs for owners.

5. Assumed 30-year amortization, 2.72% interest rate, 3.5% down payment and closing costs equal to 2% of the sale price.

Source: HCD State Income Limits, 2021; Fairfield Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020

Packet Page 351 of 846Attachment 5 Page 70 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 68 HOUSING COSTS
Home values have continued to recover from their low point following the 2008 financial collapse and have even recently surpassed values prior to the collapse. Table 2-39 and Chart 2-14 demon- strate these trends using the Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI). Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percen- tile range. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. Table 2-39 breaks down the ZHVI by housing type, showing that most types of housing have increased in value by at least 100 percent during the 2010 to 2020 period. As of December 31, 2020, the typical home value in Fairfield was $502,001 – a 106.3 percent increase from December 31, 2010.

Table 2-39: Fairfield Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), 2010 - 2020 Housing Type December 2010 ZHVI December 2020 ZHVI
Percent Change
(2010 – 2020)
Total $243,357 $502,001 106.3%
Single-Family $246,973 $507,988 105.7%
Condo $111,751 $258,605 131.4%
1 Bedroom - $295,331 -
2 Bedroom $140,364 $365,019 160.1%
3 Bedroom $199,218 $442,464 122.1%
4 Bedroom $281,032 $551,184 96.1%
5+ Bedrooms $373,521 $673,213 80.2%
Source: Zillow Home Value Index, December 31, 2010 and December 31, 2020 Given the above ZHVI estimates and housing affordability levels from Table 2-38 it is apparent that a low-income household of four or five, with maximum affordable prices of $258,758 and $275,640 respectively, would be able to afford a condo ($258,605) in Fairfield. No other unit types are afford- able, and smaller low-income households cannot afford to purchase any household type. Home- ownership is not affordable to very-low- and extremely-low-income households of any size in Fair- field. Moderate-income households can afford the unit type that corresponds to their household size. For example, single-person households (maximum affordable price of $362,489) can afford a condo ($258,605) or one-bedroom unit ($295,331) and four-person households (maximum afford- able price of $518,513) can afford a three-bedroom unit ($442,464). This demonstrates an afforda- bility gap for lower-income households in the City, as lower-income households generally cannot afford housing that corresponds to the size of their household. A range of available housing types would help increase affordability, but this analysis shows that housing in a market like the Bay Area’s is only affordable to moderate- or high-income households, buyers that carry equity over from a previously owned home, buyers that have a large amount of cash for a down-payment, or buyers who receive subsidies to make homeownership affordable.

Packet Page 352 of 846Attachment 5 Page 71 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
69 The ABAG-MTC data worksheet also assesses ZHVI values across time, providing both local and regional estimates, available in Chart 2-14. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF's E-5 series. For unincorporated areas, the value is a population weighted average of unincorporated communities in the county matched to census-designated population counts. As can be seen, typical home values have steadily increased over the last two decades, besides the period of decline during the Great Recession. Home values have increased at a similar rate in both Fairfield and Solano County, while increasing at a significantly higher rate in the Bay Area as a whole.

Chart 2-14: Fairfield & Regional Area Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), 2001-2020 Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (Zillow, ZHVI December 31, 2001 – December 31, 2020) Further, estimates of home values for owner-occupied units in 2019 are available from the Ameri- can Community Survey, available in Chart 2-15. Confirming the typical home value estimated by the ZHVI, the vast majority (71.9 percent) of units are valued less than $750,000 in Fairfield, with a major cluster in the $500,000 to $750,000 range. A similar pattern is apparent in Solano County.

However, unit values in the Bay Area are not as clustered and only about 44.9 percent of units are less than $750,000. Thus, while homeownership may be largely unaffordable for lower-income households in Fairfield, it would be comparatively easier for a lower-income household in the City to find an affordable unit than for one in the Bay Area.

Packet Page 353 of 846Attachment 5 Page 72 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 70 Chart 2-15: Fairfield and Regional Area Owner-Occupied Unit Values, 2019 Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075)

RENTAL HOUSING MARKET
In 2019, the median contract rent in Fairfield was $1,427. According to the Census, contract rent is the monthly rent agreed upon regardless of any furnishings, utilities or services that may be in- cluded. Data regarding contract rent excludes units for which no cash rent is paid. Table 2-40 illus- trates that while Fairfield rents were slightly higher than those of Solano County, they were much lower than those of the Bay Area during the same year. Rents in Fairfield and Solano County have increased at a similar rate between 2009 and 2019 (38.3 percent and 36.1 percent respectively) while rents in the Bay Area have increased at a significantly higher 54.6 percent during the same period.

Table 2-40: Fairfield and Regional Area Rents, 2009 – 2019 Jurisdiction
2009 Median
Contract Rent
2015 Median
Contract Rent
2019 Median
Contract Rent
Fairfield $1,032 $1,177 $1,427
Solano
County
$1,044 $1,169 $1,421
Bay Area $1,196 $1,440 $1,849
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook, 2021
Packet Page 354 of 846Attachment 5 Page 73 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
71 The breakdown of contract rents by jurisdiction is available in Chart 2-16. The majority of contract rents in Fairfield were $1,500 or less. The distribution of contract rents was similar in Solano County. Similar to home value trends, the Bay Area has a larger cluster of high rent units than both Fairfield and Solano County. For instance, 42.0 percent of Bay Area contract rents were $2,000 or greater while only 20.9 percent of Fairfield contract rents were.

Chart 2-16: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units, 2019 Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056)
To better understand rental costs in Fairfield, U.S. Census microdata compiled by IPUMS USA can be used. IPUMS data corresponds to the Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) for Fairfield and Suisun City, which does not necessarily have the same boundaries as other Census-derived esti- mates. Additionally, estimates are weighted by the representativeness of the sampled household given IPUMS-derived weights. Table 2-41 provides estimated median monthly gross rents in the PUMA by the number of bedrooms using this data. Unlike contract rent, gross rent includes addi- tional costs for utilities and fuels.

Packet Page 355 of 846Attachment 5 Page 74 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 72 Table 2-41: Fairfield and Suisun City Monthly Gross Rental Rates, 2019 Number of Bedrooms Estimated Number of Households1 2019 Median Monthly Gross Rent2 0 1,186 -
1 853 $1,300
2 3,378 $1,110
3 9,167 $1,340
4 18,615 $1,840
5 13,308 $2,062
6 2,371 $1,361.5
7 61 $410
8 182 $2,860

1. Household count is based on the Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) for Solano County (Central) - Fairfield & Suisun City Cities. While PUMAs generally follow the boundaries of census-defined “places,” total household counts may differ from other Census-derived estimates.

2. Estimates of median gross rent are weighted by an IPUMS-derived household weight. Estimates may be inaccurate due to missing data and outliers.

Source: IPUMS USA, 2015-2019 ACS
According to the gross rental estimates (i.e., including utilities and other costs) from Table 2-41 above, a three-bedroom rental unit would be affordable to a low-income four-person household with a monthly affordable payment of $1,940 (per Table 2-38). Gross rental costs would also be affordable for all sizes low-income households, as well as moderate-income households. However, no very-low- and extremely-low-income households would be able to afford rental units at the ap- propriate size. Like the description of homeownership costs above, this demonstrates a rental af- fordability gap for very-low- and extremely-low-income households in the City. For these types of households, subsidies may be required to ensure affordability.

MOBILE HOME PARK RENTS
Fairfield has several mobile home parks. Space rents range anywhere from $355 to $700. Many households in the very low- and low-income categories would be able to afford these space rents, assuming park tenants already own their units. See Table 2-42 for monthly rents at each mobile home park.

Table 2-42: Mobile Home Park Space Rents
Park Name1 Monthly Rent
Pacific Estates $355
Casa Nova $472
Country Club Estates $700
Dover $700

1. County Club Estates and Dover are under the same management.

Source: City of Fairfield, 2021
Packet Page 356 of 846Attachment 5 Page 75 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
73 COST BURDEN
Cost burden, or overpayment, is defined as monthly shelter costs in excess of 30 percent of a house- hold’s income. Severe cost burden is defined as paying over 50 percent of household income for shelter costs. Shelter cost is defined as the monthly owner costs (mortgages, deed of trust, contracts to purchase or similar debts on the property and taxes, insurance on the property, and utilities) or the gross rent (contract rent plus the estimated monthly cost of utilities). CHAS data provided by HUD provides estimates of cost burden by tenure and income category. Estimates use the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) to determine overpayment. HAMFI is the median family income calculated by HUD for each jurisdiction, in order to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs. HAMFI will not necessarily be the same as other median income calculations due to a series of adjustments.

According to 2013-2017 CHAS data, 7,475 households in Fairfield pay between 30 and 50 percent of their incomes for housing (20.9 percent) and an additional 5,590 (15.6%) are severely cost-bur- dened. This means that about 36.5 percent of Fairfield households are paying above the recom- mended HUD standard for housing costs. Of the 13,065 cost-burdened households in Fairfield, about 3,745 households (28.7 percent) can be classified as moderate- or above-moderate-income.

This means that about 9,320 (71.3 percent) of the households overpaying for housing are lower- income households, demonstrating an affordability problem for many households in Fairfield.

Renters are particularly impacted by overpayment, as they are limited to the rental market while owners have the option of selling their home. Renters, especially lower-income renters, tend to have higher rates of cost burden than owners in the same income category. For example, 79.1 percent of lower-income renter-occupied households experience some level of cost burden, while 61.0 percent of owner-occupied households do. Table 2-43 illustrates the extent of overpayment by income group and tenure for the City.

Packet Page 357 of 846Attachment 5 Page 76 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 74 Table 2-43: Cost-Burdened Households in Fairfield by Income and Tenure1 Income Category
Renters Owners Total Households2
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Extremely-Low-Income (Under 30% HAMFI3)
No Cost Burden/Not Computed 530 19.4% 190 20.8% 720 19.8% Cost Burden 215 7.9% 170 18.6% 385 10.6%
Severe Cost Burden 1,985 72.7% 555 60.7% 2,540 69.7%
Very-Low-Income (30% - 50% HAMFI)
No Cost Burden/Not Computed 150 5.9% 445 33.8% 595 15.5% Cost Burden 1,355 53.7% 255 19.4% 1,610 41.9%
Severe Cost Burden 1,020 40.4% 615 46.8% 1,635 42.6%
Low-Income (50% - 80% HAMFI)
No Cost Burden/Not Computed 995 36.2% 1,280 47.8% 2,275 41.9% Cost Burden 1,225 44.6% 920 34.3% 2,145 39.5%
Severe Cost Burden 525 19.1% 480 17.9% 1,005 18.5%
All Lower-Income (Under 80% HAMFI)
No Cost Burden/Not Computed 1,675 20.9% 1,915 39.0% 3,590 27.8% Cost Burden 2,795 34.9% 1,345 27.4% 4,140 32.1%
Severe Cost Burden 3,530 44.1% 1,650 33.6% 5,180 40.1%
Moderate- and Above-Moderate-Income (Over 80% HAMFI)
No Cost Burden/Not Computed 6,230 80.4% 12,895 85.3% 19,120 83.6% Cost Burden 1,420 18.3% 1,910 12.6% 3,330 14.6%
Severe Cost Burden 95 1.2% 315 2.1% 415 1.8%
All Income Groups
No Cost Burden/Not Computed 7,905 50.2% 14,810 73.9% 22,705 63.5% Cost Burden 4,215 26.8% 3,255 16.3% 7,475 20.9%
Severe Cost Burden 3,625 23.0% 1,965 9.8% 5,590 15.6%

1. According to HUD, households spending 30 percent or less of their income on housing expenses have no cost burden, house- holds spending 31 to 50 percent of their income have cost burden, and households spending 51 percent or more of their income have severe cost burden.

2. Discrepancies in sums are due to rounding errors.

3. HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI).

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release

Packet Page 358 of 846Attachment 5 Page 77 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
75 2.9 Assisted Housing at Risk of Conversion
State Housing Element law requires that communities identify the status of low-income rental units that are “at risk” of conversion to market rent status within ten years of the statutory mandated update of the Housing Element (from January 2023 to January 2031). The California Housing Part- nership estimates that there are 1,642 assisted low-income units in Fairfield, about 29.1 percent of all such units within Solano County. Table 2-44 shows that while most units in Fairfield at low risk of conversion, there are 99 units (6.0 percent) at moderate risk and 170 units (10.4 percent) at high risk. While California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database is the state’s most comprehen- sive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state. Consequently, there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table.

Per HCD guidance, local jurisdictions must also list the specific affordable housing developments at-risk of converting to market rate uses as Table 2-44 only provides aggregate numbers of at-risk units for each jurisdiction. The assisted housing inventory is available in Table 2-45 below. There is significant number of assisted rental housing units, which includes units assisted under federal, state, and local programs.

Table 2-44: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion
Fairfield Solano County Bay Area
Risk Level1 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Low Risk 1,373 83.6% 4,785 95.8% 110,177 94.6%
Moderate Risk 99 6.0% 152 3.0% 3,375 2.9%
High Risk 170 10.4% 60 1.2% 1,854 1.6%
Very High Risk 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1,053 0.9%
Total Assisted Units 1,642 100.0% 4,997 100.0% 116,459 100.0%

1. California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database:
• Low Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/sta- ble non-profit, mission-driven developer.
• Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mis- sion-driven developer.
• High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 2-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission- driven developer.
• Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mis- sion-driven developer.

Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database, 2020)

Packet Page 359 of 846Attachment 5 Page 78 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 76 Table 2-45: Fairfield Assisted Housing Inventory
Project Name
Address Affordable
Units
Total
Units
Active Pro-
gram(s)
Risk Level
Hampton Place/Gateway
Village
2000 Pennsylvania
Avenue 55 56 LIHTC; HCD Low
Woodside Court Apartments 555 Alaska Avenue 127 129 LIHTC; Local Low Monument Arms Apartments
261 East Alaska
Avenue 88 92 LIHTC; HUD Low
Union Square II 608 Kennedy Court 24 24
LIHTC; HCD;
Local Low
Fairfield Heights Apartments 1917 Grande Circle 51 52 LIHTC Low Sunset Creek Apartments
840 E. Travis
Boulevard 75 76 LIHTC; Local Low
Signature at Fairfield 1189 Tabor Avenue 92 93
LIHTC;
CalHFA; HCD Low
Laurel Gardens Apartments
201 East Alaska
Avenue 29 30
LIHTC; HCD;
Local Low
Kennedy Court 1401 Union Ave 32 32 LIHTC Low
Fairfield Vista Apartments
201 Pennsylvania
Avenue 59 60 LIHTC Low
Woodsong Village
Apartments
2999 North Texas
Street 110 112 LIHTC High
Sunset Manor Apartments
855 East Tabor
Avenue 146 148 LIHTC; Local Low
Dover Woods Senior
Apartments 2801 Dover Avenue 198 200 LIHTC Low
Senior Manor 1101 Union Avenue 83 84 LIHTC; Local Low
Fairfield Apartments
(Parkside Villa Apartments &
Rockwell Manor Apartments):

Site A 1650 Park Lane 126 128 LIHTC; HUD Low
One Lake Family Apartments
Northwest corner of
Vanden Road and
One Lake Drive 188 190
LIHTC;
CalHFA Low
Parkway Plaza
188 East Alaska
Avenue 99 100 HUD
Modera
te
Avery Parks (Quail Terrace) 2000 Claybank Road 33 136 CalHFA High Bennington Apartments
(Sheffield Green)
2780 North Texas
Street 27 132 CalHFA High
Total 1,642 1,874
Source: California Housing Partnership, 2022
Packet Page 360 of 846Attachment 5 Page 79 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
77 COST ANALYSIS
While there are no specific projects in Fairfield’s Assisted Housing Inventory at risk of conversion to market rate during the Planning Period, the California Housing Partnership has identified a number of units that may be at-risk. State law requires the analysis of at-risk housing to identify “the total cost of producing new rental housing that is comparable in size and rent levels, to replace the units that could change from low-income use, and an estimated cost of preserving the assisted housing developments.”
The cost of preservation for typical affordable housing project can be estimated by finding the dif- ference between market rent and affordable rent. As shown in Table 2-38 the affordable monthly rental payment for a very-low-income, one-bedroom unit in Fairfield is $971. In FY 2021 the HUD Fair Market Rent, or gross rent estimate, in the Vallejo-Fairfield metropolitan statistical area (MSA) for a one-bedroom unit was $1,351. The difference between these two prices is the “affordability gap”, which is about $380 in Fairfield. Given this affordability gap, the total cost of preserving all 170 at-risk units would be approximately $64,600 per month or $775,200 per year.

RESOURCES FOR PRESERVATION
Two primary resources are available for preserving at-risk units: (1) public agencies, nonprofit housing corporations, and tenant groups, and (2) public financing or subsidy programs. The Hous- ing Resources chapter includes a list of public funding sources and regional nonprofit housing or- ganizations active in or interested in operating in Fairfield. The City would work with these organ- izations to preserve the housing units in danger of conversion.

For Section 8 projects, the property owner can opt to terminate the Section 8 contract (“opt out”) or renew the contract. The primary incentive for Section 8 property owners to opt out of their reg- ulatory agreement is monetary. Market rents in some communities have risen to the point at which many property owners can earn more by prepaying their government assistance, even if they have to borrow money at market interest rates. This may not necessarily be the case in central Fairfield, as older apartment buildings do not command the highest rents in the community.

For the property owner to successfully opt out of the Section 8 contract, the owner must satisfy certain procedural requirements. A Notice of Intent (NOI) must be filed with HUD one year before the termination date that indicates the owner’s intent to convert the units to market rate. Failure to file an NOI within the specified time frame or to follow the other procedures to opt out of the Section 8 contract results in an automatic contract rollover for five years.

Upon filing of an NOI, HUD may offer several incentives to property owners to remain in their contracts, including refinancing the property mortgage and establishing higher rents charged for the projects.

Pursuant to Section 65863.10 of the Government Code, the property owner of a Section 8 contract must also provide six months advance notification to each tenant household if the property owner intends to terminate the Section 8 contract. The notice must indicate the anticipated date of con- version and the anticipated rent increase, the possibility of remaining subsidized, the owner’s in- tentions, and the appropriate contacts for additional information. The property owner must also Packet Page 361 of 846Attachment 5 Page 80 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 78 send a copy of the statement to the city or county where the property is located, to the appropriate local housing authority, and to HCD. The statement must indicate the number, age, and income of affected tenants, the type of assistance, and the owner’s plans for the project.

Upon receipt of notice, the city may contact the owner to determine if there are financial or other incentives that could induce the owner to maintain the rent and occupancy restrictions or to sell the property to another owner who will maintain the affordability of the rental units. The city can- not block the owner’s ability to prepay if state and federal requirements for notification are followed and other procedural requirements are met prior to prepayment and the termination of restrictions.

The city can monitor the process to ensure that all state and federal requirements are met.

2.10 Energy Conservation
The primary uses of energy in urban areas are for transportation, lighting, water heating, and space heating/cooling. The high cost of energy and the environmental impacts of energy consumption demand that efforts be taken to reduce or minimize the overall level of urban energy consumption.

Significant reduction in energy use can be achieved through the coordination of land development and transportation infrastructure, a fundamental component of smart growth. The existing land use pattern in Fairfield is primarily suburban and car-oriented. There are a range of opportunity areas where land could be developed or redeveloped to meet commercial, industrial or residential needs. Future development, as outlined in the Fairfield General Plan Update, will foster revitaliza- tion in the City’s core and along key corridors, building on the momentum of recent planning ef- forts. Fairfield will develop as a community of vibrant, diverse, and connected neighborhoods with an improved transportation network. Further, given the threat of climate change and extreme weather, evidenced by recent wildfires on the City’s edges, Fairfield will be a leader in sustainability.

This includes striving toward a zero-carbon footprint, promoting climate adaptation strategies and decreasing reliance on automobile use. A zero-carbon footprint will be made possible by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from energy use and transportation, and by expanding use of renewable energies across the city.

To achieve energy conservation goals, the City will continue strict enforcement of the building standards of the 2019 edition of the California Building Standards Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and amendments related to energy conservation. Title 24 establishes energy budgets or maximum energy use levels for dwelling units. The standards of Title 24 supersede local regulations and mandate implementation by local jurisdictions.

In 2009, Fairfield approved its first Sustainability Report. The Report focused largely on sustaina- bility initiatives within internal City government operations, including Fairfield’s institutional fa- cilities, equipment, and City fleet. The Report established a Green Team of staff from departments throughout the City and committed to meet on a regular basis to develop ideas and facilitate im- plementation. The City prepared a draft Climate Action Plan in 2017; however, it was never adopted. A new Climate Action Plan is being prepared in tandem with the General Plan Update and will build upon the work of past sustainability planning efforts.

Packet Page 362 of 846Attachment 5 Page 81 of 565

Chapter 2: Community Profile and Needs Assessment
79 At this time, the 2005 inventory is the City’s most recent communitywide assessment of GHG emis- sions. More than three quarters of Fairfield’s emissions come from the energy and transportation sectors. GHG emissions are also generated outside of the Planning Area from sources that are a direct result of people living and working within Fairfield. For example, power plants, landfills, and wastewater treatment plants generate emissions outside of Fairfield, but the ultimate driver of these emissions (electricity demand, solid waste, and wastewater) originate in Fairfield. Overall, the City’s GHG emissions inventory in 2005 was 663,519 MT CO2e for community operations, and 16,500 MT CO2e for municipal operations in 2008. Residential energy emissions (including both electric- ity and natural gas) account for 20.3 percent of 2005 emissions, while passenger vehicles account for 32.1 percent.

2.11 Projected Housing Need
The “demand” for housing is based on the total number of households divided into four household income categories. These income categories are based on the median household for Solano County.

The Association of Bay Area Governments and HCD classify income as follows:
• Extremely low-income: 30 percent of area median income and below • Very low-income: 31 to 50 percent of area median income • Low-income: 51 to 80 percent of area median income
• Moderate-income: 81 percent to 120 percent of area median income • Above moderate-income: over 120 percent of area median income

REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION
California’s Housing Element law requires that each city and county develop local housing pro- grams designed to meet its “fair share” of existing and future housing needs for all income groups, as determined by the jurisdiction’s Council of Governments (COG) and HCD. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the COG responsible for allocating to jurisdictions in the nine- county Bay Area their fair share of the region’s projected housing needs, known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). A fair share of housing units is calculated for each of four income groups based on a jurisdiction’s current share of housing for different income levels and on the jurisdiction’s amount of available vacant land.

Fair share needs are allocated over the planning period for every jurisdiction’s Housing Element.

This cycle, the Planning Period is 2023-2031. The intent of RHNA determinations is to ensure that local jurisdictions address not only the needs of their immediate areas but also help meet the hous- ing needs for the entire region. A major goal of RHNA is to ensure that every community provides an opportunity for a mix of affordable housing to all economic segments of its population. Juris- dictional allocations are made to guarantee that adequate sites and zoning are provided to address existing and anticipated housing demands during the planning period and that market forces are not inhibited in addressing the housing needs for all populations within a particular community.

Packet Page 363 of 846Attachment 5 Page 82 of 565

Public Review Draft: Fairfield Housing Element Update 2023-2031 80 ABAG has developed the 6th cycle Final RHNA Plan for the 2023-2031 period. ABAG’s adopted 2020 Final RHNA figures identify an overall construction need of 3,069 new units in Fairfield, a slight decrease from the prior cycle’s allocation of 3,100 new units. Table 2-46 shows the income breakdown of these units.

Table 2-46: 2023 – 2031 Fairfield Regional Housing Needs Allocation Income Category Needed Units Percent of Needed Units
Extremely Low (0-30% of AMI)1 396 -
Very Low (0-50% of AMI) 792 25.8%
Low (51-80% of AMI) 464 15.1%
Moderate (81-120% of AMI) 539 17.6%
Above Moderate (more than 120% of AMI) 1,274 41.5%
Total 3,069 100.0%

1. Development needs of extremely-low-income units are assumed to be 50 percent of very-low-income housing needs.

Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (Association of Bay Area Governments)

Packet Page 364 of 846Attachment 5 Page 83 of 565

81 This page left intentionally blank

Packet Page 365 of 846Attachment 5 Page 84 of 565

City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
82 3 Assessment of Fair Housing
California Assembly Bill (AB) 686, passed in September 2018, amended California Government Code Section 65583 to require all public agencies to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes. The Bill added an assessment of fair housing to the Housing Element which includes the following components: a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; an analysis of segregation patterns and dis- parities in access to opportunities, an assessment of contributing factors, and an identification of fair housing goals and actions.

Fairfield approved an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) in July 2022. This sec- tion summarizes some of the major findings of that report. The 2022 AI relies on the Data utilized in this report cover various time periods, including the 2000 and 2010 census and the 2011 and 2019 ACS, to utilize the most recent available data. This chapter relies on more consistent 2019 five- year ACS estimates and the July 2020 HUD AFFH data release (Table AFFHT0006) where possible.

Additional data provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in their AFFH Data and Mapping Resources tool prepared for the assessment of fair housing is also used. An analysis of the sites inventory, including whether the sites identified improve or exacerbate conditions of fair housing, is available in Appendix C.

The 2022 AI incorporated meaningful community participation, consultation and coordination.

This included outreach at public events from January 2019 to March 2019. Information was also broadcast through multiple media outlets, including via local newspaper, social media, and televi- sion. Local stakeholders and social service agencies were also alerted during the AI process. In total, 314 people responded to the Fair Housing Choice surveys. Additional information on community participation is included in Appendix 5 of the 2022 AI, which is included as Appendix D of this Housing Element. The results of this effort and related public outreach for the Housing Element process inform the assessment and conclusions provided in this section.

Packet Page 366 of 846Attachment 5 Page 85 of 565

Chapter 3: Assessment of Fair Housing
83 3.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity
Fair housing services are essential to ensure that housing options are accessible to State and feder- ally protected groups, including those based on race, color, gender, religion, national origin, familial status, disability, age, marital status, ancestry, source of income, sexual orientation, genetic infor- mation, or other arbitrary factors. Fair housing services help Fairfield residents understand and protect their right to access housing.

Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC) is the fair housing service provider for Fairfield and offers services to homeowners and renters located in the counties of Marin, Sonoma, and Solano. FHANC provides free comprehensive fair housing counseling, complaint investiga- tion, and assistance in filing housing discrimination complaints with HUD or the California De- partment of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH). FHANC is HUD-certified to offer pre-pur- chase counseling and education programs, as well as foreclosure prevention counseling and work- shops. In partnership with stakeholders and community groups, FHANC conducts a workshop or conference about once a quarter on important housing topics.

Housing discrimination complaints are one source to evaluate the extent of fair housing issues in a community. Housing discrimination complaints can be filed directly with HUD or with DFEH, or with local housing providers such as FHANC. A review of FHANC quarterly reports from calendar year 2017 to 2021 show that approximately 70 percent of tenants and clients seeking fair housing assistance because of discrimination against disabilities. Further, FHANC has conducted four au- dits in Solano County since 2015. The results of the audits are as follows:
• National Origin and Source of Income Discrimination in Rental Housing in Marin, Sonoma, and Solano Counties (2019-2020). Results:
o In Solano County, in 81 percent of rental properties investigated housing providers discriminated on the basis of national origin and/or source of income. In Fairfield, of the six properties investigated, five discriminated on the basis of source of in- come while none discriminated on the basis of national origin. Source of income includes lawful verifiable income, including public assistance and housing subsi- dies such as Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV).
• Race Discrimination in Rental Housing in Marin and Solano Counties (June 2017). Results:
o In Solano County, 38 percent of tests found either clear or some differential treat- ment for African American testers. In Fairfield, 33 percent of tests indicated some level of differential treatment. Differential treatment is any discrepancy in the in- formation received by each tester, while clear differential treatment indicates a de- monstrable statutory violation.
• Discrimination Against Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Persons in Rental Housing in Solano County (April 2015). Results:
o In Solano County, 45 percent of tests indicated some level of differential treatment for deaf and hard-of-hearing testers. In Fairfield, 59 percent of tests indicated some level of differential treatment.
• Criminal Background Checks as a Screening Tool for Race/National Origin Discrimina- tion in Rental Housing in Solano, Marin and Sonoma Counties. Results:
o In Fairfield, 46% of testers encountered at least some discrepancies or disadvan- taged in treatment for the African-American and Latino/a testers.

Packet Page 367 of 846Attachment 5 Page 86 of 565

City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
84 The 2022 AI determined that there were a number of fair housing impediments in Fairfield. New impediments included residential segregation of assisted multifamily projects; insufficient afforda- ble housing; several institutional barriers, including clarity about the development process and fees, fee amounts, and difficulty in obtaining planning approvals, permits, and inspection; and effective processes to address neighborhood concerns about real and perceived impacts of affordable hous- ing. Other impediments included pandemic-increased housing instability, and lack of knowledge.

Continuing impediments included lack of awareness of the extent of housing discrimination and lack of knowledge of fair housing laws.

3.2 Segregation and Integration
Public and private housing discrimination, whether intentional or not, can give rise to patterns of segregation within a jurisdiction. Although racial and ethnic segregation is perhaps the most well- known form, other protected classes may also experience patterns of segregation. This section ex- plores patterns and trends of segregation based on race and ethnicity, disability, familial status, and income level in Fairfield and the surrounding region. It should be noted that these groups are not mutually exclusive, and there may be considerable overlap across each protected class.

RACE AND ETHNICITY
Racial and ethnic patterns of segregation in Fairfield should be understood in the context of chang- ing regional and local demographics. As shown in Table 3-1, the population of Solano County has increased by 6.6 percent between 2010 and 2020, with a projected increase of about 16.0 percent between 2020 and 2040. Growth in the City was largely driven by non-Hispanic multiracial indi- viduals as well as Hispanic individuals of any race. According to California Department of Finance (DOF) projections, these two groups will continue to drive population growth through 2040, as well as the growth of the non-Hispanic Black population. Solano County is considered a majority- minority county, meaning that over 50 percent of the population is something other than non- Hispanic white. However, non-Hispanic whites, as of 2020, do represent a plurality of the popula- tion at about 39.1 percent, followed by Hispanics of any race (26.1 percent) and non-Hispanic Asians (14.1 percent).

Packet Page 368 of 846Attachment 5 Page 87 of 565

Chapter 3: Assessment of Fair Housing
85 Table 3-1: Population Growth by Race/Ethnicity, Solano County, 2010 - 2040 Race/Ethnicity Population Percent Change
2010 2020 2040 Forecast 2010-2020 2020-2040
White (NH1) 169,090 171,962 185,122 1.7% 7.7%
Black (NH) 59,316 61,984 74,946 4.5% 20.9%
American Indian or Alaska
Native (NH)
1,929 1,982 2,041 2.7% 3.0%
Asian (NH) 59,484 62,186 64,098 4.5% 3.1%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander (NH)
3,330 3,541 3,741 6.3% 5.6%
Multiracial (NH) 20,243 23,736 32,783 17.3% 38.1%
Hispanic (any race) 99,470 114,807 147,681 15.4% 28.6%
Total 412,862 440,198 510,412 6.6% 16.0%

1. NH refers to non-Hispanic.

Source: California Department of Finance, Table P-2D County Population by Total Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Race (2010-2060)
Similar to the county, Fairfield is considered a majority-minority city. Nearly 67.6 percent of the population is considered a minority (i.e., something other than non-Hispanic/Latino white) ac- cording to 2019 ACS five-year estimates, as seen in Table 3-2. Population growth between 2010 and 2019, which was 11.2 percent overall, was largely driven by an increase in the non-Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander population (125.1 percent), the non-Hispanic/Latino Other population (30.2 percent), and the non-Hispanic/Latino Asian population (21.3 percent).

Also of note is the steady decrease of the non-Hispanic/Latino American Indian and Alaska Native population since 2000, the decrease and subsequent increase of the non-Hispanic/Latino white population since 2000, and the major increase (59.5 percent) of the Hispanic or Latino population between 2000 and 2010. According to the 2019 AI, as people of color have continued to move into Fairfield, white residents who had previously lived in the core of the city are moving to the northern and western portions of the city. Population projections by race and ethnicity are unavailable at the city level as they have not been prepared by the DOF, the Association of Bay Area Governments- Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG-MTC) or Solano County.

Packet Page 369 of 846Attachment 5 Page 88 of 565

City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
86 Table 3-2: Population Growth by Race/Ethnicity, Fairfield, 2000 - 2019 Race/Ethnicity Population Percent Change
2000 2010 2019 2000-2010 2010-2019
White, Non-Hispanic/Latino 47,094 37,091 37,977 -21.2% 2.4% Black or African American, Non-
Hispanic/Latino
14,097 15,979 16,944 13.4% 6.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native, Non-
Hispanic/Latino
518 462 290 -10.8% -37.2%
Asian, Non-Hispanic/Latino 10,277 15,265 18,512 48.5% 21.3% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander, Non-Hispanic/Latino
851 1,049 2,361 23.3% 125.1%
Other, Non-Hispanic/Latino 5,291 6,686 8,705 26.4% 30.2% Hispanic or Latino 18,050 28,789 32,347 59.5% 12.4%
Minority1 49,084 68,230 79,159 39.0% 16.0%
Total 96,178 105,321 117,136 9.5% 11.2%

1. Minority refers to any person not listed as White, Non-Hispanic/Latino Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 (SF1, Table P004); Census 2010 (SF1, Table P9); 2018 ACS Five-Year Estimates (Table DP05) One method to gauge the extent of segregation in a jurisdiction is the dissimilarity index, which measures the relative geospatial composition of two demographic groups. The HUD-provided dis- similarity index provides values ranging from 0 to 100, where higher numbers indicate a higher degree of segregation among the two groups measured. Dissimilarity index values between 0 and

39.99 generally indicate low segregation, values between 40 and 54.99 generally indicate moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation.

It is important to note that the dissimilarity index uses non-Hispanic white residents as the primary comparison group, whereas Solano County and Fairfield are majority-minority jurisdictions. Dis- similarity index values compare racial and ethnic groups against the distribution of non-Hispanic white residents in a community and do not directly measure segregation between minority groups (e.g., non-Hispanic Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino segregation).

Chart 3-1 provides the dissimilarity index trends from 1990 to 2020 for Fairfield and the Vallejo- Fairfield region. All indices within the city are below 40, indicating relatively low levels of segrega- tion in Fairfield. As of 2020, segregation is most pronounced between the Hispanic and white pop- ulations of the city. Index scores have also generally increased in the city between 1990 and the most recent HUD data release (July 2020). Similarly, the Vallejo-Fairfield region has seen increasing lev- els of segregation since 1990. Segregation is generally increased at the regional level, with Black and Asian/Pacific Islander populations experiencing moderate levels of segregation as of 2020. While Fairfield exhibits relatively low levels of segregation at the citywide level compared to other cities in California, the 2022 AI reported that there were 19 assisted multifamily projects in Fairfield, 17 of which were located in or adjacent to areas of minority concentration in the downtown Redevel- opment Area. All projects were constructed 10 to 20 years ago, when the former Redevelopment Agency worked with developers of affordable housing projects to locate new multifamily develop- ments in the Redevelopment Area. Per the 2019 AI, the City has since recognized the problems introduced by such a strategy and adapted its affordable development strategy.

Packet Page 370 of 846Attachment 5 Page 89 of 565

Chapter 3: Assessment of Fair Housing
87 Chart 3-1: Fairfield and Regional Dissimilarity Index Source: HUD, AFFHT0006 Table 12, July 2020
Since Fairfield is a majority-minority city, the dissimilarity index provided by HUD may not cap- ture the nuances in patterns of segregation between minority groups. Further, the dissimilarity in- dex is only available at the citywide level. To capture these nuances, the Urban Displacement Project (UDP) at UC Berkeley has created neighborhood segregation typologies that identify which ra- cial/ethnic groups have more than 10 percent representation within a given census tract. The ty- pologies consider five racial/ethnic groups, including Black, Latinx, White, Asian and Other. As seen in Figure 3-1, the majority of tracts in Fairfield are identified as either 3 or 4 Group Mix. Two tracts in the center of the city are classified Asian-White and Latinx-White. Further, as shown in Figure 3-2, a significant portion of block groups in Fairfield, especially those in the central and eastern portions of the city, are classified as Higher Diversity by the 2018 Esri Diversity Index, with one Lower Diversity neighborhood in the eastern portion of the city.

Packet Page 371 of 846Attachment 5 Page 90 of 565

RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v i l l e R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailr
oa
d
Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r age D r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM a n gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOli v
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Wa terman BlSuisunValleyRd
WaltersRdNorth Gate RdMankas
C
ornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
ey
RdCement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu s in essC ente rDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
P
k
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Solano
Community
College
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

B

A

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I
N

E
UR

B

A

N

L

I
M

I
T

L
I

N
E
C e m e n t
H i l l
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\Housing Element\AFFH\SI_RaceEthnicity_NeighborhoodSegregation.mxd 3 Group Mixed
4 Group Mixed
Asian-White
Latinx-White
Unpopulated Tract
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Source: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - Urban Displacement Project, 2019; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Map Date: 9/22/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
3-1 Figure Neighborhood Segregation
Packet Page 372 of 846Attachment 5 Page 91 of 565

RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v i l l e R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailr
oa
d
Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r age D r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM a n gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOli v
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Wa terman BlSuisunValleyRd
WaltersRdNorth Gate RdMankas
C
ornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
ey
RdCement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu s in essC ente rDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
P
k
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Solano
Community
College
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

B

A

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I
N

E
UR

B

A

N

L

I
M

I
T

L
I

N
E
C e m e n t
H i l l
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\Housing Element\AFFH\SI_RaceEthnicity_DiversityIndex.mxd > 85 (Higher Diversity)
70 - 85
55 - 70
40 - 55*
< 40 (Lower Diversity)
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Source: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - ESRI, 2018; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Map Date: 9/22/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
3-2 Diversity Index
*No census tracts contained in this category.

Figure
Packet Page 373 of 846Attachment 5 Page 92 of 565

City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
90 Other Relevant Factors
The 2022 AI identified potential discrimination in lending practices. Using data from lending in- stitutions in compliance with the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), the AI found that white applicants had a lower loan denial rate than African American, Asian and Hispanic applicants in the Fairfield-Vallejo Metropolitan Service Area in 2020. Chart 3-2 below traces loan denial rates for home purchase and home improvement loans between 2012 to 2020 for all census tracts located within the borders of the city and across Solano County. Loan denial rates have remained relatively stable in both the city and the county, with particularly high rates for American Indian or Alaska Native applicants. In 2020, the overall denial rate was approximately 10.4 percent. Denial rates were highest for applicants who identified as American Indian or Alaska Native (25.7 percent), Asian (13.1 percent), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (12.8 percent), or Black or African Amer- ican (12.3 percent). The lowest denial rates were for white applicants (9.6 percent).

Chart 3-2: HMDA Loan Denial Rates by Race/Ethnicity
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data, 2012-2020

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
As noted in the Housing Needs Assessment (Chapter 2), according to 2019 ACS five-year estimates, approximately 13,038 or 11.6 percent of Fairfield residents were living with a disability. This is slightly lower than in Solano County (12.3 percent) and higher than that of the Bay Area (9.6 per- cent).

According to the 2019 AI, people with disabilities live throughout Fairfield with no significant ge- ographic concentration. Per 2019 ACS five-year estimates compiled by HCD, Figure 3-3 indicates that the percent of the population living with a disability does not exceed 20 percent in any tract Packet Page 374 of 846Attachment 5 Page 93 of 565

Chapter 3: Assessment of Fair Housing
91 within Fairfield, confirming that there is a dispersal of persons with disabilities throughout the city.

Further, the 2019 AI identified a pattern of increasing rates of disability primarily for males ages 18 to 64, which may be due to the presence of men who received a disability in the service, have been discharged, and continue to live in Fairfield and utilize the medical facilities at Travis Air Force Base (AFB).

FAMILIAL STATUS
Discriminatory housing practices based on familial status, including discrimination against families with children, may impact where families are able to live and lead to geographic concentrations within a jurisdiction. Female householders with children may be targets of discrimination particu- larly. Table 3-3 indicates that the majority of households with children in Fairfield are married- couple family households, which comprise about 66.1 percent of all households with children.

There are 6,767 female householder households with children in Fairfield, or about 23.2 percent of all family households with children.

Table 3-3: Family Households with Children in Fairfield, 2019 Household Type1 Number Percent
Married-Couple 19,291 66.1%
Male Householder, No Spouse Present 2,948 10.1%
Female Householder, No Spouse Present 6,767 23.2%
Other 157 0.5%
Total 29,163 100.0%

1. All households with children are considered family households.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 ACS Five-Year Estimates (Table S0901) Figures 3-4 through 3-6 below indicate there are some patterns of geographic concentration based on familial status. For instance, Figure 3-4 shows the proportion of children residing in households with married-couple families tends to be higher in tracts along the edges of the city, including in the southwestern section, the north, and bordering Travis AFB to the east. Figure 3-5, on the other hand, indicates that there is a higher proportion of children residing in female householder house- holds in the central portion of the city. Similarly, the percent of adults living with a spouse is higher along the edges of the city, particularly within Travis AFB (Figure 3-6).

Packet Page 375 of 846Attachment 5 Page 94 of 565

RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v i l l e R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailr
oa
d
Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r age D r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM a n gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOli v
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Wa terman BlSuisunValleyRd
WaltersRdNorth Gate RdMankas
C
ornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
ey
RdCement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu s in essC ente rDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
P
k
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Solano
Community
College
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

B

A

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I
N

E
UR

B

A

N

L

I
M

I
T

L
I

N
E
C e m e n t
H i l l
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\Housing Element\AFFH\SI_Persons_wDisabilities.mxd > 40%*
30% - 40%*
20% - 30%*
10% - 20%
< 10%
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Source: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - ACS, 2015-2019; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Map Date: 9/22/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
3-3 Population with a Disability
*No census tracts contained in this category.

Figure
Packet Page 376 of 846Attachment 5 Page 95 of 565

RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v i l l e R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailr
oa
d
Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r age D r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM a n gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOli v
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Wa terman BlSuisunValleyRd
WaltersRdNorth Gate RdMankas
C
ornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
ey
RdCement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu s in essC ente rDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
P
k
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Solano
Community
College
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

B

A

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I
N

E
UR

B

A

N

L

I
M

I
T

L
I

N
E
C e m e n t
H i l l
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\Housing Element\AFFH\SI_FamilialStatus_PercentChildrenMarriedCoupleHH.mxd > 80%
61% - 80%
41% - 60%
21% - 40%*
< 20%
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Source: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - ACS, 2015-2019; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Map Date: 9/21/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
3-4 Percent of Children in Married-Couple Households
*No census tracts contained in this category.

Figure
Packet Page 377 of 846Attachment 5 Page 96 of 565

RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v i l l e R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailr
oa
d
Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r age D r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM a n gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOli v
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Wa terman BlSuisunValleyRd
WaltersRdNorth Gate RdMankas
C
ornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
ey
RdCement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu s in essC ente rDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
P
k
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Solano
Community
College
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

B

A

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I
N

E
UR

B

A

N

L

I
M

I
T

L
I

N
E
C e m e n t
H i l l
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\Housing Element\AFFH\SI_FamilialStatus_PercentChildrenFemaleHH.mxd > 80%*
61% - 80%*
41% - 60%
21% - 40%
< 20%
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Source: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - ACS, 2015-2019; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Map Date: 9/21/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
3-5 Percent of Children in Female Householder Households *No census tracts contained in this category.

Figure
Packet Page 378 of 846Attachment 5 Page 97 of 565

RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v i l l e R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailr
oa
d
Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r age D r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM a n gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOli v
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Wa terman BlSuisunValleyRd
WaltersRdNorth Gate RdMankas
C
ornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
ey
RdCement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu s in essC ente rDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
P
k
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Solano
Community
College
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

B

A

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I
N

E
UR

B

A

N

L

I
M

I
T

L
I

N
E
C e m e n t
H i l l
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\Housing Element\AFFH\SI_FamilialStatus_PercentAdultsLiving_wSpouse.mxd > 80%
61% - 80%
41% - 60%
21% - 40%
< 20%*
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Source: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - ACS, 2015-2019; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Map Date: 9/21/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
3-6 Percent of Adults Living with Spouse
*No census tracts contained in this category.

Figure
Packet Page 379 of 846Attachment 5 Page 98 of 565

City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
96 INCOME LEVEL
Geographic concentration by income, including concentration of poverty, is another type of segre- gation that may exist within a jurisdiction. One metric to gauge such segregation, provided by HUD, is through the concentration of low- or moderate-income (LMI) individuals. HUD defines a LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI – based on the HUD income definition of up to 80 percent area median income (AMI). Figure 3-7 provides the distribution of LMI block groups across Fairfield. While LMI areas are spread throughout the city, there is some concentration in the central portion of the city and within Travis AFB. This pattern is fairly similar to that seen in neighboring cities like Vacaville, Suisun City, Vallejo, and Napa.

Further, changing poverty rates over time can provide an insight into the economic wellbeing of households and individuals in Fairfield. According to ACS five-year estimates, the poverty rate for individual residents decreased from 12.7 percent in 2014 to 8.6 percent in 2019. Poverty rates in Fairfield, as of 2019, are lower than in California overall (13.4 percent). The poverty rate for family households decreased from 9.8 percent (14.6 percent for families with children) in 2014 to 7.2 per- cent (10.4 percent for families with children) in 2019. Figures 3-8 and 3-9 demonstrate that poverty rates, which were concentrated in the central portion of the city in 2014, have greatly diminished as of 2019. Further, the proportion of the population living below the poverty level within a tract did not exceed 30 percent in either year. However, as identified in the 2019 AI, poverty dispropor- tionately impacts Fairfield residents by race and ethnicity. As shown in Table 3-4, residents identi- fied as American Indian and Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander, Black or African American, and Hispanic or Latino of any race face higher than average poverty rates, while white and Asian populations face lower than average poverty rates.

Table 3-4: Poverty Rates in Fairfield, 2019
Race/Ethnicity1 Total Population Population Below Poverty Level2
Number Percent Number Percent
White alone 56,107 49.5% 3,905 7.0%
Black or African American alone 16,878 14.9% 2,033 12.0% American Indian and Alaska Native alone 550 0.5% 168 30.5% Asian alone 19,397 17.1% 963 5.0%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
alone
1,504 1.3% 210 14.0%
Other alone 18,922 16.7% 2,498 13.2%
Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 33,239 29.3% 3,561 10.7% Total 113,358 - 9,777 8.6%

1. People who identify as Hispanic or Latino may be any race.

2. Percentages indicate the proportion of that racial/ethnic group that lives below the poverty level.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 ACS Five-Year Estimates (Table S1701) Packet Page 380 of 846Attachment 5 Page 99 of 565

RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v i l l e R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailr
oa
d
Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r age D r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM a n gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOli v
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Wa terman BlSuisunValleyRd
WaltersRdNorth Gate RdMankas
C
ornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
ey
RdCement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu s in essC ente rDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
P
k
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Solano
Community
College
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

B

A

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I
N

E
UR

B

A

N

L

I
M

I
T

L
I

N
E
C e m e n t
H i l l
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\Housing Element\AFFH\SI_Income_LowModerateIncomePopulation_BlockGroup.mxd > 51%
25% - 51%
0% - 25%
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Source: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - HUD, FY 2021; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Map Date: 9/22/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
3-7 Low to Moderate Income Population, Block Group Figure Packet Page 381 of 846Attachment 5 Page 100 of 565

RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v i l l e R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailr
oa
d
Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r age D r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM a n gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOli v
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Wa terman BlSuisunValleyRd
WaltersRdNorth Gate RdMankas
C
ornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
ey
RdCement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu s in essC ente rDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
P
k
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Solano
Community
College
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

B

A

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I
N

E
UR

B

A

N

L

I
M

I
T

L
I

N
E
C e m e n t
H i l l
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\548 Carson GP\GIS\Projects\General Plan\Ch6 EJ\SI_Income_PovertyStatus2014.mxd > 40*
30 - 40*
20 - 30
10 - 20
< 10
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Source: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - ACS, 2015-2019; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Map Date: 9/21/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
3-8 Poverty Status (2014)
*No census tracts contained in this category.

Figure
Packet Page 382 of 846Attachment 5 Page 101 of 565

RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v i l l e R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailr
oa
d
Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r age D r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM a n gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOli v
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Wa terman BlSuisunValleyRd
WaltersRdNorth Gate RdMankas
C
ornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
ey
RdCement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu s in essC ente rDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
P
k
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Solano
Community
College
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

B

A

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I
N

E
UR

B

A

N

L

I
M

I
T

L
I

N
E
C e m e n t
H i l l
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\Housing Element\AFFH\SI_Income_PovertyStatus2019.mxd > 40*
30 - 40*
20 - 30
10 - 20
< 10
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Source: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - ACS, 2015-2019; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Map Date: 9/21/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
3-9 Poverty Status (2019)
*No census tracts contained in this category.

Figure
Packet Page 383 of 846Attachment 5 Page 102 of 565

City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
100

OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS
In 2021, the City developed a Language Access Plan (LAP) to ensure equal access and delivery of information for all Fairfield residents, regardless of any language limitations. The LAP, based on 2015 ACS five-year estimates, ultimately found that 65.3 percent of Fairfield residents speak English as their only language. About 20 percent of residents spoke Spanish, while 8.2 percent spoke English less than “very well.” Further, about 6.3 percent of residents spoke Tagalog, while 2.3 percent spoke English less than “very well.” Although there are about 15 languages spoken by Fairfield residents, the remaining languages have less than 1,000 speakers each. According to the 2019 AI, residents whose primary language is Spanish appear to be clustered in the downtown, higher poverty tracts while people whose primary language is Tagalog, Chinese, Korean or other Indic languages appear to be dispersed throughout the city.

3.3 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
and Affluence
To assist communities in identifying racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has developed a census tract-based definition: R/ECAPs must have a non-white population of 50 percent or more, and the poverty rate must exceed 40 percent or is three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower.

According to the 2019 AI, there were no R/ECAPs in 1990, one in 2000, and one in 2010. The R/ECAPs identified in 2000 and 2010 were different tracts. According to 2009-2013 HUD data compiled by HCD there was one R/ECAP in the city. However, per the more recent 2019 ACS five- year estimates, there are no R/ECAPs located within city boundaries, see Figure 3-10. The nearest R/ECAPs are located in Vallejo to the southwest. As of 2021, there are also no California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) areas of high segregation and poverty.

While there is no standard definition for Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) provided by either HUD or HCD, they are generally considered to be areas with high concentrations of wealthy, white residents. An article by Edward G. Goetz, et al. published in HUD’s Cityscape journal defines an RCAA as a “census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is White and has a median income of at least $125,000.”1 In 2022, HCD developed a new version of the RCAA metric to better reflect California's relative diversity and regional condi- tions, and to aid local jurisdictions in their analysis of racially concentrated areas of poverty and affluence pursuant to AB 686 and AB 1304.

To develop the RCAA layer, staff first calculated a Location Quotient (LQ) for each California cen- sus tract using data from the 2015-2019 ACS. This LQ represents the percentage of total white pop- ulation (White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino) for each census tract compared to the average per- centage of total white population for all census tracts in a given COG region. For example, a census tract with a LQ of 1.5 has a percentage of total white population that is 1.5 times higher than the average percentage of total white population in the given COG region. Based on this methodology, there is one census tract that meets this definition of an RCAA, see Figure 3-10. This area is con- strained by steep slopes, and a portion is located in an elevated CPUC wildfire hazard zone.

1 Edward G. Goetz, et al. "Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation" (Cityscape, Vol. 21 No. 1, 2019), pp. 99-123.

Packet Page 384 of 846Attachment 5 Page 103 of 565

3-10 Racially /Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA)
Figure
Packet Page 385 of 846Attachment 5 Page 104 of 565

City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
102

3.4 Disparities in Access to Opportunity

REGIONAL CONTEXT
Access to opportunity within a jurisdiction must be considered in both the regional and local con- text. In its July 2020 Assessment of Fair Housing data release, HUD provided a set of opportunity indices to quantify disparities in access to opportunity at the local and regional scale. The higher the index score, the better an area’s access to opportunity. While these indices do not identify op- portunity by tract or block group within the city, they can show the relative standing of Fairfield compared to Solano County. Each index is defined as follows:
• Environmental Health — Summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighbor- hood level.
• Jobs Proximity — Quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a func- tion of its distance to all job locations within a Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA). • Labor Market — Provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood.
• Low Poverty — A measure of the degree of poverty in a neighborhood, at the Census tract level.
• Low Transportation Cost — Estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50% of the median income for renters for the region.
• School Proficiency — School-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing schools.
• Transit — Trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single- parent family with income at 50% of the median income for renters.

Charts 3-3 and 3-4 below show the indices by race in Fairfield and Solano County. Chart 3-3 high- lights the entire population, while Chart 3-4 shows the population living below the federal poverty line. Fairfield’s indices are generally on par with that of the region, with some indices higher in the city and others lower. For instance, non-Hispanic Black residents have a higher environmental health index score in the city than in the county, while Hispanic residents have a lower poverty index score in the city. Notably, the relatively low school proficiency index scores for the population living below the poverty line occur across all racial groups in Fairfield.

Packet Page 386 of 846Attachment 5 Page 105 of 565

Chapter 3: Assessment of Fair Housing
103
Chart 3-3: Opportunity Indices – Total Population
Source: HUD, AFFHT0006 Table 12, July 2020
Chart 3-4: Opportunity Indices – Population Living Below the Federal Poverty Line Source: HUD, AFFHT0006 Table 12, July 2020
Packet Page 387 of 846Attachment 5 Page 106 of 565

City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
104

LOCAL CONTEXT
In order to quantify access to opportunity, HCD and TCAC convened in the California Fair Hous- ing Task Force to “provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD).” The Task Force developed a series of Opportunity Maps to determine areas with highest and lowest resources within a jurisdiction. High resource areas are those that offer low-income adults and children the best access to a high-quality education, economic ad- vancement, and good physical and mental health. The Opportunity Maps are based on indices com- piled by domain, outlined in Table 3-5 below. The economic, environmental and education do- mains were further aggregated to create a composite index.

Table 3-5: Domain and Indicators for HCD/TCAC Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty
Adult Education
Employment
Job Proximity
Median Home Value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators
Education Math Proficiency
Reading Proficiency
High School Graduation Rates
Student Poverty Rate
Filter Poverty and Racial Segregation
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map, December 2020 According to the 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas composite score (see Figure 3-11), all census tracts in Fairfield are considered “moderate” or “low” resource. No tracts are considered “high” or “high- est” resource. Highest resource tracts are the top 20 percent of tracts with the highest index scores relative to the region, while high resource tracts are the next 20 percent. The remaining tracts are then evenly divided into the low resource and moderate resource categories. Moderate resource tracts are congregated in the southwestern portion of the city, the north, and near Travis AFB. The central portion of the city is largely considered low resource. The TCAC Composite score maps for 2022 indicate that the area within the Train Station Specific Plan is becoming a more moderately resourced area.

Packet Page 388 of 846Attachment 5 Page 107 of 565

3-1 I TCAC Opportunity Areas - Composite Seore1--·-· NAl'A COUNTY

SOLANO COUNTY
Twin s; st t-,; s
EB
Mll ommq,MOS �Analys .. 2021; Sclono CoumyGIS,2020;a., o(Foi,fl,ld. 2020;0,.n & -2020 Figure
Packet Page 389 of 846Attachment 5 Page 108 of 565

City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
106
Economic Opportunity
The 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas economic score, presented in Figure 3-12, summarizes access to economic opportunity in Fairfield. The pattern aligns closely with that seen in Figure 3-11, as tracts with more positive economic outcomes are located in the southwestern and northern por- tions of the city, with lowest opportunity in the central portion. This score captures a variety of economic variables, as indicated in Table 3-5. It should be noted that the Heart of Fairfield Plan, adopted in 2017, aims to revitalize and transform the downtown area of the city. The Plan includes specific areas also targeted with the City’s Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative and includes in- centives for businesses and property owners to improve or rehabilitate their property. The imple- mentation of the Plan has the potential to greatly increase economic opportunity within the down- town and central portions of the city.

Educational Opportunity
Disparities in access to educational opportunity may act as a major fair housing issue in a jurisdic- tion. To quantify this access, Figure 3-13 presents the 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas education score. It follows a similar pattern of Figures 3-11 and 3-12; opportunity is highest in the southwest- ern and northern portions of the city, as well as tracts north of Travis AFB. Educational opportunity is lowest in the central portions of the city. The Train Station Specific Plan, located in northeastern Fairfield immediately north of Travis AFB and east of Peabody Road, envisions a completely new community centered on the recently opened Tom Hannigan Station of the Capital Corridor rail- road line. Part of this community will include new educational services, as well as the development of affordable housing. Several sites in the Plan area are under study for development with affordable or mixed income housing.

Environmental Opportunity
An additional facet of opportunity is environmental opportunity, which gauges the extent of envi- ronmental quality in a neighborhood. Since the environment can have a major impact on health and standards of living, it is essential that affordable housing developments are not concentrated in environmentally sensitive areas. Figure 3-14 presents the environmental opportunity in Fairfield, based on indicators from CalEnviroScreen 3.0. Unlike Figures 3-11 through 3-13, the areas with the most positive environmental outcomes are located in the central and northern portions of the city. Tracts in the east, especially near Travis AFB, tend to have lower index scores.

Packet Page 390 of 846Attachment 5 Page 109 of 565

3-12 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Economic Sc
NAl'A COUNTY

SOLANO COUNTY
Twin
s; st t-,; s
EB
Mll .75 (More Positive Economic Outcomes)* /Highway
.SO -.75* /Major
.25 -.SO Local
ommq,MOS �Analys .. 2021; Sclono CoumyGIS,2020;a., o(Foi,fl,ld. 2020;0,.n & -2020 Figure
Packet Page 391 of 846Attachment 5 Page 110 of 565

Packet Page 392 of 846Attachment 5 Page 111 of 565

Packet Page 393 of 846Attachment 5 Page 112 of 565

City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
110

3.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs & Displacement
Risk
According to HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo, disproportionate housing needs “generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area.” Consistent with HCD guidance, this analysis evaluates disproportion- ate housing need through the assessment of cost burden, overcrowding, and displacement risk.

COST BURDEN
Cost burden among homeowners and renters in Fairfield is discussed in depth in the Housing Needs Assessment. Households paying more than 30 percent of their gross income on housing costs are considered cost burdened, while those paying more than 50 percent are considered severely cost burdened. The Assessment found that renters tend to have higher rates of cost burden than home- owners, and that nearly 71.3 percent of cost burdened households are considered lower-income households per 2013-2017 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) esti- mates. Per Chart 3-5, cost burden is also distributed unevenly by race and ethnicity. Rates of cost burden, severe or otherwise, are particularly high for non-Hispanic Black or African American and Hispanic or Latinx households. It should also be noted that non-Hispanic American Indian or Alaska Native households experience the highest rates of severe cost burden at nearly 36.4 percent.

Chart 3-5: Cost Burden by Race in Fairfield
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Com- prehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release) Packet Page 394 of 846Attachment 5 Page 113 of 565

Chapter 3: Assessment of Fair Housing
111
ACS data compiled by HCD provides a view into the geographic distribution of cost burden within a jurisdiction. Tract level estimates from the 2019 ACS five-year estimate, as shown in Figures 3-15 and 3-16, indicate areas with concentrated cost burden for owner- and renter-occupied households respectively. The highest rates of homeowner cost burden, seen in Figure 3-15, are evident in tracts within tracts in the southeastern area of central Fairfield. Figure 3-16 shows that renter cost burden follows a similar pattern.

OVERCROWDING
The Housing Needs Assessment of this Housing Element discusses overcrowding patterns in Fair- field in detail. To summarize, nearly 6.3 percent of Fairfield households experienced some level of overcrowding (defined as a unit occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room, excluding bathrooms and kitchens, which is higher than the rate in Solano County but lower than that of the Bay Area.

Renters tended to experience overcrowding at higher rates (12.0 percent) than homeowners (2.4 percent). Further, lower-income households as well as Hispanic or Latinx (of any race) households tend to experience the highest rates of overcrowding. Through the AFFH Data and Mapping Re- sources tool, HCD has also provided geographic overcrowding data compiled by the California Health and Human Services Agency (CHHS). Figure 3-17 shows that the highest tract-level rates of overcrowding exist in the central portion of the city, especially tracts north of Travis Boulevard and south of West Texas Street.

DISPLACEMENT RISK
As discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment, an affordability gap exists for lower-income home- owners as well as very low- and extremely low-income renters. As housing costs increase, lower- income households may be displaced from their neighborhoods. Communities of color may be particularly impacted by this dynamic. UDP has provided “sensitive communities” typologies to quantify the risk of displacement within a community. Sensitive communities are those with pop- ulations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing costs.

Figure 3-18 shows that nearly the entire central portion of Fairfield is considered vulnerable to displacement. This is likely due to the higher proportions of lower-income residents in these tracts.

Since renters, as well as non-Hispanic Black or African American and Hispanic or Latinx house- holds, have relatively high-cost burden rates they are more likely to experience displacement pres- sures from even a relatively minor increase in housing costs. Strategies to preserve affordable hous- ing and reduce displacement pressures are discussed in the Housing Action Plan (Chapter 5).

Packet Page 395 of 846Attachment 5 Page 114 of 565

3-15 Homeowner Cost BurdenLNArA COUNTY

SOLANO COUNTY
EB
Mites
Map Date: 81 I 8/202
) \;:�1:��-��"ll ir=--=·
\ ._,, --���? ���".JJ
'�tr-�-��:-�-:.�,..-
rdelia
"� I
7l '�,'.) fl 'I
--.. ,_
...

Suisun Hi II
• D D D
AFB,
Q,b ½
30%-40% /
20% • 30% /
< 20% /
Insufficient Data
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
Trov,s
Aw
Fora:

Luco
HUI
K; r by
H; II
,---, L...J City Limit
D Sphere of Influence
D Planning Area
D Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
I Souttt:HCOAFFH O«o and Moppin, Attoutas -ACS. 20fS-20J 9; Soblo CountyG,S, 2020:Cif( o(foj,tfdd, 202�0)'ttt & 8h«io, 2020 Figure
Packet Page 396 of 846Attachment 5 Page 115 of 565

3-16 Renter Cost Burden
Twin s; st t-,; s
NAl'A COUNTY

SOLANO COUNTY
EB
Mll 80% / Highway
60%-80% / Major
40%-60% / Local
20%-40% Railroad
AFFH Doto and Moppu,c R....,,as.,a, 20IS-20/9;Sdono CoumyGIS,2020;a., o(foi,/l<id. 2020:0,.• & -2020 Figure
Packet Page 397 of 846Attachment 5 Page 116 of 565

Packet Page 398 of 846Attachment 5 Page 117 of 565

3-18 Sensitive Communities
Twin s; st t-,; s
NAl'A COUNTY

SOLANO COUNTY
EB
Mll lnf R,,«,,c,s • UMO � P,o)ta. 1019; Sc/ono CoumyGIS, 2010,a., .,,,..,..,, 2020; O,.n & -2020 Figure
Packet Page 399 of 846Attachment 5 Page 118 of 565

City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
116

3.6 Summary and Conclusions
State law requires that jurisdictions identify fair housing issues as well as contributing factors and assign a priority level for each factor. Further, a jurisdiction must identify specific goals and actions it will take to reduce the severity of fair housing issues within that jurisdiction. This section fulfills these requirements based on the assessment provided above, as well as relevant information from the 2019 AI. Goals, actions, and priorities related to affirmatively furthering fair housing are con- tained in the Housing Plan of this Housing Element. The City will also continue to implement the actions described in the 2019 AI.

FAIR HOUSING ISSUES, CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND PRIORITIES The 2019 AI identified ten impediments or contributing factors to fair housing choice, a number of which still remain. Based on the findings of this assessment and the 2019 AI, Table 3-6 presents a summary of existing fair housing issues, their contributing factors, and their priority level, as well as a justification for each. Contributing factors with a high priority level are those that the City can directly address, while medium factors are either those that are longer term problems the City is working on or otherwise has limited ability to address. Low priority factors are not considered, given the City’s limited staff and ability to address such issues.

Packet Page 400 of 846Attachment 5 Page 119 of 565

Chapter 3: Assessment of Fair Housing
117

Table 3-6: Summary of Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors and Priorities Fair Housing
Issue
Contributing
Factors
Priority
Level
Justification
Outreach and
Enforcement
Lack of
knowledge of
fair housing
laws and
extent of
housing
discrimination
among City
staff
High The City recently updated its Fair Housing contract with FHANC to conduct additional training for the
Housing Department and other City staff. The City
should continue to keep staff informed on fair
housing laws, and engaging in public awareness and
outreach campaigns.

Public
perception of
lower-income
households
and minority
groups
Medium Public perception and stereotypes towards lower- income and minority households pose an
impediment to fair housing. The City cannot directly
influence public perception, but it can continue to
work with FHANC to engage in public outreach. This
is also a longer-term issue.

Segregation
and
Integration
Concentration
of affordable
housing
projects
High The 2022 AI noted that most assisted multifamily
developments in Fairfield are concentrated in or near
areas of minority concentration. In future
developments, the City should seek to assist projects
in more dispersed locations with high access to
opportunity throughout the city. The City can
support strategies to disperse site concentrations
with incentives to make tax credit applications more
competitive, create marketing plans for potential
sites, consider conducting a rent survey, and
investigate mortgage bond financing and mortgage
credit certificates.

Concentration
of lower-
income
households
Medium Lower-income households and individuals living
below the poverty line tend to concentrate in the
central portions of the city. The City cannot directly
influence where people choose to live or
affordability levels, but it can make land use
decisions or encourage development that may
reduce the concentration of such households.

Lack of
knowledge of
fair housing
laws among
property
High Insufficient knowledge among property managers
may lead to the unintentional violation of Fair
Housing laws. The City should continue to work with
FHANC to conduct educational workshops and
Packet Page 401 of 846Attachment 5 Page 120 of 565

City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
118
managers and
onsite
managers of
multifamily
developments
outreach to ensure that violations of fair housing law
do not occur.

Housing
Discrimination
Loan denial
rates
Medium Loan denial rates, per HMDA data,
disproportionately impact communities of color,
including African Americans. While the City has
limited control over the approval of home loans, it
should work with FHANC to understand denial rates
and conduct workshops with prospective low-income
homebuyers and homebuyers of color.

Insufficient
number of
affordable
housing units
High Demand for single-family homes in Fairfield remains high, which is why the majority of the city is zoned as low or medium density. Even with the Fairfield Train
Station Specific Plan (FTSSP), which will increase the
amount of land available for higher density housing,
the development of sufficient services to make
affordable housing development feasible poses a
major challenge. The City should assist developers
and other stakeholders to increase the supply of
affordable housing, including through coordination
meetings, incentives, and multifamily financing.

Access to
Opportunity
Low access to
opportunity
Medium Per the 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas maps, every
neighborhood in Fairfield is considered either low or
moderate resource. This poses a long-term problem
that the City should work to address through
encouraging economic development, increasing
educational outcomes, and protecting environmental
resources.

Institutional
Barriers
Medium Several institutional factors can contribute to inviting or inhibiting developers in producing affordable
housing in any city.
• Clarity about the development process and fees so
they can accurately project their costs and timelines.
• Fees that are similar to adjacent localities
• Ease in obtaining planning approvals, building
permits, inspections, not excessively time-consuming
• Effective processes to address neighborhood
concerns about the real and perceived impacts
affordable housing
While the City cannot control neighborhood
perception, it retains power to assess development
Packet Page 402 of 846Attachment 5 Page 121 of 565

Chapter 3: Assessment of Fair Housing
119
fees and support neighborhood engagement and
pre-application processes.

High rates of
cost burden
Medium Cost burden is particularly high for renters and people of color in Fairfield. While the City cannot
directly influence rent prices or home values, it can
assist residents to close the affordability gap. The
City should encourage the use of HUD Section 8
vouchers for renters and low-income homebuyer
programs, such as through Mortgage Credit
Certificates (MCCs).

Housing
Needs and
Displacement
Risk
Prevalence of
sensitive
communities
Medium Most of the downtown and central areas of Fairfield are considered vulnerable to displacement
pressures. The City should work to preserve
affordability and encourage the development of new
affordable projects.

Evictions and
housing
stability
Medium The COVID-19 pandemic shut down the local
economy and resulted in widespread job loss,
household disruption and housing insecurity. COVID
surges remain a threat to personal and Fairfield
economic recovery. The City should work to ensure
that the most vulnerable lowest-income Fairfield
residents have access to services to help them
resolve landlords’ issues and provide emergency
rental assistance/rapid rehousing to help prevent
homelessness.

Packet Page 403 of 846Attachment 5 Page 122 of 565

120
This page left intentionally blank
Packet Page 404 of 846Attachment 5 Page 123 of 565

City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

121
4 Housing Resources and Opportunities
This chapter describes and assesses the resources available for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in Fairfield. The following sections provide an overview of the financial and administrative resources to support the provision of affordable housing, as well as additional housing resources or considerations relevant for the provision of housing in the city.

4.1 Financial Resources
There are a variety of potential funding sources available for housing activities in general. Due to both the high costs of developing and preserving housing and limitations on both the amount and uses of funds, affordable housing in Fairfield is supported through a variety of funding sources.

Table 4-1: Assisted Housing Units
Name
Total
Units Active Program(s)
Hampton Place/Gateway Village 56 LIHTC; HCD
Woodside Court Apartments 129 LIHTC; Local
Monument Arms Apartments 92 LIHTC; HUD
Union Square II 24 LIHTC; HCD; Local
Fairfield Heights Apartments 52 LIHTC
Sunset Creek Apartments 76 LIHTC; Local
Fair Haven Commons 72 LIHTC
Signature at Fairfield 93 LIHTC; CalHFA; HCD
Laurel Gardens Apartments 30 LIHTC; HCD; Local
Kennedy Court 32 LIHTC
Fairfield Vista Apartments 60 LIHTC
Woodsong Village Apartments 112 LIHTC
Sunset Manor Apartments 148 LIHTC; Local
Dover Woods Senior Apartments 200 LIHTC
Senior Manor 84 LIHTC; Local
Fairfield Apartments (Parkside Villa Apartments & Rock- well Manor Apartments): Site A 128 LIHTC; HUD
One Lake Family Apartments 190 LIHTC; CalHFA
Parkway Plaza 100 HUD
Avery Parks (Quail Terrace) 136 CalHFA
Bennington Apartments (Sheffield Green) 132 CalHFA
Total 1,874
Source: City of Fairfield, 2022; California Housing Partnership, 2022

Packet Page 405 of 846Attachment 5 Page 124 of 565

Chapter 4: Housing Resources and Opportunities
122
The Fairfield Housing Authority (FHA) administers the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Pro- gram, Project Based Vouchers, and Tenant Based Rental Assistance. FHA’s mission is to assist low- income families with safe, decent, and affordable housing. While the FHA does not own or operate any public housing units, projects assisted by the FHA are shown in Table 4-1.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS
Annually, the City of Fairfield receives funds from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to administer the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.

This program funds various nonprofit agencies and other City departments to implement services that benefit low- and moderate-income persons, resolve slum and blight concerns, or address com- munity development needs.

Grantees are selected through a competitive process and provide such services as senior daycare services, homeless outreach, housing rehabilitation, and infrastructure development. The City of Fairfield has been a US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community De- velopment Block Grant program entitlement city since 1975. Entitlement funding is determined by a formula based on the size of the city and the total population in poverty. For FY 2021-2022, the City of Fairfield was granted $846,496 in CDBG funding to address the priority needs in the com- munity. The City of Fairfield adopted a Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative (NRI) consisting of the formally identified Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area (NRSA) as a way to target CDBG resources in support of community revitalization efforts. The sub-areas of Fairfield that make up the City’s NRSA are the West Texas/Downtown area and the North Texas area. Starting in FY22- 23, however, the City will no longer utilize the NRSI.

Other financial resources, including federal, state, and local programs, are described in Table 4-2.

Packet Page 406 of 846Attachment 5 Page 125 of 565

City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

123

Table 4-2: Resources Available for Housing and Community Development Activities Program Name  Description
Federal Programs
Community Develop-
ment Block Grant
(CDBG)
HUD-provided annual grant program for housing and community develop- ment activities.

Housing Opportunities
for Persons with AIDS
(HOPWA)
HUD-provided grants to local communities, States, and nonprofit organiza- tions for projects that benefit low-income persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families
Housing Choice
Voucher (HCV – previ-
ously Section 8) Pro-
gram
HCV vouchers administered by local public housing agencies and funded by HUD. The vouchers can be used by eligible low-income families to rent eligible housing units in the private rental market.

Section 202 Supportive
Housing for the El-
derly
HUD-provided funding to non-profit developers of supportive housing for the elderly.

Section 811 Supportive
Housing for Persons
with Disabilities
HUD-provided funding to non-profit developers of rental housing with the availability of supportive services for very-low- and extremely-low-income adults with disabilities.

Federal Housing Ad-
ministration (FHA)
Mortgage Insurance
Origination
HUD-administered programs to insure mortgages for various types of housing, including Section 207 Rental Housing, Section 207 Manufactured Home Parks, Section 231 Cooperative Units, Section 220 Rental Housing for Urban Renewal and Concentrated Development Areas, Section 221(d)(4) New Construction or Substantial Rehabilitation of Rental Housing, Section 207/223(f) Purchase or Refinancing of Existing Multifamily Housing Projects, Section 223(a)(7) Refi- nancing of Existing Multifamily Rental Housing, Section 231 Rental Housing for the Elderly, Section 234(d) Mortgage Insurance for Construction or Substantial Rehabilitation of Condominium Projects, Section 241(a) Supplemental Loan Insurance for Multifamily Rental Housing, Section 542(b) Qualified Participat- ing Entities Risk-Sharing Program, Section 542(c) Housing Finance Agency Risk- Sharing Program, Section 232 and Section 232/223(f) Mortgage Insurance for Nursing Homes, Intermediate Care, Board & Care and Assisted-living facili- ties.

Low Income Housing
Tax Credit (LIHTC)
Established in 1986, the LIHTC program makes tax credits available to individ- uals and corporations that invest in low-income rental housing. Usually, the tax credits are sold to corporations with a high tax liability and the proceeds from the sale are used to create the housing. The program is able to finance the construction and rehabilitation of low-income housing by providing suffi- cient incentive to private developers and investors.

State Programs
Home Investment Part-
nerships (HOME)
Funds
HCD-administered program that uses HUD funding to implement local housing strategies designed to increase homeownership and affordable housing op- portunities for low- and very-low-income households. Funds are available in California communities that do not receive HOME funding directly from HUD.

SB2 Planning Grants  In 2017, Governor Brown signed the Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB2) to provide funding and technical assistance to local governments in California to streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production.

Packet Page 407 of 846Attachment 5 Page 126 of 565

Chapter 4: Housing Resources and Opportunities
124
Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communi-
ties (AHSC)
AHSC funds projects that support infill and compact development and reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  Funds are available annually in the form of loans and/or grants in two kinds of project areas:  Transit Oriented Develop- ment (TOD) Project Areas and Integrated Connectivity (ICP) Project Areas.

CalHOME  Grants to enable very-low- and low-income households to become or remain homeowners. The City must apply for funds through HCD in response to peri- odic Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs).

California Emergency
Solutions and Housing
(CESH)
CESH provides grant funds to eligible applicants for eligible activities to assist persons experiencing or at-risk of homelessness.

Emergency Solutions
Grants Program (ESG)
ESG makes grant funds available for projects serving homeless individuals and families through eligible non-profit organizations or local governments.  ESG funds can be used for supportive services, emergency shelter/transitional housing, homelessness prevention assistance, and providing permanent hous- ing.  Funds are available in California communities that do not receive ESG funding directly from HUD.

Golden State Acquisi-
tion Fund (GSAF)
GSAF was seeded with $23 million from the HCD’s Affordable Housing Innova- tion Fund.  Combined with matching funds, GSAF makes up to five-year loans to developers for acquisition or preservation of affordable housing.

Homekey  Homekey provides grants to local to acquire and rehabilitate a variety of housing types — such as hotels, motels, vacant apartment buildings, and resi- dential care facilities — in order to serve people experiencing homelessness or who are also at risk of serious illness from COVID-19.

Housing for a Healthy
California (HHC)
HHC provides funding on a competitive basis to deliver supportive housing op- portunities to developers using the federal National Housing Trust Funds (NHTF) allocations for operating reserve grants and capital loans.

Housing-Related Parks
Program
Funds the creation of new park and recreation facilities or improvement of ex- isting park and recreation facilities that are associated with rental and owner- ship projects that are affordable to very-low- and low-income households.

Infill Infrastructure
Grant Program (IIG)
IIG provides grant funding for infrastructure improvements for new infill hous- ing in residential and/or mixed-use projects.  Funds are made available through a competitive application process.

Joe Serna, Jr., Farm-
worker Housing Grant
(FWHG)
FWHG makes grants and loans for development or rehabilitation of rental and owner-occupied housing for agricultural workers with priority for lower-in- come households.

Local Early Action Plan-
ning (LEAP) Grants
The Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) program assist cities and counties to plan for housing through providing over-the-counter, non-competitive plan- ning grants.

Local Housing Trust
Fund Program (LHTF)
Affordable Housing Innovation's LHTF lends money for construction of rental housing projects with units restricted for at least 55 years to households earn- ing less than 60 percent of area median income.  State funds matches local housing trust funds as down payment assistance to first-time homebuyers.

Mobilehome Park Re-
habilitation and Resi-
dent Ownership Pro-
gram (MPRROP)
MPRROP makes short- and long-term low interest rate loans for the preserva- tion of affordable mobile home parks for ownership or control by resident or- ganizations, nonprofit housing sponsors, or local public agencies.  MPRROP also makes long-term loans to individuals to ensure continued affordability.

Funds are made available through a competitive process in response to a peri- odic NOFA.

Packet Page 408 of 846Attachment 5 Page 127 of 565

City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

125
Multifamily Housing
Program (MHP)
MHP makes low-interest, long-term deferred-payment permanent loans for new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transi- tional rental housing for lower-income households.

No Place Like Home
(NPLH)
NPLH dedicates up to $2 billion in bond proceeds to invest in the develop- ment of permanent supportive housing for persons who are in need of mental health services and are experiencing homelessness.

Permanent Local Hous-
ing Allocation (PLHA)
PLHA provides a permanent source of funding to local governments to imple- ment plans to increase the affordable housing stock through both formula grants and competitive grants.

Predevelopment Loan
Program (PDLP)
PDLP makes short-term loans available for preservation, construction, rehabil- itation or conversion of assisted housing primarily for low-income households.

Availability of funding is announced through a periodic NOFA.

Supportive Housing
Multifamily Housing
Program (SHMHP)
SHMHP provides low-interest loans to developers of permanent affordable rental housing that contain supportive housing units.

Transit Oriented Devel-
opment Housing Pro-
gram (TOD)
The TOD program makes low-interest loans and grants for rental housing that includes affordable units that are located within one-quarter mile of a transit station. Applications are accepted in response to a periodic NOFA.

Veterans Housing and
Homelessness Preven-
tion Program (VHHP)
VHHP provides long-term loans to for-profit, non-profit and public agencies to develop or preserve rental housing for very-low- and low-income veterans and their families.

California Tax Credit Al-
location Committee
(TCAC) State Tax Cred-
its
TCAC facilitates the investment of private capital into the development of af- fordable rental housing for low-income Californians through State and federal tax credits. Tax credits are available to both individuals and corporations. The tax credits are sold to individuals or corporations with a high tax liability and the proceeds from the sale are used to create affordable housing.

California Housing Fi-
nance Agency (CalHFA)
Multifamily Programs
CalHFA provides a variety of loan programs for different project types and in- come levels. Permanent Loan Programs include competitive long-term financ- ing for affordable multifamily rental housing projects, where the Agency must be the Bond Issuer. CalHFA also offers the Conduit Issuer Program, which fa- cilitates access to tax-exempt and taxable bonds by developers seeking financ- ing for eligible projects that provide affordable multifamily rental housing, which can be used when another lender is involved. CalHFA offers the Bond Recycling Program to preserve and recycle prior years tax-exempt private ac- tivity bond volume cap to be accessed by developers that seek construc- tion/rehabilitation financing for eligible projects that provide affordable multi- family rental housing.

California Housing Fi-
nance Agency (CalHFA)
Loan Programs
CalHFA provides a number of loan programs, including First Mortgage Pro- grams and the Down Payment Assistance Program. The First Mortgage Pro- grams include both government and conventional loans, while the Down Pay- ment Assistance Program provides several options for down payment and closing cost assistance.

Independent Cities
Lease Finance Author-
ity (ICFA)
The City is an associate member of the ICFA which provides down payment and/or closing cost assistance and assists qualified nonprofit organizations to acquire and manage multi-family housing communities, including manufac- tured home parks.

Local Programs
Packet Page 409 of 846Attachment 5 Page 128 of 565

Chapter 4: Housing Resources and Opportunities
126
Rental Housing Rehabilita-
tion Program
The program provides below market rate loans to owners with properties that rent to low- and moderate-income households. The program is funded with re- development funds set aside to create and preserve low and moderate-income housing, Community Development Block Grant funds and HOME funds. The in- come limits vary based on funding source.

Below Market Rate Pro-
gram
The City requires developers building detached homes in a Residential Medium Density zoning to provide 10% of the homes for sale to moderate-income house- holds at an affordable price. Under the long-term resale restrictions, these homes must remain affordable to and owner-occupied by moderate income households for 45 years.

Private Resources/Financing Programs
Federal National Mort-
gage Association (Fan-
nie Mae)
A government-sponsored enterprise that provides a reliable source of afforda- ble mortgage financing nationwide. Fannie Mae purchases mortgages from lenders and facilitates the flow of capital into the housing market.

Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation
(Freddie Mac)
A government-sponsored enterprise that operates in the secondary mortgage market to ensure a reliable and affordable supply of mortgage funds.

California Community
Reinvestment Corpora-
tion (CCRC)
Non-profit mortgage banking consortium designed to provide long term debt financing for affordable multi- family rental housing. Non-profit and for-profit developers contact member banks.

Federal Home Loan
Bank (FHLB) Affordable
Housing Program
Direct subsidies to non-profit developers, for-profit developers and public agencies for affordable low-income ownership and rental projects.

Community Reinvest-
ment Act (CRA)
Federal law requires that banks, savings and loans, thrifts, and their affiliated mortgaging subsidiaries annually evaluate the credit needs for public projects in communities where they operate. This includes meeting the needs of bor- rowers in all segments of the communities, including low- and moderate-in- come neighborhoods.

4.2 Administrative Resources
The provision of affordable housing requires both financial resources as well as administrative re- sources. Housing programs require that a number of entities work together in partnership to bring the necessary resources together to provide for affordable housing. Provided below is a brief dis- cussion of some of the administrative resources that the City has available to provide for housing programs, including public agencies and non-profit organizations that have contributed to housing projects in Fairfield. These agencies and organizations are critical to meeting the housing needs of the City and play an important role in the acquisition, rehabilitation, preservation, and develop- ment of affordable and assisted housing.

CITY ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES
Housing and neighborhood preservation are key priorities of the City of Fairfield. The City Man- ager’s Office plays a leading role in several programs, including the Quality of Life Task Force, re- gional homelessness, and Travis Air Force Base. The Community Development Department is re- sponsible for preparation of and administration of the General Plan update, including this Housing Packet Page 410 of 846Attachment 5 Page 129 of 565

City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update

127
Element. The Department also administers the Fairfield Zoning Ordinance. The Department im- plements the City’s planning and development review process and through the Building Division enforces the Building Code, ADA requirements, and energy regulations. The Housing Division im- plements the City’s affordable housing programs. The Fairfield Housing Authority is the City’s lead agency for tenant-based assistance and administers the Housing Choice Voucher program, Com- munity Development Block Grants, HOME and other homebuyer programs, and housing rehabil- itation programs. In addition to the Community Development Department, the Fairfield Police Department Code Enforcement Division enforces quality of life and community preservation or- dinances which impact the City’s neighborhoods.

NON-PROFIT RESOURCES

North Bay Human Development Corporation
North Bay Human Development Corporation is a non-profit corporation whose board was estab- lished specifically to operate the Parkway Plaza senior apartments in Fairfield and has no interest in being involved with other housing projects. The Solano Affordable Housing Foundation (SAHF) is a nonprofit housing developer established by local cities to encourage affordable housing in the County. The foundation will be working to identify affordable housing, including the preservation of affordable housing with Redevelopment Agency assistance. The Foundation also owns the Union Square apartment complex and purchased the Senior Manor apartment complex in late 2008 (the City of Fairfield retained ownership of the underlying property).

Pacific Community Services Incorporated
Pacific Community Services Corporation (PCSI)/Pittsburg Housing and Economic Development Corporation have expressed interest in facilitating affordable housing in Fairfield. The corporation has also considered purchasing property in Fairfield for the development of affordable housing and also assisting in the preservation of at-risk units during the foreclosure crisis. The corporation also provides assistance to residents with housing discrimination and other issues. In the past, PCSI was retained by the City of Fairfield to provide housing counseling services.

Mid-Peninsula Housing
Mid-Peninsula Housing, based in Redwood City, is a Bay Area non-profit housing developer and manager. Mid-Peninsula developed an affordable housing project, Sunset Creek Apartments in Fairfield in 1994 and has expressed interest in developing future projects.

Community Housing Opportunities Corporation
CHOC (Community Housing Opportunities Corporation) is a Davis-based nonprofit interested in affordable housing. CHOC owns and manages Gateway Village, an apartment project on Pennsyl- vania Avenue which it acquired and rehabilitated with City assistance. The City has continued its relationship and discussions with CHOC, who may be interested in additional projects.

Packet Page 411 of 846Attachment 5 Page 130 of 565

Chapter 4: Housing Resources and Opportunities
128
Meta Housing Corporation
Meta Housing Corporation is based in southern Los Angeles but has built several properties in the Bay Area. Meta Housing developed the One Lake Family Apartments, which includes a 190-unit affordable workforce housing community for families and individuals.

National Community Renaissance
National Community Renaissance is a nonprofit organization based in Southern California. In co- operation with ANF Families Partnership II, the group acquired and rehabilitated 93 apartment units in the South PACE neighborhood. The organization remains interested in future projects.

Resources for Community Development
Resources for Community Development (RCD) is a Berkeley-based nonprofit organization that partnered with Caminar Solano to develop Laurel Gardens, the first affordable housing project built in Solano County that provides housing to low-income individuals with mental disabilities, many of them formerly homeless.

Habitat for Humanity
Habitat for Humanity is a non-profit organization that brings together volunteers in the commu- nity to build homes for low-income families. The participating families also contribute hours to- wards building the home. Habitat for Humanity has built several homes in Fairfield and is currently working with the City on another potential infill project. Habitat for Humanity continues to be interested in local homeownership programs.

4.3 Other Housing Resources and Considerations

SURPLUS OR PUBLICLY-OWNED LANDS
State law, including AB 1486 (2021) and AB 1255 (2020), seeks to identify and prioritize State and local surplus lands available for housing development affordable to lower-income households. As of 2022, there were no surplus lands declared in the City of Fairfield.