As of the compilation of this Housing Element (May 2022), based on records from the Solano County Assessor, the City has identified 40 parcels—representing about 90.2 acres—within City Limits that are publicly-owned, but that have not been declared surplus lands. The agencies that own these parcels are listed in Table 4-3 below.
Packet Page 412 of 846Attachment 5 Page 131 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
129
Table 4-3: Publicly-Owned Land
Total Parcels Total Acres
City of Fairfield 10 16.3
Public Facilities 2 10.6
Res Low Medium 5 3.5
Res Medium 3 2.2
Fairfield Housing Authority 29 69.3
Com Community 2 0.3
Mixed Use 5 31.9
Public Facilities 2 7
Res Low Medium 2 1.2
Res Medium 18 28.9
Solano Affordable Housing Foundation
Res High 1 4.6
TOTAL 40 90.2
Source: Solano County Assessor, 2021; City of Fairfield, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022
These sites are located in a diverse array of locations throughout the city within various zoning districts and densities for potential residential development. However, much of the current land that allows housing development is also currently designated for lower and medium densities that fall below the default density of 30 du/ac. In accordance with AB 1486 and AB 1255, the City con- tinues to work with local agencies to determine whether there is surplus or excess land that is not necessary for the agency’s use and may be identified as “surplus” for reporting to the State HCD and California Department of General Services (DGS) with the intention of connecting developers to potential lands available for housing development affordable to lower-income households.
UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Consistent with State law and guidance from the State HCD, all sites included in the Inventory to meet the RHNA have been screened to ensure they have sufficient access to existing or planned water, sewer, and other dry utilities. The City is the water provider for most of the City, including all the areas where sites are located. Sewer services are provided by the Fairfield Suisun Sewer Dis- trict. Based on the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and the 2020 Sewer District Master Plan, there is enough capacity for water and sewer for RHNA units. Also, based on the location of sites along corridors and downtown areas, these sites have access to dry utilities, including electricity.
There is sufficient existing and planned capacity to accommodate the regional housing need.
Packet Page 413 of 846Attachment 5 Page 132 of 565
130
This page left intentionally blank
Packet Page 414 of 846Attachment 5 Page 133 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
131
5 Housing Constraints
State law requires analysis of governmental and non-governmental constraints to Fairfield meeting its housing needs. Governmental constraints can include zoning regulations, development stand- ards, fees, and processing and permitting times, among others. Non-governmental constraints can include the following areas – infrastructure, environmental, and market. This chapter provides an assessment of such constraints as required by law.
5.1 Governmental Constraints
While government regulations are intended to guide development in a community and ensure quality housing, they can also unintentionally contribute to delays or increased development costs.
Actions taken by the City can thus have an impact on both the overall affordability of housing as well as its availability within the city. Governmental constraints that could lead to such cost in- creases include land use controls, site improvement requirements, building codes, fees, and other locals programs to improve the overall quality of housing. The following section assesses con- straints imposed by the current General Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
LAND USE PLANS AND REGULATIONS
General Plan
The City of Fairfield last performed a comprehensive update to its General Plan in 2001 and is in the process of updating it again to reflect opportunities, challenges, and approaches that have emerged in recent years. As the General Plan Update is being prepared in parallel with this Housing Element, its policy direction and shared goals inform the assessment of constraints in this chapter.
The Land Use Element sets forth the City’s policies for guiding local land use and development.
These policies, together with the zoning regulations, establish the amount and distribution of land to be allocated for different uses within the city. Table 5-1 shows the 2002 General Plan land use designations that allow residential development. These designations support a variety of housing types, ranging from large estate lot residential developments to multifamily apartment and condo- minium developments.
Packet Page 415 of 846Attachment 5 Page 134 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
132
Table 5-1: General Plan Residential Land Use Designations General Plan Land Use Description
Maximum
Density
(du/ac)1
Residential Zoning
Designation
Residential
Very Low Density (RVL) Large estate lot residential development. Lot sizes typically >15,000 sq ft. Cluster single-family homes
on smaller lots with significant permanent open
space may also apply. Hillside areas and transition
areas between agriculture and more intense
residential development may also apply.
2.5 Residential, Very Low
Density (RVL)
Low Density (RL) Single-family development on large lots, and standard single-family subdivisions. Lot sizes from
7,500-15,000 sq ft.
4.5 Residential, Low
Density (RL)
Low Medium Density
(RLM)
Single-family subdivisions and nontraditional
designs such as zero lot lines, patio homes, and
townhomes. Lot sizes from 4,500-7,500 sq ft.
8.0 Residential, Low
Medium Density (RLM)
Medium Density (RM) Attached units, such as duplexes, townhouses, rowhouses, condominiums, and apartments.
Detached units must provide affordable housing
opportunities or substantial public benefit. Lot sizes
from 3,000-4,500 sq ft for each unit.
15.0 Residential, Medium
Density (RM)
High Density (RH) Multifamily apartment and condominium development. Located in close proximity to major
arterial streets, commercial and recreational
facilities, and employment centers.
22.0 Residential, High
Density (RH)
Very High Density (RVH) Multifamily apartment and condominium development in high-intensity areas.
32.0 Residential, Very High
Density (RVH)
Commercial and Mixed-Use2
Neighborhood
Commercial (CN)
Convenience commercial and neighborhood
shopping centers which provide for a range of
necessary day-to-day retail goods and services.
- Neighborhood
Commercial (CN)
Community Commercial
(CC)
Shopping centers that serve a larger market than
the immediate neighborhood. Also includes strip
commercial shopping areas along North Texas and
Texas Streets.
- Community Commercial
(CC); Thoroughfare
Commercial (CT)
Office Commercial (CO) Non-retail, business, and professional offices. - Office Commercial (CO) Mixed-Use (MU) Designation has been applied to several areas throughout the city. Each area has a unique mix of
specified permitted uses and FAR.
32-50 Mixed Commercial
(CM)3
Notes:
1. Dwelling units per acre (du/ac).
2. Residential densities permitted in commercial zones are not specified in the Land Use Element and are established in the Zoning Ordinance.
3. In the General Plan. the MU land use designation applies to multiple areas of the city with various standards. In the Zoning Ordinance, the CM District implements this designation.
Source: City of Fairfield, Land Use Element, 2016; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 Packet Page 416 of 846Attachment 5 Page 135 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
133
Zoning Ordinance
The type, location, density, and scale of residential development in Fairfield is regulated through the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which is Chapter 25 of the Fairfield Municipal Code. Zoning regula- tions serve to implement the General Plan and are designed to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of residents. Fairfield’s Zoning Ordinance includes six residential zoning districts. Their intended uses are summarized in Table 5-2. Where a minimum lot size is required, a numerical suffix to the zoning district designation is shown on the Zoning District Map (e.g., RVL-20 requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, RL-8 a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet, RLM-4.5 a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet, etc.). Maximum residential densities in these zones range from one unit per gross developable acre in the RVL-40 zone to 32 in the RVH zone.
Table 5-2: Residential Zoning Districts
Map
Symbol
Zoning District Intended Uses
RVL-40
Residential, Very
Low
Single-family detached homes on large lots. They primarily serve as transitions between urban development and
agricultural or open space areas. May also be applied to land within hillside areas. Minimum lot sizes range from 15,000 square feet to 40,000 square feet.
RVL-20
RVL-15
RL-10 Residential, Low
Density
Single-family detached homes on minimum lot sizes of 8,000 or 10,000 square feet. RL-8
RLM-6
Residential, Low
Medium Density
Single-family neighborhoods with minimum lot sizes of 4,500, to 6,000 square feet. Where no minimum lot size is required, more compact design is allowed through the Small Lot SF Development Regulations.
RLM-5
RLM-4.5
RLM
RM Residential, Medium
Density
Low density attached housing, such as duet, duplex, triplex, and four-plex units; townhouses; and condominiums.
RH Residential, High
Density
Multifamily development such as apartments and
condominiums. RH zoned properties are located along major collector and arterial roads, adjacent to neighborhood-serving land uses, and near employment centers.
RVH Residential, Very
High Density
Very-high density multifamily development. The primary land uses include apartments, condominiums, and senior housing.
Three to four story structures would be typical. Typically located near transit stations or employment centers.
Source: City of Fairfield Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.20 Residential Zoning Districts Permitted uses range from single-family detached houses in the RVL, RL, and RLM zones to mul- tifamily townhouses, condos, and apartments in the RM, RH, and RVH zones. As shown in Table 5-3, residential uses are permitted by-right, without discretionary review or design review. Various types of special needs housing may be permitted by-right or require a conditional use permit, as discussed below in the Provision for a Variety of Housing Types section.
Packet Page 417 of 846Attachment 5 Page 136 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
134
Table 5-3: Permitted Residential Uses in Residential Zoning Districts1 Housing Type RVL RL RLM RM RH RVH
Boarding houses, large - - - C C C
Boarding houses, small P P P P P P
Community care facilities – residential2 P P P P P P
Assisted living facility - C C P P P
Duplex - C P P P -
Duet - C P P P -
Dwelling, multifamily (townhouses, condos,
apartments)
- - C P P P
Dwellings, single-family detached P P P C C -
Mobile home parks C C C C C C
Notes:
1. P = Permitted; C = Conditional Use Permit required; - = Not permitted
2. No licensed community care facilities shall be located within 300 feet of any other community care facility.
Source: City of Fairfield Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.20 Residential Zoning Districts There are also 12 non-residential districts included in the Zoning Ordinance that allow various types of residential uses along with commercial, industrial, agricultural, public, or open space uses.
Mixed-use is allowed by conditional use permit in the Neighborhood Commercial (CN), Office Commercial (CO), Community Commercial (CC), Mixed Commercial (CM), and Commercial Thoroughfare (CT) zoning districts. Within the CM zoning district, some forms of residential de- velopment are permitted by-right without being developed in conjunction with a commercial use on the same property. Other residential uses are very limited in non-commercial zones. Table 5-4 summarizes these permitted uses for non-residential zoning districts.
Packet Page 418 of 846Attachment 5 Page 137 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
135
Table 5-4: Permitted Residential Uses by Non-Residential Zoning District1 Housing Type CN CO CS CT CC CM IB
P
IL IG AG OS
C
PF
Boarding houses,
large
C C - C C C - - - - - -
Boarding houses,
small
C C - C C C - - - - - -
Assisted living
facility
C C - C C P C - - - - -
Duplex2 C C - C C P - - - - - -
Duet2 C - - C C P - - - - - -
Dwelling,
multifamily2
C C - C C P - - - - - -
Dwelling, single-
family detached2
C C - C C C - - - P5 - -
Community care
facility – residential
- C - C C P - - - - - -
Single room
occupancy housing
- - - C - P - - - - - -
Mobile home parks - - - - - - - - - - - -
Nursing home C C - C C P - - - - - -
Homeless shelter - - C C C C - C - - - -
Farm labor
housing3
- - - - - - - - - C - -
Residential
caretaker unit4
- - - - - - C C C C C C
Notes:
1. P = Permitted; C = Condition Use Permit required; - = Not Permitted
2. Residential land uses shall only be allowed in conjunction with a commercial land use on the same property, except in the CM zoning district where purely residential projects can be allowed.
3. Farm labor housing in Agricultural Districts shall be subject to the same requirements as Agricultural uses.
4. Only one residential caretaker unit shall be permitted per property. The unit shall be located within a principal building on the site and/or completely screened. In AG, OSC, and PF Zones, use of a caretaker’s residence as a residence can occur only in association with an active agricultural use.
5. Only one single-family dwelling is allowed per parcel.
Source: City of Fairfield Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.22 Commercial Zoning Districts; Section 25.24 Industrial Zoning Districts; Section 25.26 Agriculture and Public Benefit Zoning Districts
Packet Page 419 of 846Attachment 5 Page 138 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
136
The City has also established various Overlay Zones to promote special land use regulations in areas with unique issues. Overlay Zones modify development standards promoted by the base zoning and are combined with the base zone on the Zoning Map. There are six major Overlay Zones:
Downtown Area Parking (P1) Overlay District, Hillside Development (H) Overlay District, North Cordelia (NC) Overlay District, Gateway Court (GC) Overlay District, Emergency Shelter Overlay District (-ES), and Planned Development (PD) Overlay District. There are multiple PD overlays, each with their own specific regulations. The PD overlays in Fairfield include Eastridge PD, Man- gels Ranch PD, Rancho Solano PD, Gold Ridge PD, Fieldcrest PD, Garibaldi Ranch PD, Waterman Ranch House PD, Stonedene PD, Western Business Park PD, North Gate PD, Train Station Specific Plan (TSSP) PD Overlay District, and Green Valley Residential PD. Table 5-5 below summarizes the purpose of each of these overlays.
Table 5-5: Overlay Zones
Overlay Zone Purpose/Description
Downtown
Area Parking
(P1) Overlay
District
The purpose of the Downtown Parking Overlay District (P1) is to allow land uses to deviate from the parking requirements of Section 25.34 (Parking and Loading). This deviation is allowed in recognition of the unique characteristics of the downtown area (HO, HD, and HDC zoning districts) such as: mixed uses, pedestrian scale of development, availability of transit, and the urban streetscape. The regulations of this overlay district will allow a reduction in the number of required parking spaces and may permit the use of in lieu fees and off-site parking facilities.
Hillside
Development
(H) Overlay
District
The purpose and intent of the Hillside Overlay District (H) is to:
1. Implement the City’s General Plan by establishing hillside regulations and management guidelines to ensure:
a. The preservation of scenic hillside areas and prominent topographic features including ridgelines, steep slopes, and hillsides; and natural features such as tree stands and riparian areas;
b. That development of hillside areas is sensitive to, and preserves natural features; and maximizes open space preservation to enhance the City’s identity and preserve surrounding natural environments; c. The sound planning of hillside areas deemed appropriate for development;
2. Establish development regulations and hillside management guidelines that address areas of concern unique to hillside projects such as: open space preservation; grading, drainage and erosion control; roadway and driveway design; lot placement and size; public safety; architecture; and landscape design;
3. Maintain an environmental equilibrium consistent with existing vegetation, wildlife, soils, geology, slopes and drainage patterns and to preserve the natural topography, including swales, canyons, knolls, ridgelines and rock outcrops;
4. Avoid development that would result in unacceptable fire, flood, landslide or other safety hazards;
5. Avoid unwarranted high maintenance costs for public facilities or land; and
6. Provide a mechanism for flexible residential development projects in hillside areas so that development may be concentrated in those areas with the least environmental and aesthetic impact.
Packet Page 420 of 846Attachment 5 Page 139 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
137
North
Cordelia (NC)
Overlay
District
The purpose and intent of the North Cordelia Overlay District (NC) is to implement the Green Valley Settlement Agreement (GVSA).
Gateway
Court (GC)
Overlay
District
The purpose and intent of the Gateway Court Overlay District (GC) is to facilitate the continued success of the restaurant cluster on Gateway Court and to prohibit or discourage incompatible uses.
Emergency
Shelter
Overlay
District (-ES)
The purpose and intent of the Emergency Shelter Overlay District (-ES) is to establish as- of-right (permitted) development and operation of emergency shelters in appropriate locations and to facilitate the ability of emergency shelters to expand as needed to serve homeless and potentially homeless residents of Fairfield in accordance with State law. It applies to properties in the IL Zoning Districts with an IL-ES designation.
Planned
Development
(PD) Overlay
District
The PD Overlay District is intended to encourage innovations through regulations that will:
1. Promote creative and imaginative designs, superior to those attainable under conventional zoning district standards, by allowing greater flexibility in the application of land use and development regulations;
2. Encourage the assembly and integrated development of parcels that might otherwise be developed in unrelated increments to the detriment of surrounding neighborhoods, and the variety and diversity in the development of large-scale projects;
3. Promote a more economic and efficient use of land by allowing a variety of housing choices, commercial and industrial activities, a high level of urban amenities, and the preservation of open space; and
Safeguard the environment and enhance the aesthetics of the community by preserving environmentally sensitive areas, prominent natural features, and cultural or historic resources. While use of the Planned Development overlay district is an effective planning tool to achieve the above purposes, it is not the City’s intent to confer special privileges to any land owner or compensate a land owner for areas of a property that are otherwise unbuildable due to existing features or constraints on the property.
Source: City of Fairfield Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.28 Overlay Zoning Districts In 2017 the City adopted the Heart of Fairfield (HoF) Specific Plan (SP), which applied seven new zoning districts to areas covered by the SP in Downtown Fairfield and along West Texas Street.
Development regulations for HoF SP are provided in Section 25.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. The six zoning districts are as follows: Downtown (HD), Downtown Core (HDC), West Texas Street (HWT), Mixed Use Office (HO), Transit-Oriented Development (HTD), Residential (HR), and Public Facilities-Transit (HPF). The HPF district is the only one that does not permit any residential uses. Table 5-6 displays the residential uses allowed in the other SP districts. For the HD and HDC districts, the Zoning Ordinance separately addresses those uses that are allowed on the ground floor versus those that are allowed on any floor above the ground floor (upper floors). The SP will provide about 1,600 new units and seven replacement single-family residences by 2040, including on nine identified catalytic sites that emphasize underutilized areas and set specific residential targets.
Packet Page 421 of 846Attachment 5 Page 140 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
138
Table 5-6: Permitted Residential Uses in Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan Zoning Districts1 Housing Type
HD2 HDC2
HO HWT3 HTD HR Ground Upper Ground Upper
Boarding houses, large4 - - - - C P P C
Boarding houses, small - - - - P P - P
Assisted living facility - - - - C C C C
Duplex5 P P - - P P C P
Duet5 P P - - P P C P
Dwelling, multifamily5 P P - P P P P P
Dwelling, single-family
detached
P P C C P P P P
Community care facility –
residential
- - - - P P C P
Single room occupancy housing - - - - C - - -
Homeless shelter - - - - C C C -
Mobile home parks - - - - - - - -
Notes:
1. P = Permitted; C = Conditional Use Permit required; - = Not permitted
2. Within HD and HDC Zoning Districts, business spaces shall incorporate more than 70% of the floor area for retail display with no more than 30% of the area devoted to warehousing or storage of merchandise. The retail or service business shall be open to foot traffic during periods of typical business hours.
3. In HWT Zone, commercial uses permitted only on parcels with direct access to West Texas Street.
4. Transitional and supportive housing are not regulated as a separate land use. Rather, it is a means of occupying a residential land use (e.g., single family detached housing, duplex, multifamily) and such occupancy must meet all existing standard requirements for the underlying residential land use and the residential unit. Determinations regarding the permissiveness of transitional housing will depend on the number of independent arrangements between tenants and the operator of the service. For example, more than two independent arrangements within a single housing unit will be regulated as a boarding house.
5. Housing is not permitted on the first floor on Texas Street in the HD Zoning Districts.
Source: City of Fairfield Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.23 Heart of Fairfield Plan Zoning Districts The City’s other major SP, the TSSP, was approved in 2011. The TSSP proposes a maximum of 6,800 residential units across 10 Planning Areas, each of which reflect a set of character elements and focused land uses that best serve the needs of Fairfield, although a wide range of uses and ac- tivities may occur in each. The plan will create a transit-oriented neighborhood with a variety of densities, including high-density projects near the train station. Unlike the HoF SP, the TSSP does not propose additional zoning designations; it provides land use designations that differ slightly from those established in the General Plan. The Train Station Specific Plan PD Overlay District is applied to those properties contained within the TSSP planning area, marked with a -PD Zoning Map designation. Properties not yet assigned a base zoning district are designated TS on the Zoning Map. As base zoning is assigned during the Planned Unit Development Permit process, these prop- erties will be assigned a base zoning designation along with the -PD Zoning Map designation and the TS designation would be removed at that time.
Packet Page 422 of 846Attachment 5 Page 141 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
139
Development Standards
Fairfield regulates the location, density, and scale of residential development primarily through de- velopment standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance regulates the size of residential structures through requirements for minimum lot size, setbacks, and height limits.
Minimum lot sizes for residential districts range from 4,500 to 40,000 square feet for single-family, while minimum lot sizes for multifamily developments only apply to new subdivisions. Only one residential zone, RVH, permits densities that exceed 30 du/ac. A summary of the structural devel- opment standards for the residential zoning districts is provided in Table 5-7. To provide flexibility and incentivize additional residential development, the City also provides separate small lot single- family and alternative multifamily development regulations, discussed below.
Table 5-7: Residential Development Standards
Development Standard RVL-40 RVL-20 RVL-15 RL-10 RL-8 RLM-6 Density Range1 Up to 1.0 Up to 1.75 Up to 2.5 2.5-3.0 2.5-4.5 4.5-5 Min. Lot Size 40,000 sf. 20,000 sf. 15,000 sf. 10,000 sf. 8,000 sf. 6,000 sf.
Min. Lot Width (ft.)2 120 100 90 80 70 60
Min. Front Setback (ft.)3 30 25 20 20 15 15
Min. Side Setback (ft.) 30 20 20 15 15 10
Min. Rear Setback (ft.) 40 30 25 25 20 20
Max. Height (ft.) 35 35 35 35 35 35
Max. FAR5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Development Standard RLM-5 RLM-4.5 RLM RM RH RVH
Density Range1 4.5-6 4.5-7 Up to 8 8-15 15-22 22-32
Min. Lot Size 5,000 sf. 4,500 sf. 1 acre6 3 acres6 3 acres6 3 acres6 Min. Lot Width (ft.)2 50 45 1506 2006 2006 2006
Min. Front Setback (ft.)3 15 15 15 15 15 15
Min. Side Setback (ft.) 10 10 15 15 15 15
Min. Rear Setback (ft.) 20 15 15 15 15 15
Max. Height (ft.) 35 35 35 35 45 50
Min. Private Open Space (sq. ft.)4 - - 120/60 80/48 80/48 80/48 Min. Common Open Space (% of net
parcel area)
- - 50% 45% 40% 35%
Max. FAR5 0.5 0.5 - - - -
Notes:
1. Dwelling units per acre.
2. Interior lot widths.
3. To habitable portion of building or side entry garage.
4. Required per unit (ground floor/upper story unit)
5. FAR applies only to custom homes.
6. Minimum for a new subdivision.
Source: City of Fairfield Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.20 Residential Zoning Districts Packet Page 423 of 846Attachment 5 Page 142 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
140
Other standards apply to residential projects in mixed-use commercial zones, summarized in Table 5-8. Generally, these zones permit residential densities up to 32 du/ac, with the exception of the CN district which permits up to 20 du/ac. Mixed-use projects in these zones must comply with the development regulations of other purely commercial projects, except in the following areas:
• Open Space: A minimum of 200 square feet of common open space shall be provided for each dwelling unit (e.g., outdoor garden, atrium, or indoor recreational area separate from the floor area internal to any dwelling unit). The Planning Commission shall have the abil- ity to reduce or waive the requirement for common space in any project where the Com- mission determines that commercial activity integrated into the mixed-use project would effectively serve as common open space.
• Parking: The residential portion of any mixed-use development project shall provide one space per unit, irrespective of the number of bedrooms within individual units, in addition to the parking that the City would normally require for commercial portion of the project. • Projects with residential and commercial buildings not physically connected: The resi- dential portion of any mixed-use development project in which the proposed commercial building is physically separated from the proposed residential building shall comply with the development regulations contained in Table 5-12, with the exception of the minimum lot area and parking requirements identified by Table 5-12. Instead, the minimum lot area specified in Table 5-8 for the respective zone in which the project is proposed shall apply and the parking regulations identified in the Parking Requirements section below shall ap- ply.
• Ground floor residential uses: For all buildings facing an arterial public street, no more than 50 percent of the occupied frontage façade on the ground floor facing the street shall be devoted to a residential use. Residential uses may occupy 100 percent of the ground floor frontage facing any local or collector street, parking area, or landscaped area.
Packet Page 424 of 846Attachment 5 Page 143 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
141
Table 5-8: Commercial Development Standards
Development Standard CO CC CM CT CN
Density Range1 Up to 32.0 Up to 32.0 Up to 32.0 Up to 32.0 Up to 20.0 Min. Lot Size2 20,000 sq.
ft.
20,000 sq.
ft.
6,000 sq.
ft.
10,000 sq.
ft.
20,000 sq.
ft.
Min. Lot Width (ft.)2 100 100 60 80 100
Min. Front Setback (ft.) 20 15 15 10 25
Min. Side Setback (ft.)3 10 10 5 0 10
Min. Rear Setback (ft.)4 10 (20) 10 (20) 5 (10) 0 (10) 10 (20) Max. Height (ft.)5 45 45 35 35 35
Max. FAR6 1.0 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.4
Notes:
1. Dwelling units per acre.
2. For new subdivisions only.
3. Minimum interior side yard. For projects abutting residential zone or use, the CM zone requires 5 feet while all other zones require 10 feet, plus one foot for each one foot of building height over 20 feet up to 30 feet.
4. Numbers in parentheses indicate the minimums when abutting an arterial road. For projects abutting residential zone or use, the CM zone requires 10 feet while all other zones require 15 feet, plus one foot for each one foot of building height over 20 feet up to 40 feet.
5. An increase in building height is allowed with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
6. Maximum percentage of net lot area. To achieve a density of 32 du/ac, the maximum allowable FAR in the CN, CO, CC, CM, and CT zoning districts shall be increased to .85.
Source: City of Fairfield Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.22 Commercial Zoning Districts In addition to the base zoning, development standards may differ if a PD zoning overlay is present.
For instance, parcels within a zoning overlay may be subject to a maximum limit of residential units within the PD area. Additional development standards related to the specific PD overlay districts are included in Table 5-9 below.
Packet Page 425 of 846Attachment 5 Page 144 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
142
Table 5-9: PD Overlay Zone Development Standards
Overlay Zone Description
Eastridge • A maximum of 217 single-family detached dwelling units are permitted. • The project is permitted one single street intersection with Green Valley Road. No access to any residential lot shall be directly from Green Valley Road. • For tree or hillside preservation purposes, the Director shall have the ability to approve a 20 minimum front instead of the 25 foot front yard required by the Residential - Low Density Zoning District.
Mangels Ranch A maximum of 229 single family detached dwelling units are permitted.
Rancho Solano • A maximum of 1,200 dwelling units is permitted within the project. • In addition to the underlying land use designations, development shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance 85-14, and by reference the following plans and documents on file in Planned Development zoning file Z.C. 85-3: “Rancho Solano Illustrative Plan”; “Rancho Solano Open Space Concept - Land Use - Sheet 1”; “Land Use Plan, Sheet 1”; “Land Use Plan, Sheet 1A”; “Rancho Solano, Sheet 2, revised 12/14/84”; and Rancho Solano, A Planned Unit - Golf Course Development.”
• Concurrent with the filing each final map for a development area, the remaining property outside the developed area within the map shall be designated Open Space Conservation and placed within the Conservation Easement for Rancho Solano.
Gold Ridge In addition to the underlying land use designations, development shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance 97-12, and by reference the approved land plans titled “Planned Unit Development Zoning Map, Gold Ridge, Fairfield, California” dated “Received May 27, 1997” and plans titled “Community Design Plan for Gold Ridge at Cannon Station” dated 8 May 1997, on file in Planned Development zoning file Z.C. 97-5.
Fieldcrest • In addition to the underlying land use designations, development shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance 94-19, and by reference the approved land plan titled “Open Space System, Fieldcrest, Fairfield, CA” dated April 22, 1994, on file in Planned Development zoning file Z.C. 84-8.
• The 63-acre Open Space area indicated on the Section Zoning Map contained in Ordinance 94-19 shall be dedicated as a conservation easement to the City or other third- party foundation, prior to or concurrent with recordation of any Final Subdivision Map on the project.
Garibaldi Ranch • A maximum of 673 dwelling units is permitted within the project. • In addition to the underlying land use designations, development shall comply with the provisions of Ordinance 97-14, and by reference the approved land plans titled “Garibaldi Ranch Planned Unit Development Zoning and Development Standards Exhibit”; the “Garibaldi Ranch Concept Elements Exhibit”; and “Garibaldi Ranch, A New Neighborhood of Cordelia Village” dated July 28, 1997, on file in Planned Development zoning file Z.C. 97-7.
• The areas designated Open Space on the approved land plans referenced in G.1. shall be dedicated, via conservation easement or other form satisfactory to the City, prior to or concurrent with recordation of the first Final Subdivision Map on the project.
Waterman Ranch
House
• The historic architectural integrity of the building exteriors on the property shall be maintained. Any modifications to the building exterior shall be approved by the City to ensure consistency with this requirement.
Packet Page 426 of 846Attachment 5 Page 145 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
143
• The only type of livestock allowed on the property shall be horses and their number shall be limited to four.
• Further subdivision of the existing parcels, as depicted on the Planned Development Zoning Map, certified approved by the City on December 8, 1984, is prohibited. • The Waterman Ranch property shall be made available for public viewing two times per year, between the hours of 10:00 AM and 5:00 PM, on dates approximately six months apart. The exact dates shall be established by the City and property owner on an annual basis. Groups proposing to view the property shall be required to apply to the City for approval and scheduling.
Stonedene • With the exception of a parking lot to serve the offices uses, no new development shall be allowed on the site. This condition may be modified by the City Council if the applicant does not receive from the City development rights elsewhere in exchange for preserving an approximately 1.94-acre portion of the Stonedene site. • The Stonedene mansion shall be open for public tours at least four times per year. The applicant shall work with the City to establish the dates and times for the tours. • Exterior modifications of the Stonedene building shall be subject to approval by the Planning Commission. Exterior modifications of the building shall not include an expansion of the floor area of the building.
Western Business
Park
• The required rear yard setback for any property abutting the Linear Park shall be ten feet. • On property abutting the linear park, the rear setback area to be landscaped shall be zero to 10 feet as determined necessary through the Development Review process based on the need to screen outdoor storage.
• As a condition of Conditional Use Permit or Development Review approval for any development abutting the Linear Park, a cash deposit or in lieu fee acceptable to the Director of Community Development shall be required for wall construction on the north boundary of the Linear Park.
North Gate • The purpose of this Planned Development (PD) Zoning District is to provide housing for exclusive use of military families.
• Development standards and operation shall be as outlined in the original Planned Unit Development Permit and Planned Development Zoning Z.C. 88-15. • New development and/or redevelopment in the North Gate Planned Development District shall require a Zone Change to the Train Station Specific Plan Zoning District (P.D. 2011-1).
Said new development/redevelopment shall comply with all requirements of the Train Station Specific Plan.
Train Station
Specific Plan PD
Overlay District
The purpose and intent of the Train Station Specific Plan PD Overlay District is to implement the vision outlined in the adopted Train Station Specific Plan.
Green Valley
Residential
Implements various development standards related to lot dimensions, parking, landscaping, open space, dwelling unit size, lot coverage, setbacks, and building height limits.
Source: City of Fairfield Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.28 Overlay Zoning Districts Further, specific development standards apply to properties covered by the City’s major specific plans. Residential projects contained within the HoF SP are subject to the standards set by the ap- plicable zoning designation, as summarized in Table 5-10 below. Unlike the zone-based regulations in other areas of the city, HoF development regulations are based on building types.
Packet Page 427 of 846Attachment 5 Page 146 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
144
Table 5-10: Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan Development Standards Development Standard HD/HDC1 HWT HO HTD HR
Multifamily Buildings
Density Range2 15-48 15-48 8-35 20-80 8-35
Min. Lot Size3 7,500 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft.
Min. Lot Width (ft.)3 50 50 50 50 50
Min. Front Setback (ft.) 0 where
permitted (5
max)
11 (18 max) 12 measured
from back of
curb (15 max
measured from
property line)
13 measured
from back of
curb (15 max
measured from
property line)
10 (20 max)
Min. Side Setback (ft.)4 5 where
permitted
10 10 10 5 (15 total)
Min. Rear Setback (ft.) 10 where
permitted
10 10 10 15 to habitable
building; 0 to alley
Min. Habitable Floors 2 2 - 2 facing
Webster Street;
3 facing other
streets
2 on Broadway
and Pennsylvania
Max. Height (ft.)5 60 50 35 65 35
Min. Private Open
Space (sq. ft.)6
48 48
(buildings
fronting
West Texas
Street);
80/48 (other
streets)
80/48 48 80/48
Min. Common Open
Space (% of net parcel
area)
0% 25% 25% 0% 25%
Max. FAR - - - - -
Mixed-Use Buildings
Density Range2 15-48 15-48 8-35 20-80 -
Min. Lot Size3 - 7,500 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. 7,500 sq. ft. - Min. Lot Width (ft.)3 - 50 50 50 -
Min. Front Setback (ft.) 0 (5 max) 11 (16 max) 12 measured from back of
curb (15 max
measured from
property line)
13 measured
from back of
curb (15 max
measured from
property line)
-
Min. Side Setback (ft.)4 0 on Texas
Street; 10 on
other streets
0 on West
Texas
Street; 10
10 10 -
Packet Page 428 of 846Attachment 5 Page 147 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
145
on other
streets
Min. Rear Setback (ft.) 10 (0 facing
alley)
15 10 10 -
Min. Habitable Floors 2 2 - 2 facing
Webster Street;
3 facing other
streets
-
Max. Height (ft.)5 60 50 35 65 -
Min. Private Open
Space (sq. ft.)6
48 48
(buildings
fronting
West Texas
Street);
80/48 (other
streets)
80/48 48
Min. Common Open
Space (% of net parcel
area)7
0% 25% 25% 0% -
Max. FAR8 3.0 2.0 0.6 3.0 -
Notes:
1. Multifamily buildings not permitted to face onto Texas Street. In mixed-use projects, multifamily housing is not permitted on the first floor of Texas Street.
2. Dwelling units per acre.
3. For new subdivisions only.
4. Interior side minimum.
5. An increase in building height is allowed with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Building heights are permitted to reach 40 feet on Broadway or Pennsylvania.
6. Required per unit (ground floor/upper story unit). Includes balconies, rooftop open spaces, courtyards, yards. For buildings facing West Texas, solid portions of fence enclosing open spaces cannot exceed 42 inches in height.
7. For projects within 1/2 mile of a public park or other offsite open space or amenity, common open space may be reduced to that necessary to meet landscaping and setback requirements.
8. An increase in the Floor Area Ratio is allowed with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Source: City of Fairfield Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.23 Heart of Fairfield Plan Zoning Districts
Packet Page 429 of 846Attachment 5 Page 148 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
146
Parcels within the TSSP are subject to the standards of the Zoning Code that correspond to the established land use designation, except where modified by the policies established in the plan. Fur- ther, the TSSP allows for density and/or acreage transfers among various Planning Areas that may exceed the target density established for each land use designation. All projects are permitted to develop at the applicable target density by right. It should be noted that the High Density Residen- tial (HR) designation establishes a target density of 28 du/ac, although it permits up to 50 du/ac with a density transfer. The designations that permit residential development are summarized as follows:
• Low Density Residential (LR): The LR designation permits a density between 4 du/ac to 10 du/ac with a target density of 7 du/ac. This category includes Zoning Code designations RL, RLM and Small-Lot Development. Barring any density transfers, a maximum of 1,617 dwelling units are permitted in LR.
• Medium Density Residential (MR): The MR designation permits a density between 10 du/ac to 20 du/ac, with a target density of 14 du/ac. This category includes Zoning Code designations RM and RH. Barring any density transfers, a maximum of 2,258 dwelling units are permitted in MR.
• High Density Residential (HR): The HR designation permits a density between 20 du/ac to 50 du/ac with a target density of 28 du/ac. This category includes Zoning Code designa- tions RVH and CM. Barring any density transfers, a maximum of 2,535 dwelling units are permitted in HR.
• Other Nonresidential: The CC, CM, and CN zones may allow commercial uses vertically or horizontally mixed with residential units. Except where noted in the plan, the applicable development standards in the Zoning Code apply.
Small Lot Single-Family Development Regulations
To encourage innovative, compact, and affordable single-family housing development, the City has adopted the Small Lot Single Family Development Regulations Ordinance. The standards estab- lished in this Ordinance, Section 25.20.3.2 of the Zoning Code, apply to both attached and detached single-family dwelling units. Proposed single-family developments on small lots in the RLM, RM, and RH Zoning Districts are subject to the standards summarized in Table 5-11. Further, the Zon- ing Code also provides examples of acceptable small lot developments that have been found ac- ceptable by the Planning Commission.
Packet Page 430 of 846Attachment 5 Page 149 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
147
Table 5-11: Small Lot Single-Family Development Standards Development Standard RLM RM RH
Density Range1 4.5-8 8-15 15-22
Min. Lot Size2 - - -
Min. Lot Width (ft.)3 30 25 25
Min. Unit Size 480 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft. 200 sq. ft.
Min. Front Setback (ft.) 5-10 5-10 5-10
Min. Side Setback (ft.)4 0-4 0-4 0-4
Min. Rear Setback (ft.)4 0-4 0-4 0-4
Max. Height (ft.)5 35 35 35
Min. Private Open Space (sq. ft.)6 450 280 280
Min. Common Open Space (% of net parcel area)7 5% 5% 5% Max. FAR - - -
Notes:
1. Dwelling units per acre.
2. Houses may be developed on a single parcel where common land ownership is 1) held by a homeowners association or a landlord and 2) when the approved development plan identifies private use areas for each unit that are the equivalent of property lines for site planning and setback purposes.
3. Interior lots. Only applies to detached housing units.
4. Setbacks can be increased as necessary to provide private open space.
5. For the main dwelling, other height requirements apply to accessory structures.
6. Required per unit (ground floor/upper story unit).
7. Projects consisting of 20 or less dwellings shall be exempt from the requirement to provide common open space.
Source: City of Fairfield Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.20 Residential Zoning Districts Alternative Multifamily Development Regulations
The City has also adopted alternative development regulations, contained in Section 25.20.3.3 of the Zoning Code, to incentivize private property owners to rehabilitate or construct new multifam- ily projects. These regulations are particularly meant to stimulate infill development in sites at a density consistent with the surrounding environment. These regulations only apply to lots are one acre or less, and where development at the existing density is not permitted based on non-conform- ance of the parcel and/or existing structures with the applicable zoning regulations. Further, these regulations are not limited to dwellings that are involuntary damaged or destroyed. If a project meets the criteria established in the Zoning Code, then it is subject to alternate regulations as sum- marized in Table 5-12.
Packet Page 431 of 846Attachment 5 Page 150 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
148
Table 5-12: Alternative Multifamily Development Standards Development Standard RM RH RVH
Density Range1 8-15 15-22 22-32
Max. Lot Size 3 acres 3 acres 3 acres
Min. Lot Width (ft.) 150 150 150
Min. Unit Size 480 sq.
ft.
200 sq.
ft.
200 sq.
ft.
Min. Front Setback (ft.)2 15 15 15
Min. Side Setback (ft.)3 5 5 5
Min. Rear Setback (ft.) 15 15 15
Max. Height (ft.)4 35 45 50
Min. Private Open Space (sq. ft.)5 80/48 80/48 80/48
Min. Common and Private Open Space (% of net parcel area) 25% 25% 25% Max. FAR - - -
Notes:
1. Dwelling units per acre.
2. The front setbacks shall be a minimum of 25 feet for lots that front on an arterial roadway.
3. 15 feet total for both sides.
4. Increased height is allowed with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
5. Required per unit (ground floor/upper story unit).
Source: City of Fairfield Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.20 Residential Zoning Districts Building Codes and Enforcement
Fairfield implements the 2019 edition of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Also, the City considers the CBSC a “minimum” standard for building construction. Local amendments to the CBSC are based on climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. These modifications are generally for the purpose of protecting health and safety in areas subject to natural hazards. These amendments do not substantially differ from other those of other cities within Solano County and thus are not considered to act as a constraint on the development of housing. While requirements may lead to increased costs of construction, reducing building code requirements may lead to long-term health and safety risks, particularly in a seismically active area like Fairfield.
Building Safety, part of the City’s Community Development Department, reviews all new construc- tion and improvements to existing structures in Fairfield. Improvements are checked for safety and building code compliance. Building services performed include field inspections, plan reviews and submittals and permit issuance in person or electronically. Building Safety also permits digital plan submittals and provides basic residential permits via the eTRAKiT system.
Packet Page 432 of 846Attachment 5 Page 151 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
149
Parking Requirements
The City’s parking requirements for residential uses vary by residential type. Lower density districts RVL-40, RVL-20, RVL-15, RL-10, RL-8, and RLM-6 all require two on-site covered parking spaces per dwelling. Tandem parking is allowed as required parking in a two-car garage (i.e., single-wide garage door providing access for two spaces). The RLM-5 and RLM-4.5 both require one covered and one uncovered parking space per dwelling, though an additional covered space or off-site park- ing space may be substituted for required uncovered spaces. For multifamily housing developed in the RLM, RM, RH, and RVH zones, parking requirements vary by unit type between one, 1.5, and two spaces per unit. Parking requirements are shown in Table 5-13 below.
Table 5-13: Residential Parking Requirements
Zoning District Unit Type Minimum Required Parking Spaces Residential Zones – General Regulations
RVL-40 - 2 covered spaces per dwelling
RVL-20 - 2 covered spaces per dwelling
RVL-15 - 2 covered spaces per dwelling
RL-10 - 2 covered spaces per dwelling
RL-8 - 2 covered spaces per dwelling
RLM-6 - 2 covered spaces per dwelling
RLM-5 - 1 covered and 1 uncovered space per dwelling
RLM-4.5 - 1 covered and 1 uncovered space per dwelling
RLM, RM, RH,
and RVH
Studio/efficiency 1 space per unit
One Bedroom 1.5 spaces per unit
Two or More Bedrooms 2 spaces per unit
Visitor Parking (Rental
Projects)
1 space for each seven units
Visitor Parking (Ownership
Units) 1 space for each four units
Residential Zones – Small Lot Development Regulations
RLM, RM, and
RH
Larger than 960 sq. ft. On-site: 1 covered and 1 uncovered space per dwelling
Off-site: 1 uncovered space per dwelling
Smaller than 960 sq. ft. On-site: 1 uncovered space per dwelling Off-site: 1 uncovered space per dwelling
Residential Zones – Alternative Multifamily Development Regulations RM, RH, and
RVH
- 1 and one-third spaces per unit1
Commercial Zones – Mixed-Use Regulations
CN, CO, CC, CM,
and CT
- 1 space per unit in addition to parking required for
the commercial portion of the project
Packet Page 433 of 846Attachment 5 Page 152 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
150
Heart of Fairfield Zones2
HD/HDC
Multifamily 1 space per unit
Mixed-Use 1 space per unit
HWT
Multifamily See RLM, RM, RH, and RVH regulations
Mixed-Use 15-32 du/ac: See RLM, RM, RH, and RVH
regulations
32-48 du/ac: 1 space per unit
HO
Multifamily 1 and one-third spaces per unit
Mixed-Use 1 space per unit
HTD Multifamily 1 and one-third spaces per unit
Mixed-Use 1 space per unit
HR Multifamily 1 and one-third spaces per unit
Notes:
1. Any fraction of a parking space shall require one additional parking space. Parking located between a main building and a street shall screened by low fencing, berming and/or shrubs.
2. Fifty percent of any required parking may be provided through on-street parking located within 300 feet of the parcel line and the remaining 50 percent may be provided on any private parcel within 750 feet of the parcel line.
Source: Fairfield Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.20 Residential Zoning Districts; 25.22 Commercial Zoning Districts;
25.23 Heart of Fairfield Plan Zoning Districts
During stakeholder outreach, affordable housing developers indicated that while parking standards do increase the costs of a project, they have been successfully waived through use of the density bonus program. Further, there was some discussion that reduced parking standards for smaller lots, projects near transit, and affordable housing would help promote additional development. In gen- eral, however, parking standards are reasonable for the Fairfield context and do not pose a signifi- cant constraint on the production of housing.
Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are attached or detached units that provide complete independ- ent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. An ADU must include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking, and sanitation, located on the same lot as a single-family or multifamily structure. ADUs often provide affordable housing for extremely low, very low, and low-income households, including seniors. In Fairfield, ADUs are regulated by Section 25.20.4.11 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Several pieces of recent State legislation (including SB 13, AB 68, AB 881, AB 687, AB 670, and AB 671), modified regulations for ADUs. Some of the key changes included prohibiting standards re- lated to lot coverage standards, lot size, FARs, or open space that may impede the development of ADUs, reducing review time for permit applications, and eliminating regulations related to park- ing, height, setbacks, and unit size that have the effect of limiting ADU development. The Fairfield Zoning Ordinance states that where the application of lot coverage, FAR, setbacks, or other devel- opment regulations would not permit construction of an 800-square-foot ADU that is 16 feet in height with four-foot side and rear year setbacks, the regulation(s) at issue shall be waived to permit such an ADU. The relevant standards for ADUs are shown in Table 5-14.
Packet Page 434 of 846Attachment 5 Page 153 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
152
Table 5-14: Accessory Dwelling Unit Development Standards Unit Size if Attached Shall not exceed 50% of the floor area of the primary dwelling or 1,200 feet, whichever is less.
Unit Size if Detached Shall not exceed 1,200 square feet.
Height and Building Coverage Maximum height shall be 16 feet. When more than 50% of the ADU gross floor area is above an existing or proposed garage, the entire combined structure shall not exceed 25 feet in height.
Setbacks Setback from side and rear lots shall be 4 feet. A detached ADU shall be 5 feet from the primary dwelling.
Parking No additional parking shall be required.
Source: Fairfield Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.20.4.11 Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units The Zoning Code also defines a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) as a residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, is no more than 500 square feet in size, and is contained entirely within a single-family residence. According to the Zoning Code, one JADU is permitted on any property where single-family residential use is a per- mitted use and there is an existing or proposed single-family dwelling. They must be a minimum of 220 square feet and a maximum of 500 square feet, and they must be contained entirely within the walls of an existing or proposed single-family structure. At a minimum JADUs must contain an efficiency kitchen meeting the requirements of California Government Code Section 65852.22.
Density Bonus
California Government Code Section 65915 includes requirements for local governments to pro- vide incentives and a density increase over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the Municipal Code and the Land Use Element of the General Plan (or bonuses of equivalent financial value) when builders agree to construct housing developments with units affordable to lower or moderate-income households. In recent years, the State has made numerous changes to the Density Bonus law, including but not limited to the following:
• AB 1763 (Density Bonus for 100 Percent Affordable Housing) – Density bonus and in- creased incentives for 100 percent affordable housing projects for lower income house- holds.
• SB 1227 (Density Bonus for Student Housing) – Density bonus for student housing devel- opment for students enrolled at a full-time college, and to establish prioritization for stu- dents experiencing homelessness.
• AB 2345 (Increase Maximum Allowable Density) – Revised the requirements for receiving concessions and incentives, and the maximum density bonus provided.
Density bonus standards in Fairfield are contained in Section 25.38 of the Zoning Code. The Den- sity Bonus Ordinance was last updated in February 2021 to remain consistent with State law. Pro- jects eligible for a density bonus, incentives or concessions, or a waiver of development standards or parking ratios include those that meet at least one of the following criteria:
• At least 5 percent of the total units are for very low-income households. • At least 10 percent of the total units are for lower income households.
Packet Page 435 of 846Attachment 5 Page 154 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
153
• A senior citizen housing development, or a mobile home park that limits residency based on age requirements for housing for older persons pursuant to Civil Code Sections 798.76 or 799.5.
• At least 10 percent of the total units in a common interest development, as defined in Civil Code Section 4100, are for moderate income households, provided that all units in the housing development are offered to the public for purchase. • At least 10 percent of the total units are for transitional foster youth, disabled veterans, or homeless persons, and such units are subject to a recorded affordability restriction of 55 years at the same affordability level as very low-income units. • At least 20 percent of the total units are for lower income students in a student housing development that meets the requirements under Government Code Section 65915(b)(1)(F).
• 100 percent of the total units and the density bonus units, but exclusive of a manager’s unit(s), are for lower income households; provided, however, that up to 20 percent of the units, including total units and density bonus units, may be for moderate income house- holds.
The density bonus granted to a project is that established in Section 65916(f) of the State Govern- ment Code, as may be amended from time to time. A housing development that includes a childcare facility may be entitled to an additional density bonus or incentive. Incentives or concessions are granted based on requests from the applicant, provided that the request results in actual cost re- ductions to provide for affordable housing costs or affordable rents, does not have an adverse im- pact upon public health, and is not contrary to State or federal law. Senior citizen housing develop- ments are not eligible for incentives or concessions, unless State law is amended to explicitly require this. Waivers of development standards are subject to the requirements established in Government Code Section 65915.
Condominium Conversions
The City has determined that the conversion of existing buildings into residential condominiums creates unique problems that may affect the general public health, safety, and welfare of Fairfield.
Further, such conversions may also impact the overall supply of housing affordable to lower-in- come households. Therefore, the City enforces the Condominium Conversions Ordinance, con- tained in Article IV, Sections 25.167 to 25.217 of the Zoning Code. The Ordinance promotes a reasonable balance of rental and ownership housing and provides for housing of all segments of the population. To convert a property to a residential condominium, certain conditions must be met as defined in Municipal Code Chapter 25, Article IV (such as compliance with current require- ments of the City building, zoning, and fire codes; at least 84 cubic feet per unit of enclosed, lockable private storage space; separately metered utilities; fire wall requirements, etc.) followed by the ap- proval of a conditional use permit. Further, a tenant assistance plan, which requires that the subdi- vider find comparable replacement rental housing, is required for approval. Tentative maps shall be disapproved by either the Planning Commission or City Council if the vacancy factor (i.e., va- cancy rate) is less than three percent, and may be disapproved if it is less than or equal to six percent if such an approval is inconsistent with the Ordinance.
Packet Page 436 of 846Attachment 5 Page 155 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
154
On- and Off-site Improvements
The Zoning Code requires a number of on- and off-site improvements for new development, de- pending on the zone. Site improvements may include those related to streets, sidewalks, water and sewage, landscaping, recreation amenities, and any other public improvements found necessary to mitigate the impacts of new development. Additional site improvements may be required in the City’s specific plan areas. Table 5-15 summarizes the City’s current street improvement standards.
Table 5-15: Basic Standards of Street Design
Street Average
Daily
Traffic
(ADT)
Width
of
Right-
of-Way
(ft.)
Width
of
Paveme
nt
Betwee
n Curbs
(ft.)1
Traffic Lanes Parking or
Transit Lanes
Width
of
Planting
Strip
(ft.)
Width
of
Media
n (ft.)
No. Width
(ft.)
No. Width
(ft.)
Minor 0-500 50 36 2 10 2 8 5 -
Collector
500-
4,000
60 40 2 12 2 8 10 -
4,000-
7,500
70 48 2 14 2 122 10 -
Collector
(Rural)
1,000-
7,500
70 40 2 12 2 8 15 -
Major
Arterial
7,500-
16,000
100 80 4 12 2 102 10 10
16,000-
25,000
110 90 4 12 2 102 10 22
Major
Arterial (2-
lane rural)
1,000-
7,500
80 40 2 12 2 8 20 -
Major arterial
(4-lane rural)
7,500-
25,000
106 6 4 12 2 8 10 22
Frontage
Road
- 50 34 2 13 1 8 - -
Alley - 20 20 2 10 - - - -
Notes:
1. Pavement width may vary, depending on design of development served.
2. Transit Lane; on-street parking to be prohibited.
Source: Fairfield Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.166.30 Minimum street standards Packet Page 437 of 846Attachment 5 Page 156 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
155
The City Department of Public Works maintains the Capital Improvement Program, which pro- vides a map and descriptions of public improvements, which ensures that the construction of public improvements is coordinated with private development. The Design Section of the Engineering Division provides support on design issues during the construction of all capital improvements projects for the City.
Effects of Land Use Regulations on Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Land use regulations have a considerable effect on the development of low- and moderate-income housing. In urban areas, and particularly coastal jurisdictions, insufficient densities can make af- fordable housing infeasible. In 2004 State law was amended (AB 2348) to identify “default densities” that are considered suitable for lower-income housing. For a city such as Fairfield with a population greater than 100,00 (which is considered a “metropolitan jurisdiction”), the default density is at least 30 du/ac. Of the residential zoning districts, only the RVH district allows for projects at a density of 30 du/ac or more. However, all zoning districts within HoF SP besides the HPF district allow for development of sites at densities greater than 30 du/ac. Additionally, all mixed-use devel- opment in the CO, CC, CM, and CT zoning districts are permitted up to 32 du/ac.
Historically, affordable housing projects in Fairfield have not developed above the default density of 30 du/ac. According to affordable housing developers who have worked in the city, projects typ- ically get developed at or slightly above 20 du/ac, since higher density projects do not pencil out given a lack of local funding. Therefore, while a limited number of zones permit development above 30 du/ac, this has not posed a significant constraint to the development of affordable housing in Fairfield. During outreach, however, affordable housing developers did indicate that additional flexibility in permitting densities above 30 du/ac would be useful in securing State funding.
During stakeholder outreach, market-rate housing developers described potential constraints in Fairfield’s Zoning Code. Some developers were particularly concerned with the private open space requirements, which have made lot coverage difficult, and would like to see additional flexibility in the standards. There was an emphasis on increasing the flexibility of the code as it relates to smaller housing units, including potentially permitting “tiny homes” in the Zoning Code and including additional standards that encourage affordability by design. The City adopted new Tiny Home reg- ulations via Ordinance 2021-14, which allows units at a minimum of 480 square feet in RLM, and a minimum of 200 square feet in RM, RH, HWT, HO, and HR zones. Smaller lot development can be difficult due to costs associated with parking requirements and City development fees (discussed below). While market rate developers indicated that the required amount of off-site improvements required in TSSP area could be a burden, affordable housing developers did not mention any con- straints related to on- or off-site improvements.
Further, as evidenced in Chart 5-1, when compared to other cities in Solano County, Fairfield has made relatively good progress towards meeting its lower- and moderate-income housing goals es- tablished during the 5th cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). According to Annual Progress Reports (APR) submitted between 2014 and 2020, Fairfield has the second highest rate of very-low-income housing permitting and the third highest rate of low-income housing permitting in the county. Fairfield is the second largest city in the county and has made more progress towards meeting its housing goals than Vallejo, the largest city in the county, although it is behind Vacaville, the third largest city. The City has exceeded its development goal for above-moderate-income households and has met 79.8 percent of its moderate-income housing goal.
Packet Page 438 of 846Attachment 5 Page 157 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
156
Chart 5-1: Building Permits by Affordability, 2014-2020 Source: HCD, 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary, 2014-2020
PROVISION FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES
The Housing Element must identify adequate sites that are available for the development of housing types for all economic segments of the population, including those populations with special needs.
This section summarizes the extent to which various housing types are permitted in the city, as well as any constraints that may be contained in City regulations.
Multifamily Housing
Multifamily housing is permitted to develop by-right in a variety of zones, including RM, RH, RVH, CM, HD, HDC, HO, HWT, HTD, and HR. Housing is conditionally permitted in the CN, CO, CT, and CC zones. There are equivalent standards across ownership type (i.e., residential condomini- ums are not subject to different regulations that rental apartment projects), although the City does maintain a Condominium Conversion Ordinance to ensure a balance between rental and owner- occupied housing. While multifamily projects in Fairfield tend to develop at relatively low densities, the City does permit higher density development in a number of zones. As noted in Chapter 2, about 20.9 percent of the city’s housing stock is multifamily housing.
Single-family Housing
Detached single-family housing is permitted to develop by-right in the RVL, RL, RLM, HO, HWT, HTD, and HR zones, and is permitted to develop with the approval of a conditional use permit in the RM, RH, HDC, CN, CO, CT, CC, and CM zones. In the AG zone, one single-family dwelling per parcel is permitted by right. Attached single-family housing, referred to as “duets” in the Zoning Packet Page 439 of 846Attachment 5 Page 158 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
157
Code, is permitted by-right in the RLM, RM, RH, CM, HO, HWT, and HR zones, and is permitted to develop with the approval of conditional use permit in the RL, CN, CT, CC, and HTD zones. As discussed in Chapter 2, nearly 70.4 percent of Fairfield’s housing stock is detached single-family, and 6.2 percent is attached single-family.
Mixed-Use Housing
Mixed-use housing is permitted by-right in the CM, HO, HWT, HTD, HD, HCD, and HR zones.
The CN, CO, CT, and CC commercial zones permit residential land uses as part of a mixed-use development with the approval of a conditional use permit. Residential land uses in commercial zones must be developed in conjunction with commercial land uses on the same property, except in the CM zone where purely residential projects are allowed.
Manufactured Housing and Mobile Home Parks
Manufactured homes, also referred to as factory-built homes or modular homes, are defined by the City as a “residential building or dwelling unit which is either wholly or partially constructed or assembled off the site in accordance with Section 18551 of the Health and Safety Code and certified under the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 4401 et seq.).” Manufactured housing is typically constructed off-site and installed on a foundation, which is significantly less costly than the construction of individual single-family homes on site. There are approximately 999 mobile homes in Fairfield, comprising 2.5 percent of the city’s existing housing stock, and several mobile home parks.
Per Government Code Sections 65852.3 through 65852.5, manufactured homes must be subject to the same standards as conventional homes in single-family use districts. Government Code Section 65852.7 requires that jurisdictions allow mobile home parks (including condominium and cooper- ative parks) in all residential zones. Local regulations reducing allowable density below that allowed in the Municipal Code in new mobile home parks are not permitted, although a jurisdiction may require use permits.
Section 25.20.4.6 of the Fairfield Zoning Code provides regulations related to mobile homes. Cer- tified mobile homes, identified as manufactured homes by the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, are considered the same as single-family dwellings and are permitted in all zones that allow single-family dwellings. Modular or factory-built homes are considered the same as single-family dwellings within the Zoning Code.
Non-certified mobile homes must be placed in mobile home parks and are subject to the standards established in Section 25.20.4.7 of the Zoning Code. Mobile home parks are permitted in all resi- dential zones with the approval of a conditional use permit. Mobile home parks must have a mini- mum site area of five acres, and are permitted to develop at a maximum of eight mobile home spaces per acre in the RVL, RL, and RLM zones and at a maximum of 12 mobile home spaces per acre in the RM, RH, and RVH zones.
Packet Page 440 of 846Attachment 5 Page 159 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
158
Housing for Persons with Disabilities
California Government Code 65583 requires jurisdictions to analyze potential and actual con- straints that could affect the development, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities. Further, the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act and Community Care Facilities Act states that mentally, physically, developmentally disabled persons and children and adults who require supervised care are entitled to live in normal residential settings. To that end, State law requires that licensed family care homes, foster homes, and group homes serving six or fewer persons be treated like single-family homes and be allowed by right in all residential zones.
In addition, both the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act place an affirmative duty on jurisdictions to make reasonable accommodations in their zoning and other land use regulations as necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. The following sections provide a summary of the relevant portions of Fair- field’s Zoning Code that address these requirements, as well as any potential constraints.
Reasonable Accommodation
While the City Building Division implements the reasonable accommodation requirements in the California Building Code and as part of the Section 8 program, there is no reasonable accommoda- tion ordinance as part of the City’s Municipal Code. Although the City remains in compliance with State and federal law through the implementation of the California Building Code, the lack of an explicit procedure to make requests for reasonable accommodations contained within the Munici- pal Code may act as a constraint for people with disabilities. A reasonable accommodation ordi- nance will be adopted as Action 7.2 of the Housing Plan.
Community Care Facilities
Residential Community Care Facilities (CCFs) are licensed by the Community Care Licensing Di- vision of the State Department of Social Services to provide 24-hour non-medical residential care to children and adults with developmental disabilities who are in need of personal services, super- vision, and/or assistance essential for self-protection or sustaining the activities of daily living. Res- idential CCFs are defined as “any family home, group care facility, or similar facility for twenty- four (24) hour a day residential non-medical care including, but not limited to persons with disa- bilities, or incompetent persons” in the Fairfield Zoning Code. Residential CCFs are permitted by- right in all residential zones and the CM, HO, HWT, and HR zones, and are permitted with the approval of a conditional use permit in the CO, CT, CC, and HTD zones. The Zoning Code does not differentiate between CCFs that contain fewer than six residents and those that contain seven or more. Residential CCFs are not permitted within 300 feet of another CCF, and parking is de- pendent on the type of facility (e.g., dwelling, nursing home, etc.).
No public hearing or administrative action other than ministerial approval is required for use of existing housing units as a CCF. Construction of new single-family homes that may be used for a CCF is treated like all other single-family homes and requires a “Minor Discretionary Approval,” which requires public notice but no hearing.
Packet Page 441 of 846Attachment 5 Page 160 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
159
Most community care facilities in Fairfield are smaller facilities operating within existing single- family homes in residential neighborhoods. Care is provided by residents of the homes in question, and no additional parking is typically required. For newly constructed community care facilities, parking is required per the Zoning Ordinance for residential uses. However, the City’s Density Bo- nus Ordinance permits the City to relax such standards for very low- and low-income residents and the elderly. Many persons with disabilities will be served by housing permitted under this ordi- nance. In addition, for projects developed on smaller, infill sites, the City’s Alternative Multifamily Development Regulations reduce the number of required parking spaces.
The City also provides separate standards for “assisted living facilities,” which differ from residen- tial CCFs in that they provide individual dwelling units supplemented with limited nursing and other services available on site. These facilities typically have group facilities for dining and cooking, centralized food service, and can offer social programs and other group amenities. Assisted living facilities are permitted by right in RM, RH, and RVH zoning districts; additionally, they are per- mitted with a conditional use permit in the RL, RLM, CD, CN, CO, CT, CC, CM, HO, HWT, HT, HR, and IBP zoning districts. Parking requirements are flexibly determined on a case-by-case basis dictated by the type of residents, number of employees, and other relevant factors.
Finally, the City allows two types of boarding houses. Boarding houses represent the renting of rooms within a dwelling to three to six separate households (small boarding houses) or seven or more separate households (large boarding houses) by separate rental or lease agreement or other payment arrangement for each household with the property owner. Large boarding houses may include but are not limited to fraternity or sorority houses, housing for migrant farm workers, sup- portive and transitional housing programs, and residential motels and hotels, except for those fa- cilities that meet the Single Room Occupancy land use definition. Meals may or may not be pro- vided, but there is one common kitchen facility. Boarding houses differ from the Community Care Facility-Residential in that they are not licensed by the State of California. See tables 5-3 and 5-4 for more information on where boarding houses are permitted.
Housing for Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Persons experiencing homelessness are identified as a special needs group and may require special- ized forms of housing, including emergency shelters, transitional and supportive housing, low bar- rier navigation centers, and single room occupancy (SRO) units. The following sections summarize City requirements for the various forms of housing that can meet the needs of the population ex- periencing homelessness.
Emergency Shelters
The City allows emergency shelters, also referred to as “homeless shelters,” in the CS, CC, CT, IL and CM zoning districts with a conditional use permit. In addition, the City has established a special overlay district, the ES Emergency Overlay District that covers several parcels along Beck Avenue.
The overlay district includes the City’s existing SHELTER Solano, Inc. homeless shelter as well as several vacant or partially vacant parcels that could support additional housing and services. Note that these sites on Beck Avenue have access to public transportation and are adjacent to the Solano County Health and Social Services Department, making access to county social services convenient to those using the shelter.
Packet Page 442 of 846Attachment 5 Page 161 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
160
In 2020, the City created a temporary shelter program for the operation of temporary shelters as ancillary uses at existing religious or assembly use facilities, and to implement standards that ensure a safe place for individuals and families to obtain temporary shelter as well as compatibility of shel- ter activities with surrounding uses. The Temporary Shelter Program and required temporary shel- ter permit is administered by the Manager of the Homeless Services Division within the City Man- ager’s Office. On December 21, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2021-23, amending the municipal code to adopt and amend Appendix X of the California Residential Code pertaining to Emergency Housing, and reducing square footage requirements for emergency housing and emergency sleeping cabins. In September 2022, the Fairfield City Council approved an Urgency Ordinance implementing an Emergency Homeless Shelter Program that applies in RL, RLM, RM, RH, CC, CM, CN, CO, CR, CS, CT, IL, and IBP zones.
Transitional and Supportive Housing
The Fairfield Zoning Ordinance defines transitional and supportive housing as follows:
• Transitional Housing: A service providing intermediate shelter to persons for up to nine months. Transitional housing will offer, either on or off-site, access to social services, coun- seling, and other programs to assist formerly homeless residents in the transition to per- manent housing. This classification does not include facilities licensed for residential care by the State of California or homeless shelters.
• Supportive Housing: Rental housing developments receiving assistance under federal or State housing programs occupied by a target population and linked to onsite or offsite ser- vices that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community.
Transitional and supportive housing are not regulated as a separate land use under Fairfield’s Zoning Ordinance. Rather, these housing forms are seen as a means of occupying a residential land use (e.g., single-family detached housing, duplex, multifamily, etc.) and such occupancy must meet all existing standard requirements for the underlying residential land use and the residential unit. Determina- tions regarding the permissiveness of transitional housing will depend on the number of independent arrangements between tenants and the operator of the service. For example, more than two independ- ent arrangements within a single housing unit will be regulated as a boarding house.
Low Barrier Navigation Centers
Recent State law, including AB 101 (2019), requires that low barrier navigation centers for persons experiencing homelessness be allowed by right and without any discretionary approval within the local jurisdiction. As indicated above, on September 20, 2022, the City Council-approved Emer- gency Shelter standards that include navigation centers. For the use of the City’s newly adopted Emergency Shelter Operational Standards and Emergency Shelter Permit program, the City will not be differentiating between a small agency that identifies as a “navigation center” that is also providing overnight emergency shelter. While these navigation centers are not clearly called out in the Operational Standards, the City will consider a permit for a navigation center as an emergency shelter, as long as they are housing people experiencing homelessness overnight and providing the additional services as outlined.
Packet Page 443 of 846Attachment 5 Page 162 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
161
Single Room Occupancy
SROs are defined in the Fairfield Zoning Code as “housing characterized by smaller individual dwelling units with all functions in a single room. SRO Housing requires communal/shared facili- ties and services.” Development standards for SROs are maintained in Section 25.22.4.5 of the Zon- ing Code. Units must be at least 175 square feet, except for double occupancy units which must be at least 250 square feet, and cannot exceed 450 square feet. Private kitchen facilities and private closets must be included, while bathroom facilities and common space must be shared. SROs are required to provide one parking space for the resident manager, one space per residential unit, and one space per every 10 rooms for guest parking. Up to 50 percent of the vehicle parking spaces may be replaced by bicycle parking. SROs are permitted by-right in the CM zone and with the approval of a conditional use permit in the CT zone.
Farmworker Housing
Farmworker housing, also referred to as “farm labor housing,” is permitted in the AG zone with a conditional use permit and is subject to the same requirements as agricultural uses. As discussed in Chapter 2, there is considerable need for additional housing available to farmworkers that may live in Fairfield but work elsewhere. While farmworkers are able to access the housing units and finan- cial resources of other low-income households, the City has committed to increasing the availability of farmworker housing through Actions 2.4 and 7.5 in the Housing Plan.
DEVELOPMENT PROCESSING PROCEDURES
Development review procedures exist to provide a clear path to success and ensure that proposals for new development comply with local regulations and are compatible with adjacent land uses.
Processing times vary by permit type, the size and complexity of the project, and the number of actions or approvals needed to complete the process. Where multiple approvals are required, the City allows for concurrent processing, which generally limits the total processing time to that re- quired by the most review-intensive permit or approval. During stakeholder outreach, housing de- velopers indicated that understaffing has acted as a constraint on development that has led to in- creased costs, and that additional streamlining would help resolve much of this issue. The City is currently developing a SB 35 streamlining checklist; Program 2 in the Housing Action Plan contains a number of actions that address design and permit streamlining.
The City currently employs a multi-tiered review process for residential development projects.
These include Zoning Clearance; Minor Discretionary Review; Minor Development Review; and Development Review. The purpose of the Zoning Clearance is to ensure that a proposed project complies with the permitted list of activities allowed in the applicable zoning district, and any de- velopment standards applicable to the type of use.
The Zoning Clearance requires no public notice, is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, and may not be appealed. Minor Discretionary Review is an administrative review process that allows for the review and approval of minor improvements where the review is routine in nature, but action may require an interpretation to determine compliance with established de- sign guidelines. Improvements requiring Minor Development Review and Development Review are those that require in depth review and discretion by the City to determine compliance with the applicable City regulations or guidelines, Specific or Master Development Plans, the General Plan, or the California Environmental Quality Act.
Packet Page 444 of 846Attachment 5 Page 163 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
162
For projects with fewer than 11 single-family units or 26 multifamily units, an application includes the filing and processing of an environmental assessment form, tentative subdivision map applica- tion, and Minor Development Review application. The project would undergo review by Commu- nity Development staff, and inter-agency review by the City’s Development Action Review Team (DART) team. Staff then approves smaller projects through an Administrative Hearing process.
Larger projects (more than 11 homes or 26 apartments) go through a similar Development Review process, with final review and action by the Planning Commission. Finally, projects that require re- zonings, General Plan Amendments, and/or Final Subdivision Maps also require City Council re- view and approval. Table 5-16 shows the development permit requirements, while Table 5-17 shows the typical processing times for the various permit types.
Table 5-16: Residential Development Permit Requirements Activity or Improvement Project Type Required Approval or Permit Custom Home - Minor Discretionary
Single-family detached (tract
housing)
On min. lot sizes of 5000 sq. ft.
or more
Minor Development Review
On min. lot sizes less than
5000 sq. ft.
-
1 to 10 units Minor Development Review
11 or more units1 Development Review
Single-family attached
1 to 10 units Minor Development Review
11 or more units1 Development Review
Multifamily
1 to 25 units Minor Development Review
26 or more units Development Review
Additions or accessory
structures
Single-family detached or
attached lot
Zoning Clearance
Multifamily lot Minor Discretionary
Notes:
1. At the time of a Development Review approval for single family tract housing, the Planning Commission may authorize those subsequent phases of the project consistent with an approved community design plan be approved with an application for Minor Development Review (vs.
Development Review) in order to streamline the review of what would be a routine application.
Source: Fairfield Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.40 Permits
Packet Page 445 of 846Attachment 5 Page 164 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
163
Table 5-17: Residential Permit Review Processing
Application Permit Type Review Responsibility & Authority1 Typical Processing Time
in Weeks
DART2 Planning and
Development
Director
Planning
Commission
City
Council
Amendments
Annexation/Prezoning Rec. Rec. Rec. Decision 17
General Plan Amendment Rec. Rec. Rec. Decision 17
Specific or Area Wide Plan
Adoption or Amendment
Rec. Rec. Rec. Decision 17
Zoning Map Amendment
(rezoning)
Rec. Rec. Rec. Decision 17
Zoning Ordinance Text
Amendment
- Rec. Rec. Decision 17
Land Use and Development Permits
Ministerial - Decision - - 0 – 2
Minor Discretionary - Decision Appeal Appeal 0 – 2
Minor Development Review Rec. Decision Appeal Appeal 8
Development Review Rec. Rec. Decision Appeal 12
Planned Unit Development Rec. Rec. Decision Appeal 12
Conditional Use Permit Rec. Decision Appeal Appeal 4 – 12 Variance Rec. Decision Appeal Appeal 6 – 12
Subdivision Applications
Certificate of Compliance - Decision Appeal Appeal 1
Lot Line Adjustment - Decision Appeal Appeal 0
Lot Merger - Decision Appeal Appeal 0
Tentative Parcel Map Rec. Decision Appeal Appeal 6
Tentative Subdivision Map Rec. Rec. Decision Appeal 12
Notes:
1. Community Services Commission and Planning Area Design Review Committee are also involved in the review of projects within their scope of authority (see Sections 25.41.5 and 25.49 of the Zoning Code). Rec. is short for “recommendation.”
2. Development Action Review Team (DART). DART is comprised of staff from various City Departments and the Fairfield Suisun or Travis Unified School Districts.
Source: Fairfield Zoning Ordinance, Section 25.41 Application Filing, Processing, and Approval Packet Page 446 of 846Attachment 5 Page 165 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
164
Environmental Review
Environmental review is required for all developments meeting the definition of “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Fairfield has a number of environmental and development constraints. Because of these environmental constraints, larger residential projects have typically required the preparation of Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs).
The City has adopted environmental processing guidelines that closely follow the State CEQA guidelines. Under State law, an EIR is required for any development that has the potential of creat- ing significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, which is typical of large projects. Most residential projects are either Categorically Exempt or require only an Initial Study and Negative Declaration.
A Negative Declaration typically takes four to six weeks to prepare, depending on complexity of the project and required technical studies, followed by a State-mandated public review period. Cate- gorically Exempt developments require a minimal amount of time.
Although CEQA compliance can add complexity to the permitting process, City staff assists devel- opers through the process to cut down on processing time to the extent feasible. Fairfield supports current State efforts to streamline the CEQA process for infill development and uses permitted exemptions whenever allowed.
DEVELOPMENT FEES
State law limits fees charged for development permit processing to the reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged. Various fees and assessments are charged by the City and other public agencies to cover the costs of processing permit applications and providing services and facilities such as schools, parks and infrastructure. Almost all of these fees are assessed through a pro rata share system based on the magnitude of the project's impact or the extent of the benefit that will be derived. Development fees vary from project to project depending on the specific char- acteristics.
Planning Fees
In 2021, a typical 100-unit single family residential development which required no Zone Changes or General Plan or Specific Plan amendments would pay $5,545 for development review approval and an additional $15,793 (assuming each residence is on a separate lot) for the Tentative Subdivi- sion Map. Environmental review (CEQA) and map plan checks are additional costs. Planning fees for a 100-unit multifamily housing project, again assuming no General Plan or Zoning Amend- ments are required, would include $11,813 for development review, plus CEQA fees. On a per lot or per unit basis, planning review fees are a relatively minor factor in housing costs. See Table 5-18 for a summary of all planning fees.
Packet Page 447 of 846Attachment 5 Page 166 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
165
Table 5-18: Planning Fees
Fee Category Flat Fee Additional Fees
General Plan Amendment $7,324 $23/development acre over 10 acres Specific Plan Amendment $7,324 $23/development acre over 10 acres Zoning Ordinance Amendment $6,200 -
Zone Change $6,526 $23/development acre over 10 acres
Zoning Clearance $222 -
Planned Development Zoning $6,797 $23/development acre over 10 acres Annexation $7,747 $23/development acre over 10 acres
Pre-Annexation Agreement - Hourly rate
Development Agreement - Hourly rate
Development Agreement Amendment $2,775 -
Master Planned Unit Development
Permit
$6,526 -
Planned Unit Development Permit $3,818 -
Use Permit $3,818
Administrative Use Permit $2,586
Variance $3,818
Administrative Variance $2,586
Home Occupation Permit $111
Time Extension - Half the Planning permit fee, plus hourly Public Work charge
Sign Program $879
Individual Signs $220 Plus $13 per individual sign
Minor Discretionary Review $677
Plan Review $332
Custom Home $659
Second Unit $555
Flood Zone Determination $49
Architectural Plan Check (non-single-
family projects)
60% of Building
Plan Check Fee
Single-Family Architectural Plan Check 40% of Building
Plan Check Fee
Public Hearing Sign $111
Public Hearing Mailing - $0 for first 100 labels, $0.58 per label over 100
Lot Line Adjustment/Lot Merger $1,449
Lot Line Adjustment Check $4,070
Packet Page 448 of 846Attachment 5 Page 167 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
166
Tentative Parcel Map $4,640
Parcel Map Check $4,355
Tentative Subdivision Map $10,093 Plus $57/lot
Final Map Check $4,070 Plus $57/lot
Improvement Plan Check - 1.35% of improvement cost
Landscape Plan Check - 1.35% of improvement cost
Development Review
Single-family Subdivision $4,395 Plus $23/unit over 50 units Multifamily Subdivision $10,663 Plus $23/unit over 50 units Community Design Plan $3,670
Minor Development Review
Single-family Subdivision $4,131
Multifamily Subdivision $5,739
Environmental Fees
Categorical Exemption $333
Negative Declaration $2,505
Mitigated Negative Declaration $6,133
Environmental Impact Report $3,668 Plus EIR contract price + 27.1% administrative charge
Mitigation Monitoring $1,332
Special Study $126 Plus contract price + 16.26% administrative charge
Environmental Review Addendum $1,665
Appeals
Administrative $665
Planning Commission $1,332
Source: City of Fairfield Community Development Department, Planning Division, 2021
Packet Page 449 of 846Attachment 5 Page 168 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
167
Building Permit and Impact Fees
Building Permit Fees, which include Impact Fees, are a more significant factor in the cost of new housing. Such fees include standard permit fees and plan check/review fees but also include impact fees. Impact fees pay for the public services and infrastructure needed to support development and provide services. Not all impact and development fees are City fees or under the control of the City.
The City generally collects two types of fees at the time a building permit is issued – Permit Fees and Development Fees. Permit Fees are charged for each type of permit issued such as building, plumbing, electrical and/or mechanical. The permit fee is based on the valuation of the project and calculated from fee tables established in the Municipal Code. Permit fees provide for the checking of plans and adequate field inspection of the materials and methods of construction and compliance with the approved plans. Fee credits are not available for these fees. Development fees are applied to new development and are collected in order to construct or provide facilities or services that benefit the entire community. Fee credits are available and are applied on a fee-by-fee basis. Permit and development fees are subject to change as they are updated annually. Table 5-19 lists some of the fees typically collected by the City at the time a building permit is issued.
Packet Page 450 of 846Attachment 5 Page 169 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
168
Table 5-19: Typical Permit and Development Fees
Fee Type Fee Description/Purpose
Permit Fees1
Architectural Plan
Check
Pays for the Planning & Development portion of the Building Division plan check process.
Building Plan Check Pays for the Building Division portion of the Building Division plan check process.
Building Permit Fee is from table 1-A of the Uniform Building Code. Pays for building permit processing and inspection.
Electric Permit Pays for the portion of the building permit process and inspections governed by the National Electric Code.
Engineering Plan
Check
Pays for the Public Works Engineering Division portion of the Building Division plan check process.
Fire Inspection Fee Pays for the portion of the building permit process and inspections governed by the Uniform Fire Code.
Landscape Plan
Check
Pays for the review of landscape plans during the Building Division plan check process.
Plan Retention Pays for archiving of plans on microfiche for completed projects.
Plumbing Permit Pays for the portion of the building permit process and inspections governed by the Uniform Plumbing Code.
Heating & Cooling
(HVAC) Permit
Pays for the portion of the building permit process and inspections governed by the Uniform Mechanical Code.
SMIP Strong Motion Instrumentation Program. A state tax collected for the Seismic Safety Commission that pays for the installation of seismic monitoring equipment throughout the state.
Development Fees2
AB 1600 Fee
This is a group of four fees which pay for City and public facilities which are not covered by other development fees. The AB 1600 fees were approved to be effective November 1, 1995.
Cordelia Open
Space
Pays for additional open space required by the Cordelia Specific Plan.
County Public
Facilities Fee3
Pays for cost of sheriff's services in jails, justice services, general administration, public and mental health services, public assistance services, regional parks, libraries, and animal shelters.
License Tax
Pays for oversizing arterial streets, storm drains, bridges, and funds construction of public buildings. Any property that has participated in the payment for extra width paving on arterial streets or for a storm drain over 36 inches in diameter, is eligible for credits against these fees. These credits are determined by the Public Works Engineering Division.
Northeast Fee
This is a group of six fees which pay for various infrastructures, public facilities and open facilities that specifically serve new development in the portion of the City east of Clay Bank Road. Fees for transportation improvements, open space and the linear park are payable throughout the Northeast area. Fees for Packet Page 451 of 846Attachment 5 Page 170 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
169
Storm Drainage, Sewer improvements and improvements to serve to the Train Station Specific Plan are payable only by a subset of land within the Northeast area The Northeast Fees were approved to be effective on July 22, 2013.
Park and
Recreation
Pays for land and improvements for new parks.
Quimby Act
The Quimby fees are a fee in-lieu of land dedication. The Quimby Act ensures that land is acquired to meet the standard of 3 acres per 1000 persons.
Existing Park and Recreation Fee does not meet the City’s park and recreational facilities needs. Quimby fees are applicable for subdivisions with a final map submitted after August 1995. If park land is dedicated the fee may not apply. If the subdivision developer chooses to pay a fee in-lieu of land the fee shall be determined by the Public Works Department based on the number of lots approved for the subdivision.
School
Development Fee4
State approved fee to pay for the construction of new schools.
Sewer Connection Pays for sewer treatment capacity.
Water Connection
and Meter Box
Pays for water supply, treatment plants, pipelines, and reservoirs. Pays for the purchase and installation of the meter and box.
Notes:
1. No fee credit available. Represents fees collected with the building permit. Fees attributed to planning approvals, fair share costs for traffic signals, and reimbursable agreements are not included.
2. Free credit available. Fee credit can be determined at any time throughout the development process.
However, the fee credit is not applied to a project until a building permit is issued.
3. Collected by the City of Fairfield, but this fee is determined by Solano County.
4. Collected by the City of Fairfield, but this fee is determined by the School District.
Source: City of Fairfield, Community Development Department, Building and Fire Safety Division, Description of Fees Collected and Credited, 2021
The fees summarized below are calculated on the following typical project:
• Single-family: 1,850 square foot 3 bedroom, 2 bath home. • Multifamily: 100-unit apartment complex distributed among 50 one-bedroom units and 50 two-bedroom units (850 square foot average), with an assumed total project square foot- age of 100,000 square feet.
Typical building permit and development impact fees are calculated separately for central Fairfield, Cordelia. and northeastern Fairfield (Table 5-20). The northeastern Fairfield fees are typical for new development in the TSSP Area. Generally, fees in northeastern Fairfield tend to be higher than in other parts of the city.
Packet Page 452 of 846Attachment 5 Page 171 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
170
Table 5-20: Typical Building Permit and Impact Fees
Central Fairfield Cordelia Northeastern Fairfield
Fee Type Single-
Family Multifamily Single-
Family Multifamily Single-
Family Multifamily
Admin (Permit Tech
Issuance)
$45.42 $45.42 $45.42 $45.42 $45.42 $45.42
Building Permit
Inspection Fee1
$1,101.35 $5,847.28 $1,101.35 $5,847.28 $1,101.35 $5,847.28 SMIP $32.13 $1,605.11 $32.13 $1,605.11 $32.13 $1,605.11 Plumbing Permit2 $55.07 $292.36 $55.07 $292.36 $55.07 $292.36 Electrical Permit2 $55.07 $292.36 $55.07 $292.36 $55.07 $292.36 HVAC Permit2 $55.07 $292.36 $55.07 $292.36 $55.07 $292.36 Building Plan Check
Fee
$826.02 $5,262.55 $826.02 $5,262.55 $826.02 $5,262.55
Architectural Plan
Check Fee
$330.41 $2,105.02 $330.41 $2,105.02 $330.41 $2,105.02
Landscape Plan
Check
$37.91 $3,791 $37.91 $3,791 $37.91 $3,791
Engineering Plan
Check
$330.41 $2,105.02 $330.41 $2,105.02 $330.41 $2,105.02
Fire Plan Check Fee $275.34 $1,461.82 $275.34 $1,461.82 $275.34 $1,461.82 Fire Sprinkler - 13D
System
$246 $246 $246 $246 $246 $246
Park & Recreation $2,115 $68,841 $2,115 $68,841 $2,115 $68,841 Cordelia Open Space $333 $12,510
Water Connection $7,312 $441,625 $7,312 $441,625 $7,312 $441,625 Water Meter and
Box
$610 $610 $610 $610 $610 $610
Technology Fund $260.79 $1,801.30 $260.79 $1,801.30 $260.79 $1,801.30 Sewer Connection $6,281 $379,313 $6,281 $379,313 $6,281 $379,313 License Tax $4,617 $332,100 $4,617 $332,100 $4,617 $332,100 N. Texas Street
Benefit District
$2,626 $210,200
County Public
Facilities Fee
$9,263 $666,200 $9,263 $666,200 $9,263 $666,200
Fairfield Suisun
School District
$9,250 $500,000 $9,250 $500,000
Travis School District $11,081 $599,000
AB 1600 Urban
Design
$328 $11,400 $328 $11,400 $328 $11,400
Packet Page 453 of 846Attachment 5 Page 172 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
171
AB 1600 Public
Facilities
$4,629 $372,700 $4,629 $372,700 $4,629 $372,700
AB 1600 Traffic
Impact
$8,112 $527,600 $8,112 $527,600 $8,112 $527,600
AB 1600 Park and
Recreation Facilities
$7,268 $545,100 $7,268 $545,100 $7,268 $545,100
Northeast Fee –
Transportation2
$15,629 $719,600
Northeast Fee -
Linear Park2
$2,081 $117,000
Northeast Fee –
Greenbelt2
$341 $7,600
Northeast Fee –
Sewer2,3
$3,438
Northeast Fee -
Storm Drainage2,4
$6,405
Train Station Area -
Capital
Improvements5
$1,913 $143,500
Train Station Area -
Specific Plan5
$1,979 $49,500
Green Buildings
Standard
$9.88 $493.88 $9.88 $493.88 $9.88 $493.88
CASP $125 $125 $125
Total Residential
Fees
$66,072 $4,081,455 $63,779 $3,883,765 $97,063 $5,007,455 Total Residential
Fees per Unit
$66,072 $40,815 $63,779 $38,838 $97,063 $50,075
Total Residential
Fees per Unit
(Excluding Utilities)
$51,869 $32,599 $49,576 $30,622 $73,017 $41,859
Notes:
1. Based on project valuation, $133.58 per square feet for single-family and $123.47 per square feet for multifamily. Building permit valuations are determined by the Fairfield Square Foot Construction Cost Table, which adopts the 2021 February International Code Council Building Valuation Data (BVD) Table. Estimates are derived from construction type VB and include the CA Solar Mandate Modifier. The typical single-family home is valued at $247,123, while the typical 100-unit multifamily project is valued at $12,347,000.
2. Single-family estimates are based on Low Density (RL/RLM) fees. Multifamily estimates are based on High Density (RVH) fees.
3. Based on Shed 2 (Pump) fees.
4. Based on Shed 2, 3A, 4 fees.
5. Single-family estimates are based on Low Density (RL/RLM) fees. Multifamily estimates are based on High Density (RH) fees.
Source: City of Fairfield, Community Development Department, Building and Fire Safety Division, Residential Fees, August 2021; Building Division, Fee Schedule, FY 2021-2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 Packet Page 454 of 846Attachment 5 Page 173 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
172
Assessment of City Development Fees
City fees can add considerably to the cost of a residential development, but these fees are necessary to pay for processing development applications and to pay for the services needed by new residen- tial developments. Typical Northern California development fees, determined in a 2018 case study of California cities,2 are summarized in Table 5-21 below. These estimates include planning, build- ing, and impact fees, although they do not include service fees for utility connections. While these estimates are based on different assumptions than those provided in Table 5-20, they do provide a helpful baseline to understand Fairfield’s development fees in the regional context. Generally, de- velopment fees (excluding utilities) in Fairfield are comparable to other Northern California cities.
Both single-family and multifamily fees are typically higher in the city than in Sacramento and Roseville, but are lower than fees seen in Oakland and Fremont. However, typical fees in northeast- ern Fairfield are higher than those observed in Oakland (although they are still lower than those in Fremont).
Table 5-21: Northern California Project Fees1
City Typical Single-Family Cost2 Typical Multifamily Cost2 Total Project Fees per Unit Total Project Fees per Unit Sacramento $423,485 $21,174 $1,725,739 $17,257
Roseville $728,782 $36,439 $1,810,506 $18,105
Oakland $1,243,353 $62,168 $3,455,593 $34,556
Fremont $3,132,282 $156,614 $7,515,775 $75,158
Notes:
1. Project fees do not include utility impact fees.
2. Typical projects are defined as follows:
• Single-family – 20 single-family homes on a suburban greenfield site, including 10 three-bedroom,
2.5 bath, 1,850 square feet, two-story homes and 10 four-bedroom, three bath, 2,250 square feet, two-story homes. Total project is 50,680 square feet on a 2.44-acre lot developed at 8.2 units per acre.
• Multifamily – 100 apartments on an urban infill site, including 50 one-bedroom apartments and 50 two-bedrooms apartments with an average of 850 square feet per unit. Total project is 143,240 square feet on a 0.64-acre lot developed at 156.3 units per acre.
Source: UC Berkeley, Terner Center for Housing Innovation, March 2018 The City has taken several measures to reduce the impact of development fees on affordable hous- ing. In the TSSP Area, the City reduces development fees by 25 percent for the multifamily units which are built above the 24 dwelling units/acre density range. This is designed to facilitate higher density development, such as near the Train Station.
For decades, the City has permitted affordable housing projects to defer payment of fees up to the point of building occupancy. This Fee Deferral Program, which is outlined in Chapter 5, Article I of the Fairfield Municipal Code, allows projects providing housing to moderate-, low-, or very-low-
2 Sarah Mawhorter, David Garcia, and Hayley Raetz, “It All Adds Up: The Cost of Housing Development Fees in Seven California Cities,” Terner Center for Housing Innovation (March, 2018).
Packet Page 455 of 846Attachment 5 Page 174 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
173
income households to defer payment of certain building fees until occupancy or permanent financ- ing is obtained. Applicants wishing to receive a fee deferral apply to the Community Development Department. The Community Development Director ultimately approves all deferrals. Key re- quirements include:
• For multifamily housing, the project must be affordable to moderate-income (50 percent of units) and low-income (25 percent of units) residents. • For single-family homes, the project must be affordable to moderate income households. • For rental housing, a 55-year period of affordability. • For ownership housing, a 45-year period of affordability.
In addition, the City has established a Fee Credit Program for affordable housing. When a com- mercial building or residential structure is demolished, credits associated with the demolished building can be donated to the City’s Fee Credit Bank. These Fee Credits are calculated based on square footage, number of bedrooms, water meter use, or other units of measurement to calculate the subject fee. Fee credits for multifamily and commercial/industrial development are separate accounts. Fee credits are typically available when new buildings built on the site of the demolished building do not use all of the fee credits available for the site. Fee credits are banked by the City for use in future development An applicant developing affordable housing can submit an application to the Community Development Director for fee credits. Fees which can be reduced include water and sewer connection fees but do not include fees associated with other governments like school mitigation fees or Solano County Facilities fees. A project receiving fee credits must provide afford- able units for low- and moderate-income households and a covenant of affordability which can last up to 55 years.
ADUs can be another source of affordable housing, especially for senior citizens and individuals.
The City exempts ADUs under 750 square feet from the Park and Recreation Fee, Cordelia Open Space Fee, Sewer Connection Fee, and County Public Facilities Fee. All ADUs are exempt from the Engineering Plan Check Fee, Fire Inspection Fee, General Plan Amendment Fee, Water Connec- tion Fee, Water Meter and Box Fee, Zone II Water Fee, Benefit District Fee, AB1600 Fee, Quimby Fee, Manuel Campos Expressway Fee, Northeast Fee, Train Station Area Fee, and CASP Fee.
In 2013, the City implemented aggressive measures to facilitate multifamily residential develop- ment by lowering certain fees. The City also worked with Solano County and the Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District to identify possible fee reductions to facilitate development during the re- covery from the Great Recession of 2008. However certain fees, including the Northeast Fee, have not been updated since adoption in 2013. Market rate developers have indicated that the Northeast Fee, which covers the TSSP area, remains high and does not reflect changing market conditions.
Affordable housing developers also remarked that they would like to see reduced fees for affordable housing projects, especially since a lack of local funding can make development challenging. The City is currently updating its AB 1630 traffic impact and Northeast fees for City Council consider- ation this year.
Packet Page 456 of 846Attachment 5 Page 175 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
174
5.2 Non-Governmental Constraints
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
Environmental constraints include physical features such as steep slopes, fault zones, floodplains, sensitive biological habitat, and agricultural lands. In many cases, development of these areas is constrained by State and federal laws (e.g., FEMA floodplain regulations, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, and the State Fish and Game Code and Alquist-Priolo Act).
The most noteworthy environmental constraints in Fairfield include the following:
• Fault lines. Major fault lines running through the Planning Area are the Green Valley Fault and Cordelia Fault, both of which run through the western portion of the city. If an earth- quake would occur along either of these fault lines, surface fault rupture could occur caus- ing serious damage or failure to buildings atop these faults. Thus, these two faults are both covered by an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone, which restricts the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. • Open space protection. Fairfield is surrounded by open space and agricultural land that is important for the agricultural economy, for the protection of critical wildlife habitats and ecosystems, and for the enjoyment and education of residents and visitors. The Suisun Val- ley has significant land designated as Prime Farmland by the State for possessing the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for crop production. Additionally, the Suisun Marsh and the hills surrounding Fairfield are home to several critical habitats. • Biological. There are a variety of vegetation communities and associated wildlife habitats, as well as sensitive natural communities, in Fairfield. A number of planned development areas, including north of Travis AFB and east of Peabody; between Suisun Marsh and I-80; and north of Cordelia, east of Green Valley Road; are located within the proposed Solano Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) conservation areas for covered species and natural com- munities. Further residential planning and development in these areas must address the Solano HCP Conservation Strategy goals and objectives.
• Flooding. There are several areas across the Planning Area that have been known to flood and/or exist in a floodplain. Flooding has occurred along Ledgewood Creek, at the Octo Inn Detention Basin, in the Cordelia area near Nelson Hill, and in Downtown Fairfield near Highway 12.
• Sea level rise. While most developed portions of the city are outside of land likely to be subject to sea level rise over the next 50 years, portions of the city close to Suisun Marsh and along local creeks may experience adverse changes to local flooding as sea levels rise. • Wildfires. Several wildfires, including six in the last decade, have burned immediately ad- jacent to the city since the 1970s. Fairfield is at a 38 percent higher risk of fire than the rest of California on average. Areas north and west of the city are at greatest risk of fire. The Rancho Solano area and the hills west of Cordelia are both designated as “High” Fire Haz- ard Severity Zones by the State.
• Airport hazards. The Planning Area is governed by development restrictions laid out in the Travis AFB Land Use Compatibility Plan (LUCP). Most of the Planning Area is Packet Page 457 of 846Attachment 5 Page 176 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
175
designated as Zone D by the LUCP, which prohibits any land uses that are considered haz- ards to flight and requires that any proposed development in structures 200 feet above ground level undergoes review. The LUCP prohibits new residential development where noise exposure exceeds a potential community noise equivalent level of 65 decibels (dB).
Land exposed to dB levels of 65 and higher is generally confined to areas on Travis AFB, to its northeast, and over the Suisun Marsh.
The City’s land use plans have been designed to protect sensitive areas from development, and also to protect public safety by avoiding development in hazardous areas. While these policies constrain residential development to some extent, they are necessary to support other public policy objectives and priorities. In Northern California, nearly all development projects face potential community- wide environmental constraints such as seismic, traffic, noise, and air quality impacts, in addition to site-specific constraints. None of the sites identified in the land inventory beyond those already approved and in the pipeline have known site-specific environmental constraints that would pre- clude the assumed level of development.
INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS
The City of Fairfield has a fair amount of vacant land available for new residential development, particularly in its more outlying northeastern neighborhoods. Much of this land is located within the boundaries of the TSSP. Certain portions of the plan are designated to accommodate higher densities that are suitable for lower-density housing, at up to a density of 50 du/acre. Further, there is reduced infrastructure access in this portion of the city, though access is improving and ac- counted for in infrastructure master plans. Currently, the multifamily One Lake Family apartments project is under construction and will provide 190 units of affordable housing. Older neighbor- hoods in Central Fairfield, where the city is mostly built out and vacant land is scarce, will see new development mainly through infill.
Water and Sewer
The City provides water and wastewater services, the latter with the Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District (FSSD), and bills residents and businesses according to rates approved by the City Council and the FSSD. The City’s current raw water supply is exclusively from surface water that is then treated and distributed to meet the demands of the City’s water customers. The City’s raw water supply is de- rived from two sources – the Solano Project and the State Water Project (SWP). All water the City presently delivers is surface water as opposed to groundwater. In 2016, the City adopted the 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). Per the UWMP, the City’s current and future supplies of water exceed the current and estimated future demands. Under all drought scenarios, the City expects to meet its water demands.
Fairfield is served by two water treatment facilities. The Waterman Treatment Plant has a present 30 million gallon per day (mgd) treatment capacity, while the North Bay Regional Water Treatment Plant has a 40 mgd capacity (26.7 mgd for Fairfield). Together, the City’s two treatment plants provide treatment capacity far in excess of that needed to serve the City at buildout.
The FSSD Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update (WCSMPU) completed in 2020 pro- vides an update of the FSSD collection system master plan to reflect the most accurate information on projected growth, wastewater flows, and collection system performance. According to the Packet Page 458 of 846Attachment 5 Page 177 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
176
WCSMPU, there are a number of areas with potential capacity deficiencies that will require im- provements. The deficiency locations are as follows: along West Texas and Empire streets from 5th St. north of West Texas St. to Empire St. at 1st St., Texas St. at Taft St. to Clay St. south of Texas St., Peabody Rd. north of Huntington Dr. to Huntington Dr. at Stanford Ct., Huntington Dr. at Stan- ford Ct. to Walters Rd north of E Tabor Ave, Lopes Road Lift Station, and Cordelia Pump Station.
Total recommended capacity improvements are projected to cost $15,284,000. In addition, the pro- posed Northeast Fairfield Pump Station has been designed but has not yet been constructed. It will serve future developments in the northeastern portions of the FSSD service area.
Public Facilities and Services
Quality public facilities and services are essential for ensuring an active, educated, engaged, and safe community. The current General Plan states that new development must pay to cover the pub- lic costs attached to each development project, including the acquisition of permanent open space, the provision of adequate school facilities, the provision of infrastructure needs, and to mitigate the effects of the development on the provision of public services such as police and fire protection. A summary of constraints associated with each type of public facility is provided below:
• Public education. The city is served by two school districts, Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District (FSUSD) and the Travis Unified School District (TUSD). Several schools are at or close to their enrollment capacity, especially in the Cordelia area. Currently, nei- ther FSUSD nor TUSD is planning to build any new school sites. The Solano Community College, per the 2020 Facilities Master Plan, has a surplus of space for its enrolled student population.
• Community facilities. Community facilities include the Fairfield Community Center and the Fairfield Adult Recreation Center (ARC), as well as two Neighborhood Centers. There are also a number of libraries in the city, and plans to develop a new 30,000 square foot County-operated library as part of the One Lake master-planned community in the TSSP area.
• Parks and recreation. The City is short of reaching its park service goals, and is especially strained in areas with infill development. Planning for future residential development should consider the parks and recreation needs of a growing and changing population. • Emergency services. Both the Fairfield Police Department (FPD) and the Fairfield Fire Department (FFD) are short of meeting their service standards as designated in the existing General Plan. The Cordelia area in particular is not adequately served by fire services. To address this, FFD is in the process of adding an additional station in the Cordelia area. The City will need to coordinate closely with FPD and FFD as development continues in previ- ously undeveloped areas of Fairfield. However, encouraging infill development in existing neighborhoods will decrease pressure on emergency services to provide for increasingly distant locations.
Packet Page 459 of 846Attachment 5 Page 178 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
177
MARKET CONSTRAINTS
Land and Construction Costs
Land represents one of the most significant components of the cost of new housing. Land values fluctuate with market conditions, and the recent downturn in the housing market has affected land values. Changes in land prices reflect the cyclical nature of the residential real estate market. Even with the real estate downturn, the market is once again on the upswing, and the high price of land throughout Bay Area region still poses a challenge to the development of lower-income housing.
Density affects development feasibility by affecting land cost per unit. As discussed in the Govern- mental Constraints section of this chapter, allowable multifamily residential densities in Fairfield are sufficient to facilitate development of affordable housing.
Land costs are often difficult to estimate, and there is no single publicly available database that records urban land prices. Based on the CoStar COMPS database, researchers have determined that between 2005 and 2010, the Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa metropolitan area had the thirty-third highest national land value, when compared to other major metropolitan areas in the U.S., with an urban average of $539,000 per acre.3 This is lower than fourth-ranked San Francisco at $3,239,000 per acre and eleventh-ranked Oakland at $1,412,000 per acre, but higher than fifty-fourth ranked Sacra- mento at $442,000 per acre. A more recent study conducted by researchers from the Federal Hous- ing Finance Agency (FHFA) have estimated the price of residential land based on appraisals of single-family parcels conducted between 2012 and 2019.4 From this assessment they have made available land prices for all census tracts in the country. As summarized in Table 5-22 below, the average land value per acre in the census tracts either partially or wholly contained within the boundaries of Fairfield is about $784,620 or 26.7 percent of the total property value. This is lower than both the county and the wider Bay Area region.
Table 5-22: Average Single-Family Land Costs, 2019
Region Average Land Value Per Acre Average Land Share of Property Value San Francisco Bay Area1 $2,868,587 44.6%
Solano County $821,708 27.5%
Fairfield2 $784,620 26.7%
Notes:
1. Based on the nine-county region.
2. Includes all census tracts that are contained within the boundaries of the city, may not align with the Census- designated place boundary.
Source: FHFA, Land Prices, October 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 Construction cost is affected by the price of materials, labor, development standards and general market conditions. The cost of materials and labor are considered “hard” construction costs, which comprise the majority of total development costs in California’s housing market. According to a
3 David Albouy, Gabriel Ehrlich, and Minchul Shin, “Metropolitan Land Values,” The Review of Economics and Statis- tics, 2018.
4 William Larson, Jessica Shui, Morris Davis, and Steven Oliner, “Working Paper 19-01: The Price of Residential Land for Counties, ZIP codes, and Census Tracts in the United States,” FHFA Staff Working Paper Series (October, 2020).
Packet Page 460 of 846Attachment 5 Page 179 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
178
report published by the Terner Center at UC Berkeley, trends in the prices of both labor and mate- rials have likely contributed to hard cost increases over the 2009 to 2018 period.5 This strain was exacerbated by COVID, which had a direct impact on increased construction and labor costs. The Bay Area region was identified as the most expensive region in the state, where average hard costs were $81 more expensive per square foot than in other parts of the state. Affordable housing pro- jects also tend to cost more than market-rate or mixed-affordability projects, although this is largely correlated with project size.
The City has developed programs to address the issue of land and construction costs. For example, the City helps self-help homebuilders identify sites suitable for their projects.
Funding from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), includ- ing from the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and HOME programs, have been used to reduce development costs. Further, the City’s density bonus program for senior and affordable housing can help developers reduce the per-unit costs of multifam- ily development. The City’s Housing Authority also provides funding from the low- and moderate-income housing asset fund, which contained over $2.3 million in year-end cash flows during the 2018/2019 Fiscal Year (FY).Availability of Financing The cost of financing can have a substantial effect on the affordability and availability of housing.
A few points difference in the interest rate can make a substantial difference in the financial feasi- bility of a development project. For buyers with a good credit rating, current interest rates for fixed rate home purchase loans in Fairfield range from 3.25 percent to five percent depending on the mortgage type. The City also offers “silent second” mortgages to moderate- and low-income home- buyers at no more than 3% simple interest.
Data on home loan approval is available from institutions that remain in compliance with the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). While HMDA data is not available at the city-level, Chart 5-2 displays the discrepancy in loan approval rates between Fairfield and Solano County. According to 2020 estimates, Fairfield experienced a higher approval rate for home improvement loans than did the county (50.1 percent and 47.6 percent, respectively) but saw a slightly lower home purchase loan approval rate (64.9 percent and 65.3 percent, respectively). In Fairfield there were 3,794 total home purchase loan applications (2,464 were approved, 262 were denied, and some other action happened for the remaining 1,068 applications) and 335 total home improvement loan applications (168 were approved, 126 were denied, and some other action happened for the remaining 41 appli- cations).
5 Hayley Raetz, Teddy Forscher, Elizabeth Kneebone, and Carolina Reid, “The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California,” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, 2020.
Packet Page 461 of 846Attachment 5 Page 180 of 565
Chapter 5: Housing Constraints
179
Chart 5-2: Home Loan Application Decisions, 2020
Source: HCD, 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary, 2014-2020 While the City is not able to provide first mortgages to households, it can affect the availability of financing through its first-time homebuyer and Mortgage Credit Certificate programs as well as by working with builders to use state and federal financing programs, issuing tax-exempt bonds to finance affordable housing projects, and seeking lenders who will increase their community com- mitments to housing development under the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act.
However, these programs are not currently active or available at this time because they are subject to County availability.
Packet Page 462 of 846Attachment 5 Page 181 of 565
180
This page left intentionally blank
Packet Page 463 of 846Attachment 5 Page 182 of 565
Chapter 6: Housing Action Plan
181
6 Housing Action Plan
This chapter 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. An evaluation of the goals, policies and programs of the 2014-2021 Housing Element are included in Appendix D.
The Housing Element includes 5 goals that create the framework for how the City of Fairfield will address housing needs and constraints from 2023-2031. Within each goal section, the policies pro- vide direction for how the City will achieve that goal. Policies include various actions the City will take to implement the policies. Actions include both programs currently in operation as well as new actions needed to address the city’s housing needs. The goals, policies, and programs were devel- oped with extensive community input and reflect the City’s ambition to create equitable and inclu- sive neighborhoods and to provide opportunities for a variety of housing at all levels of affordability to meet the current and future needs of all residents. Table 6-1 shows how goals and policies are implemented by multiple programs and actions.
6.1 Goals and Policies
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.
A-1 Identify and maintain a sufficient inventory of land suitably zoned to accommodate new hous- ing production for each income level and meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation with adequate “buffer” to provide flexibility for changing circumstances.
A-2 Encourage multifamily housing in locations near employment, transportation, services, and recreational amenities.
A-3 Where feasible and appropriate, especially in and near downtown and along commercial cor- ridors, encourage mixed-use development that provides unique housing types, pedestrian- friendly design, home ownership, opportunities for entrepreneurship and employment, and access to transit and services such as childcare.
A-4 Encourage infill development on underutilized sites in already developed areas of the city.
A-5 Facilitate a mix of affordability levels in residential projects and dispersal of such units to achieve greater integration of affordable housing throughout the community.
A-6 Encourage property owners of small, adjoining parcels to consolidate or otherwise coopera- tively develop their parcels to ensure cohesive developments and efficient use of land.
A-7 Support infill housing through public outreach efforts in existing neighborhoods and in transit- rich specific plan areas.
Packet Page 464 of 846Attachment 5 Page 183 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
182
A-8 Promote increased production of both owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing at all in- come levels.
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.
B-1 In locating affordable housing, prioritize sites with access to transit, employment, parks and schools, and access to stores, consistent with State guidelines.
B-2 Promote the development of affordable housing in more moderately-resourced areas, includ- ing along corridors, and in the Train Station Specific Plan area.
B-3 Assist developers interested in developing new affordable housing for all income groups (ex- tremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate- income households).
B-4 Support the use of State and federal programs and local and nonprofit funding sources as fund- ing for affordable housing construction and rehabilitation.
B-5 Encourage long-term housing affordability.
B-6 Support the federal Housing Choice Voucher Program for very low- and extremely-low in- come households.
B-7 Encourage homeownership for moderate- and low-income homebuyers, including through first-time homebuyer assistance efforts.
B-8 Encourage property owners of smaller parcels (less than two acres) to work with the City to develop affordable ownership housing where rental housing is infeasible.
Goal C Improve and conserve the existing supply of housing and the city’s neighborhoods.
C-1 Continue to offer Fairfield’s Housing Rehabilitation Program to low-income homeowners.
C-2 Continue to enforce the City’s Community Preservation Ordinance and building codes.
C-3 Monitor and preserve the affordability of housing which received federal, State, and/or local support, including projects which are at risk of converting from affordable housing to market rents.
C-4 Use available State and federal funds for rehabilitation assistance for low-income households, focusing where appropriate on projects benefiting seniors, the disabled, and veterans.
C-5 Continue to invest in neighborhoods with existing affordable housing units, including through place-based strategies.
C-6 Assist lower-income households displaced by the removal of affordable units.
Packet Page 465 of 846Attachment 5 Page 184 of 565
Chapter 6: Housing Action Plan
183
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.
D-1 Reduce the prevalence of fair housing issues – including segregation, disability and access, dis- proportionate housing need, and fair housing enforcement and outreach – through appropriate changes to development standards, zoning codes, and increased education and outreach.
D-2 Support the efforts of Community Action Partnership of Solano Joint Powers Authority, Solano County, and local social service providers to increase their capacity to serve the un- housed.
D-3 Facilitate the development of emergency shelters, navigation centers, transitional housing, and supportive housing to meet the needs of unhoused residents.
D-4 Support nondiscrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing.
D-5 Provide needed social services in new and rehabilitated affordable housing, including services for single parents as well as families. All multifamily projects that include City funding will address social services and amenities, such as childcare, counseling, and education. Emergency shelter and support services will also be required for any City-funded homelessness services program.
D-6 Support housing programs targeted to older adults, 55 years of age and above, taking into ac- count lifestyle, health issues, and income.
D-7 Support efforts to meet the housing needs of Travis Air Force Base personnel.
D-8 Ensure that new residential developments include housing accessible to persons with disabili- ties and others with physical conditions that make it difficult for them to use conventional housing.
D-9 Encourage housing for larger families.
D-10 Support regional and County efforts to meet the needs of migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their families, including overcrowding.
D-11 Address the needs of developmentally-disabled individuals.
Goal E Promote energy conservation and sustainable development.
E-1 Encourage energy-conserving development patterns.
E-2 Assist low-income households in weatherproofing their homes.
E-3 Promote transit-oriented development, especially in the Heart of Fairfield and Train Station specific plan areas.
Packet Page 466 of 846Attachment 5 Page 185 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
184
Table 6.1 Policies and Relationship to Implementing Programs/Actions Goal/Policy Implementing Programs/Actions
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.
A-1. Identify and maintain a sufficient inventory of land suitably zoned to accommodate new housing production for each income level and meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation with adequate “buffer” to provide flexibility for changing circumstances.
11.1 A-2. Encourage multifamily housing in locations near employment, transportation, services, and recreational amenities. 2.2; 2.1
A-3. Where feasible and appropriate, especially in and near downtown and along commercial corridors, encourage mixed-use development that provides unique housing types, pedestrian-friendly design, home ownership, opportunities for entrepreneurship and employment, and access to transit and services such as childcare.
2.1, 2.2
A-4. Encourage infill development on underutilized sites in already developed areas of the city. 2.1, 2.2
A-5. Facilitate a mix of affordability levels in residential projects and dispersal of such units to achieve greater integration of affordable housing throughout the community.
1.2; 2.3; 2.4
A-6. Encourage property owners of small, adjoining parcels to consolidate or otherwise cooperatively develop their parcels to ensure cohesive developments and efficient use of land.
2.1; 2.2
A-7. Support infill housing through public outreach efforts in existing neighborhoods and in transit-rich specific plan areas. 2.1; 2.4 A-8. Promote increased production of both owner-occupied and renter-occupied housing at all income levels. 1.1; 1.2; 1.3; 2.3; 2.4; 2.5 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.
B-1. In locating affordable housing, prioritize sites with access to transit, employment, parks and schools, and access to stores, consistent with State guidelines.
2.1; 2.4; 6.1; 6.2
B-2. Promote the development of affordable housing in more moderately- resourced areas, including along corridors, and in the Train Station Specific Plan area.
2.1; 2.4; 5.1
B-3. Assist developers interested in developing new affordable housing for all income groups (extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate- income households).
1.1; 2.3; 2.4; 6.1; 6.2; 6.3
B-4. Support the use of State and federal programs and local and nonprofit funding sources as funding for affordable housing construction and rehabilitation. 1.1; 1.2; 1.3 Packet Page 467 of 846Attachment 5 Page 186 of 565
Chapter 6: Housing Action Plan
185
B-5. Encourage long-term housing affordability.
3.1; 3.2; 4.1
B-6. Support the federal Housing Choice Voucher Program for very low - and extremely-low income households. -
B-7. Encourage homeownership for moderate - and low - income homebuyers, including through first-time homebuyer assistance efforts. 1.3 B-8. Encourage property owners of smaller parcels (less than two acres) to work with the City to develop affordable ownership housing where rental housing is infeasible.
2.1; 2.2
Goal C Improve and conserve the existing supply of housing and the city’s neighborhoods.
C-1. Continue to offer Fairfield’s Housing Rehabilitation Program to low-income homeowners. 4.1
C-2. Continue to enforce the City’s Community Preservation Ordinance and building codes. -
C-3. Monitor and preserve the affordability of housing which received federal, State, and/or local support, including projects which are at risk of converting from affordable housing to market rents.
3.1; 3.2
C-4. Use available State and federal funds for rehabilitation assistance for low- income households, focusing where appropriate on projects benefiting seniors, the disabled, and veterans.
4.1 C-5. Continue to invest in neighborhoods with existing affordable housing units, including through place-based strategies. 3.2
C-6. Assist lower-income households displaced by the removal of affordable units.
3.2 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.
D-1. Reduce the prevalence of fair housing issues – including segregation, disability and access, disproportionate housing need, and fair housing enforcement and outreach – through appropriate changes to development standards, zoning codes, and increased education and outreach.
7.1; 7.2; 7.3; 7.4; 8.2;10.1
D-2. Support the efforts of Community Action Partnership of Solano Joint Powers Authority, Solano County, and local social service providers to increase their capacity to serve the unhoused.
8.1; 8.2
D-3. Facilitate the development of emergency shelters, navigation centers, transitional housing, and supportive housing to meet the needs of unhoused residents.
8.2 D-4. Support nondiscrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing.
10.1 Packet Page 468 of 846Attachment 5 Page 187 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
186
D-5. Provide needed social services in new and rehabilitated affordable housing, including services for single parents as well as families. All multifamily projects that include City funding will address social services and amenities, such as childcare, counseling, and education. Emergency shelter and support services will also be required for any City-funded homelessness services program.
2.4; 7.1; 7.2; 8.2
D-6. Support housing programs targeted to older adults, 55 years of age and above, taking into account lifestyle, health issues, and income. 7.4 D-7. Support efforts to meet the housing needs of Travis Air Force Base personnel.
7.6 D-8. Ensure that new residential developments include housing accessible to persons with disabilities and others with physical conditions that make it difficult for them to use conventional housing.
2.4; 7.1; 7.2; 7.3; 7.4
D-9. Encourage housing for larger families.
2.4 D-10. Support regional and County efforts to meet the needs of migrant and seasonal farmworkers and their families, including overcrowding. 2.4; 7.4 D-11. Address the needs of developmentally-disabled individuals.
2.4; 7.3
Goal E. Promote energy conservation and sustainable development.
E-1. Encourage energy-conserving development patterns.
2.1; 9.1
E-2. Assist low-income households in weatherproofing their homes.
4.1 E-3. Promote transit-oriented development, especially in the Heart of Fairfield and Train Station specific plan areas. 2.1
Packet Page 469 of 846Attachment 5 Page 188 of 565
Chapter 6: Housing Action Plan
187
6.2 Programs
PROGRAM 1: AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY
While the City of Fairfield has approved a significant number of housing units in its 5th RHNA cycle, it is falling short of its low-income and very-low-income housing targets. In order to promote accessible affordable housing and reduce affordability gaps in Fairfield, the City employs a number of approaches. This includes the development of new affordable units, including multifamily units, and the preservation and improvement of existing affordable units. Specific actions the City will undertake during the 6th cycle planning period include the following. • Action 1.1 Affordable Housing Financing.
The City utilizes funding sources from the Housing Trust Fund (Trust Fund), Low Mod Funds, and CDBG funds to promote the development, preservation, and improvement of affordable housing. The Trust fund facilitates alternative means to pay for development of affordable housing, including leveraging local funds against state matching funds. The City will continue to assess a variety of alternative funding mechanisms for the construction of new affordable housing including State, federal, and regional programs. Staff shall explore new funding sources for affordable housing with the City Council, including:
o An increased Housing Trust Fund fee for specific uses; o Property Transfer Tax revenues in excess of the approved budget at year-end to af- fordable housing; and
o An affordable housing bond
Objective: Identify financing mechanisms that can facilitate the development of new affordable housing.
Responsibility: Housing Authority
Timeframe: Starting in 2023, explore funding sources annually during the City’s budget review and approval process.
Funding Source: Housing Trust Fund, CDBG funds, General Fund • Action 1.2 Inclusionary Housing.
Despite development of the Trust Fund and Pro-housing Designation, the City does not have suf- ficient, sustainable revenue sources to fund the level of affordable housing develop- ment needed to meet RHNA goals. One option for creating a sustainable revenue stream is through an inclusionary housing policy, including inclusionary requirements or an in lieu fee option. Such funding can be funneled into the Trust Fund and further matched with state or other funding. For any fees related to inclusionary housing, Fairfield must complete a nexus study to establish and adopt and implement fees. The study would look at examples of what has been successful in other communities in the region, Fairfield-specific market conditions, and the City’s economic develop- ment objectives.
Packet Page 470 of 846Attachment 5 Page 189 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
188
Objective: Explore feasibility of an inclusionary housing program with an in-lieu fee payment option.
Responsibility: Community Development Department and Housing Authority Timeframe: Conduct Inclusionary Housing/Nexus Study within two years after adoption of the Housing Element (by end of 2025).
Funding Source: General Fund
• Action 1.3 Affordable Homeownership.
While Fairfield has long been seen as an “affordable” alternative to many other Bay Area cities, home costs have risen significantly in recent years, and homeownership remains out of reach for lower-income communities. Lack of down payment funds also remains a major barrier. The City supports homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate- income households through the Silent Loan Down Payment Assistance Program, and the CalHOME Program. The City will dedicate 20 percent of Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program funds to home ownership activities. These funds will be available for five years, but this may be an ongoing resource. The City will continue these programs and seek to maximize funding.
Objective: Sustain and expand affordable home ownership opportunities in the City of Fairfield.
Responsibility: Housing Authority
Timeframe: Affordable Homeownership – Outreach and education ongoing 2031-2031; MCC Program available on an annual basis. Explore additional funding opportunities on an annual basis.
Funding Source(s): Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program funds PROGRAM 2: DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES, ASSISTANCE, AND STREAMLINING • Action 2.1 Infill Housing Development Incentives.
As part of an Infill Development Program, the City will continue to market infill lots to devel- opers. This Program will identify and promote target sites that already have appropriate Gen- eral Plan/zoning designation, housing prototypes for certain lot sizes, focus areas, and neces- sary infrastructure to support infill development. This will include sites identified as part of the General Plan update process. As part of the Program, the City will also develop incentives to facilitate lot consolidation, particularly in older, infill neighborhoods and corridors. These in- centives might include fee reductions or use of the Fee Credit Bank, density bonuses, flexibility in development standards, parking reductions or alternative parking, and assistance in market- ing small parcels.
Objective: Encourage infill housing in developed areas of the City. Support consolidation for at least two projects in the HoF area.
Responsibility: Community Development Department and Housing Authority Timeframe: Initiate development of the Infill Development Plan within two years of the Gen- eral Plan update.
Funding Source: General Fund, Infill Infrastructure Grant Program • Action 2.2 Small-Lot Consolidation Incentives.
Develop a Small-Lot Consolidation Program to facilitate lot consolidation, particularly in infill neighborhoods. These incentives might include fee reductions or use of the Fee Credit Bank, Packet Page 471 of 846Attachment 5 Page 190 of 565
Chapter 6: Housing Action Plan
189
tiered (by lot size) density or density bonuses, flexibility in development standards, and assis- tance in marketing small parcels. Implement the planning process in the Train Station Specific Plan and Heart of Fairfield Plan which encourages and facilitates land consolidation and com- prehensive planning. Continue to educate developers and property owners about successful smaller infill housing projects and flexibility in the City’s Zoning Ordinance to support the development of infill housing development. including a conceptual review process as part of pre-submittal meetings.
Objective: Encourage infill housing in developed areas of the City. Support consolidation of at least two projects in the HoF area.
Responsibility: Community Development Department and Housing Authority Timeframe: Initiate development of the Consolidation Program within two years of the General Plan update.
Funding Source: General Fund, Infill Infrastructure Grant Program, LEAP Fund, SB2 funds • Action 2.3 Diverse Housing Supportive Design and Development Standards.
Develop and implement design standards suitable for new residential and mixed-use develop- ment projects in Fairfield including for ‘missing middle’ housing types such as duplexes, tri- plexes, small-lot single family, and other housing types, and continue to implement develop- ment standards for mixed use “live-work” development. The standards should address street design, architecture, site planning, pedestrian infrastructure, standards for residential and mixed-use development, and public space design. Additionally, the City will work with devel- opers interested in building experimental projects not included in the current Zoning Ordi- nance by coordinating pre-submittal meetings, prioritizing funding and offering incentives.
The City will amend the current Design Guidelines as needed; these standards and assistance will help to streamline development.
Objective: Design standards support housing production of more diverse housing types over the planning period related to reduced permitting requirements and time to develop.
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Develop design standards by December 2023; Ongoing Funding Source: General Fund, LEAP Fund, SB2 Funds
• Action 2.4 Increased Streamlining of Housing Permits, especially Affordable Housing.
Give priority to permit processing for projects providing affordable housing when requested.
Expand application of processing priority to projects providing housing for seniors and other special-needs groups, including persons with physical and developmental disabilities, large families, extremely low-, low-, and moderate-income households; farmworker housing, and people experiencing homelessness.
Objective: Expedite permit procedures for developments affordable to lower-income house- holds. Approve and expedite at least three rental developments affordable to lower-income households.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Adopt processing priority procedure by 2023
Packet Page 472 of 846Attachment 5 Page 191 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
190
Funding Source(s): General Fund, SB 2 Grants
• Action 2.5 Citywide Densities and Zoning. Establish minimum residential densities for all residential zoning classifications, and ensure that maximum densities in Residential Medium zones allow for townhomes, duplexes, and other compatibly sized or designed housing solu- tions in moderately resourced areas. Reduce minimum lot size requirements in Residential Low Medium and Residential Medium classifications to promote small lot development. As part of the General Plan Update, study opportunities to redesignate key areas with land uses that allow for higher densities. As part of this effort, the City will provide information to the public that could bolster community support related to missing housing types in the City, in- cluding provision of information on these missing housing types, Planning Commission and City Council working sessions, and outreach to community organizations.
Objective: Increase variety of housing types in Fairfield through supportive development den- sities and lot size requirements.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeframe: General Plan land use designations changed and adopted by 2024.
Funding Source(s): General Fund
PROGRAM 3: LONG-TERM HOUSING AFFORDABILITY AND AT-RISK UNITS • Action 3.1 Require Projects Receiving City Assistance to Ensure Long-term Affordability.
Many funding sources used by the City and property owners require affordability be retained for 45-55 years. When funding permits, the City will pursue agreements with property owners to ensure long-term preservation of affordable units. Where appropriate, as a condition of as- sistance the City may impose resale controls on ownership units.
Objective: Encourage long-term housing affordability of assisted units.
Timeframe: Ongoing.
Responsible Agency: Housing Authority
Funding Source(s): LIHTC, CalHFA, CDBG Funds, affordable housing partnerships, Local Housing Trust Fund Program
• Action 3.2 Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units.
The City will offer financing to affordable housing properties at risk of converting to market- rate housing within one year prior to affordability expiration to discuss the City’s desire to pre- serve complexes as affordable housing. As part of this effort, the City will coordinate with non- profit entities who may be interested in purchasing and/or managing at-risk units. Relocation assistance will be provided to existing tenants who have to be temporarily or permanently re- located.
Packet Page 473 of 846Attachment 5 Page 192 of 565
Chapter 6: Housing Action Plan
191
Objectives: Support the preservation of all 170 units at risk of converting to market-rate. Sup- port the rehabilitation and revitalization of one property in the planning period. Provide on- going assistance and evaluate program through the Housing Element Annual Report process.
Responsible Agency: Housing Authority
Timeframe: Annually monitor at-risk units; issue a NOFA a year before any Tax Credit com- pliance period
Funding Source(s): General Fund, Local Housing Trust Fund Program • Action 3.3 Tenant-based Rental Assistance.
Use HOME to support Tenant Based Rental Assistance program (TBRA) for extremely low- income households (with incomes 30% or below the AMI) or those at risk of being displaced from their housing units.
Objective: Support up to 30 households eligible for Tenant Based Rental Assistance to increase housing stability in Fairfield.
Responsible Agency: Housing Authority
Timeframe: Design TBRA program by December 2023.
Funding Source: HOME Funds, General Fund
PROGRAM 4: HOUSING REHABILITATION LOANS
• Action 4.1 Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program.
The City will continue its Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program, which assists Fairfield resi- dents in maintaining and improving housing. This program is available for owner-occupied homes at least 15 years old and located within the City limits. The maximum loan limit is $75,000, and a homeowner may be eligible to receive additional loan funding for ADA im- provements (based on eligibility and funding source availability). The program offers low-cost financing and technical assistance to income-eligible homeowners needing to make repairs and general improvements to their homes.
Objective: Support the rehabilitation and revitalization of at least 80 properties in the planning period.
Timeframe: Annually apply for CDBG Revolving Loan funding and names will be placed on the waitlist in accordance to date and time of application.
Supporting Agency: Housing Authority
Funding Source: CDBG Revolving Loan fund
PROGRAM 5: ADU INCENTIVES
• Action 5.1 ADU Incentives Program.
AB 671 requires local agencies’ housing elements to include a plan that promotes the creation of ADUs that can offer affordable rents for households with very low, low, or moderate Packet Page 474 of 846Attachment 5 Page 193 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
192
incomes. As part of the ADU ordinance update, the City will explore options to facilitate af- fordable housing options of ADUs throughout the City. The City will also explore incentives and tools to facilitate ADU construction, such as pre-approved ADU plans or kits, waived de- velopment impact fees, increased outreach and education (including community forums or open houses on ADU ideas), larger unit square footage allowances and reduced setback and lot coverage standards in exchange for deed restrictions, among other incentives. The City could also coordinate with nonprofit organizations, builders, and banks regarding funding/assisting with construction costs and connect ADU/JADU owners and renters with this information.
Objective: Increased education and awareness of ADUs to encourage the construction of 46 units of this more affordable housing type throughout the City.
Responsible Party: Community Development Department and Housing Authority Timeframe: 2023-2024
Funding Source: General Fund
PROGRAM 6: ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE
• Action 6.1 Change Zoning in Appropriate Nonresidential Zones.
Fairfield City Council has indicated preliminary support for major transformation of certain commercial areas and corridors, including along North Texas Street, retail parcels near the Fairfield Transportation Center, and the Solano Town Center, as part of the General Plan Up- date. Other underutilized commercial areas include the shopping center near Oliver Drive. The City will explore rezoning these areas to permit mixed-use development consistent with the CM designation, in some cases allowing residential development to a minimum of 30 dwelling units per acre.
Where rezoned areas include sites in the Site Inventory to affirmatively further fair housing (Table C-16), properties zoned CO will be changed to a CM designation; the property zoned IL will be changed to a RVH designation. The new zoning will permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by right for development in which 20 percent or more of the units are afford- able to lower income households and will comply with other by-right provisions of Govern- ment Code 65583.2(h) and (i). As an additional incentive, developers can access State density bonus law in addition to using densities allowed in the overlay.
Objective: Update the Land Use Element and Zoning Code to facilitate the development of di- verse housing options in resource-rich areas, including 728 lower income units and 112 mod- erate income units of housing. Facilitate the development of at least 10 percent of lower income housing in moderately resourced areas.
Timeframe: Amend zoning ordinance within one year and 90 days of receipt of comments from HCD on the draft Housing Element, to coincide with the City’s Land Use Element Update.
Responsible Party: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
• Action 6.2 By-Right Housing.
Permit sites included in prior RHNA cycles to develop with affordable housing by right. Pur- suant to State law, the City will permit vacant sites included in two consecutive prior RHNA Packet Page 475 of 846Attachment 5 Page 194 of 565
Chapter 6: Housing Action Plan
193
cycles and non-vacant sites included in at least one prior RHNA to develop with owner-occu- pied and rental multifamily uses by right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households. Additionally, allowable densities for the Very High Residential (RVH) zoning category will be applied to these sites to accommodate the de- fault density of 30 du/ac per acre. These sites are identified in the sites inventory, table 5-13.
Objective: Create opportunity for additional 117 units of lower income housing.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Sites rezoned by 2024 end
Funding Source: General Fund
• Action 6.3: Efficiency Units
Efficiency units are smaller units, usually more affordable by design, that are more likely to be a source of naturally occurring affordable housing over the long term, while also allowing new development to align with current demographic trends towards smaller household sizes. They are distinct from SRO units, which are not required to contain a kitchen and bathroom. The City will amend the Zoning Code to define efficiency unit requirements, incentivize this type of development by allowing at a higher density than regular units, and permit efficiency units in Medium (RM), High (RH), and Very High (RVH) residential zones and Mixed Commercial (CM) zones by right, and in with the approval of a conditional use permit in the CT zone.
Objective: Enable increased production of efficiency units, approximately 8 percent of Fair- field’s lower income RHNA allocation need.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Amend Zoning Code by 2023.
Funding Source: General Fund
PROGRAM 7: HOUSING FOR SPECIAL NEEDS
There are several housing options available for residents with special needs in Fairfield. This includes senior housing, residential care facilities, emergency shelters, and transitional and sup- portive housing. The City will prioritize the development of special needs housing, provide development assistance where feasible, and remove any constraints. • Action 7.1 Special Needs Housing.
The City will encourage housing for special needs households and will proactively grant and/or assess the feasibility of:
o Adopting priority processing;
o Granting fee waivers or deferrals;
o Modifying development standards;
o Granting concessions and incentives for housing developments that include units afford- able to special needs households
o Assisting, supporting or pursuing funding applications; and Packet Page 476 of 846Attachment 5 Page 195 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
194
o Pursuing outreach and coordination with affordable housing developers Objective: Encourage development of special needs housing and ensure equal housing oppor- tunities for all residents.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department and Housing Authority Timeframe: Annual, begin efforts upon adoption of the Housing Element.
Funding Source: General Fund,
• Action 7.2 Housing for Persons with Disabilities.
A residential care facility is one housing option available for persons with disabilities. The City will update the Planning and Zoning Code to remove constraints to development of residential care facilities, including parking standards dependent on type of care for residential care facil- ities with six or more people. The City will also continue to educate residents about reasonable accommodation by providing information in public places and on the City’s website. The City Building Division currently implements the reasonable accommodation requirements in the California Building Code. To ensure full compliance with reasonable accommodation proce- dures of the Fair Housing Act, the City shall adopt a Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance to establish procedures for the review and approval of requests to modify zoning and develop- ment standards to reasonably accommodate persons with disabilities, including persons with developmental disabilities. The procedures do not require any permit other than the reasonable accommodation request, involve no public notice unless the City's determination is appealed, and no fee is charged. To ensure continued compliance with reasonable accommodation pro- cedures of the Fair Housing Act, the City will provide for annual review of requests for reason- able accommodations. Based upon this annual review, the City will update the Reasonable Ac- commodation Ordinance as appropriate.
To ensure the community is aware of reasonable accommodation policies and programs, the City will conduct specific actions to promote the Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance and disseminate this information to the general public, including underrepresented communities.
The City will develop materials and outreach methods to increase public awareness and ease of access to policies, programs and processes addressing reasonable accommodation.
Objective: Ensure full compliance with procedures of the Fair Housing Ordinance.
Responsible Agency: Housing Authority
Timeframe: Adopt Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance by 2024. Annually review requests for reasonable accommodations.
Funding Source: General Fund, Section 811
• Action 7.3 Housing for Persons with Developmental Disabilities.
The City will seek State and federal funds in support of housing construction and rehabilitation targeted toward persons with developmental disabilities. Regulatory incentives, such as expe- dited permit processing and fee waivers/deferrals, will be provided as feasible to projects tar- geted toward such persons. To further facilitate the development of housing units to accom- modate persons with these disabilities, the City will also reach out annually to developers of supportive housing to encourage development of projects targeted toward special needs groups.
Packet Page 477 of 846Attachment 5 Page 196 of 565
Chapter 6: Housing Action Plan
195
Objective: Facilitate development of lower-income and supportive housing for persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities
Responsible Agency: Housing Authority
Timeframe: Ongoing, reach out annually to developers.
Funding Source: General Fund, Section 811
• Action 7.4 Housing for older adults.
Assist developers interested in converting existing residential buildings to meet the needs of older low-income adults. Assistance could include technical assistance in applying for state and federal funding, local financial assistance through redevelopment housing set-aside funds, and the waiving of certain fees and/or development requirements to increase the financial feasibility of such housing. To address needs of Fairfield’s aging population, the City will also adopt a Universal Design Ordinance that identifies applicability and features and proportion of units with these features which must be offered by a builder in residential units subject to the ordi- nance that are being newly constructed or substantially rehabilitated.
Objective: Facilitate development of lower-income housing with appropriate/accommodating design for older adults.
Responsible Agency: Housing Authority
Timeframe: Developer Assistance: Ongoing, reach out annually to developers. Ordinance: By 2024.
Funding Source: General Fund, Section 202
• Action 7.5 Provision of farmworker housing.
The City shall work with advocacy groups, agricultural organizations, and Solano County to further define needs and barriers to farmworker housing, and utilize the survey results to de- velop targeted programs and strategies to address the identified housing needs of farmworkers and support agricultural businesses with a stable and healthy workforce.
Objective: Facilitate development of lower-income housing for farmworkers.
Responsible Agency: Housing Authority
Timeframe: Ongoing.
Funding Source: General Fund
• Action 7.6 Housing for Military Personnel.
Cooperate with Travis Regional Armed Force Base during any future reevaluation of housing services on and off-base. Monitor the base’s privatization program and provide assistance as needed for off-site housing programs.
Objective: Facilitate development of lower- and moderate-income housing for military person- nel.
Responsible Agency: Housing Authority
Packet Page 478 of 846Attachment 5 Page 197 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
196
Timeframe: Ongoing.
Funding Source: General Fund
PROGRAM 8: HOMELESSNESS
• Action 8.1 Continuum of Care.
Address homelessness and other special needs through the broad-based coalition associated with the Community Action Partnership of Solano Joint Powers Authority Continuum of Care program. Continue to work with organizations like Community Action Partnership of Solano County where appropriate. The City will continue to participate in County efforts to address transitional housing programs and projects for homeless persons as an intermediate step to self-sufficiency in permanent housing. The City will also participate in the Re-Entry Council Planning Group, and the Fairfield Homeless Services Collaborative, local agencies charged with coordinating responses to homelessness.
Objective: Facilitate development of appropriate housing options for individuals experiencing homelessness.
Responsible Agency: Homeless Services Division and Housing Authority Timeframe: Ongoing.
Funding Sources: General Fund, California Emergency Solutions and Housing, Emergency So- lutions Grants Program, Homekey, Housing for a Healthy California • Action 8.2 Housing for Homeless and Special Needs.
Use State and federal funding to continue to help and make provisions for development of transitional housing, shelters, navigation centers, single-room occupancy (SRO) housing and other forms of housing for people experiencing homelessness in the City. Recent changes to State law regarding housing for the homeless and persons with special needs also warrant amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. These include:
o Low Barrier Navigation Centers (AB 101): AB 101 requires cities to allow a Low Barrier Navigation Center development by right in areas zoned for mixed uses and nonresi- dential zones permitting multifamily uses if it meets specified requirements. A “Low Barrier Navigation Center” is defined as “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 experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.” Low Barrier shelters may include options such as allowing pets, permitting partners to share living space, and providing storage for residents’ possessions.
o Emergency and Transitional Housing (AB 139): Local governments may include park- ing requirements for emergency shelters specifying that adequate parking must be pro- vided for shelter staff, but overall parking requirements for shelters may not exceed the requirements for residential and commercial uses in the same zone. The City’s Zoning Ordinance does not include specific parking requirements for emergency shelters.
Packet Page 479 of 846Attachment 5 Page 198 of 565
Chapter 6: Housing Action Plan
197
Therefore, an amendment is not necessary but may be considered to ensure consistent implementation.
o Supportive Housing (AB 2162): AB 2162 requires supportive housing projects of 50 units or fewer to be permitted by right in zones where multi-family and mixed-use developments are permitted, when the development meets certain conditions. The City may choose to allow larger supportive housing projects by right in these zones. The bill also prohibits minimum parking requirements for supportive housing within ½ mile of a public transit stop.
o Residential Care Facilities: Defines residential care facilities in the Zoning Ordinance and clarifies compliance with State law regarding facilities for six or fewer residents.
Objective: Facilitate the development of housing for 305 extremely low-income indi- viduals/persons experiencing homelessness over the Housing Element Cycle.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Timeframe: Amend the Planning and Zoning Code within one year of adoption of the 2050 General Plan; Ongoing 2023-2031.
Funding Sources: General Fund
PROGRAM 9: ENERGY CONSERVATION
• Action 9.1 Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency Opportunities.
The City will continue to implement energy-efficient measures for new construction and reha- bilitation projects, including the California Green Building Standards Code. Information re- garding the City’s energy-efficiency standards and available programs to assist homeowners and property owners, including those identified in the Housing Element Needs Assessment, will be made available on the City website and at the permit counter. In addition to promoting the programs citywide, the City will target special advertisements and education to the City’s lower-income census tracts to explain available programs and potential long-term utility cost savings.
Objective: Facilitate energy conservation in housing development Timeframe: Ongoing
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Funding Source: General Fund
PROGRAM 10: AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
• Action 10.1 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.
Pursuant to AB 686, all jurisdictions are mandated to affirmatively further fair housing. To facilitate this mandate, the 2022 Analysis of Impediments and Chapter 3 of this element have identified fair housing issues and actions the City can take to remove or reduce the associated contributing factors.
Fair housing enforcement and outreach is a key component of this mandate. To provide fair housing services, Fairfield contracts with the Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California, Packet Page 480 of 846Attachment 5 Page 199 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
198
which provides fair housing counseling, investigation, mediation, and assistance with filing complaints; requests for people disabilities; foreclosure prevention education and counseling, and other services. The City will continue this contract and extend fair housing services through increased outreach and education, including through efforts like workshops, Spanish language educational materials, and partnerships with community agencies to provide finan- cial literacy classes for homebuyers, as outlined in actions 5.1 through 5.6 in the 2022 AI (Ap- pendix D). To address one of the City’s main impediments to fair housing as identified in the 2022 AI, Action 7.2 compels the City to adopt a Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance.
To increase integration and reduce segregation throughout the City, the Action Plan contains several actions that locate lower income housing in other areas beyond central Fairfield, includ- ing Action 6.1. The City’s specific plans are also intended to increase investment and integrate moderate- and above-moderate housing in areas that are lower income, including downtown Fairfield. Action 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5 in Program 2 will ameliorate constraints to fair housing choice, such as development standards that impede the development of accessible housing units, through a comprehensive update of the Planning and Zoning Code. Programs 7 and 8 also commits the City to take action regarding special needs groups, many of which are pro- tected classes under fair housing law.
Lack of affordable housing is a major impediment to fair housing and access to opportunity.
Programs 1 and 2 will help to increase development of affordable housing overall; coupled with Action 6.1,, actions alsoencourage development of affordable housing in areas of moderate re- source opportunity. The City’s ongoing specific plans represent place-based strategies to im- prove access to opportunity. Action 5.1 and 6.3 seek to increase development of more afforda- ble housing types throughout the City, including in areas of greater opportunity. Action 2.5 and the 2050 General Plan process will encourage residential development in select areas des- ignated as commercial, and will provide increased minimum and maximum densities in a num- ber of land use designations.
Finally, Fairfield’s disproportionate housing needs, including among lower income households and special needs groups, are addressed as part of programs 3, 4, 7, and 8. Programs 3 and 4 include actions to preserve existing affordability and rehabilitate homes for income-eligible households. Programs 7 and 8 address needs of Fairfield residents who are farmworkers, living with a disability, older adults, military personnel, or experiencing homelessness.
A table of actions that address each AFFH issue is shown below in Table 6-2:
Table 6-2: Programs/Actions that Affirmatively Further Fair Housing AFFH Program/Action
Fair housing enforcement and outreach 7.2; 10.1; Goal 5 and associated actions in the 2022 AI (See Appendix D)
Addressing integration and segregation
patterns, including for protected classes
2.3; 2.4; 2.5; 5.1; 6.1; 6.3; 7.1; 7.2; 7.3; 7.4;
7.5; 7.6; 8.1; 8.2
Disparities in access to opportunity 1.1; 1.2; 1.3; 2.1; 2.2; 2.3; 2.4; 2.5; 6.1; 11.1 Disproportionate housing needs, including
displacement
3.1; 3.2; 3.3; 4.1; 7.1; 7.2; 7.3; 7.4; 7.5; 7.6; 8.1;
8.2; 11.1
Packet Page 481 of 846Attachment 5 Page 200 of 565
Chapter 6: Housing Action Plan
199
Responsible Agency: Housing Authority, Community Development Department Potential Funding Source: General Fund; CDBG; SB2 and LEAP Grants Timeframe: Amend the Planning and Zoning Code within one year of adoption of the 2040 General Plan
Objectives: Affirmatively further fair housing by removing or reducing constraints on the de- velopment of housing appropriate for protected groups, promoting fair housing choice, and providing fair housing services.
PROGRAM 11: MID-CYCLE EVALUATION FOR ADEQUATE HOUSING SITES/AFFH • Action 11.1 Conduct mid-cycle evaluation.
As part of a mid-cycle evaluation, the City will assess Housing Element performance in deliv- ering housing units by affordability and diversity of housing types, and fine tune programs or densities and ensure there is adequate capacity available citywide to meet the City’s RHNA targets and no net loss requirements. The City will also assess effectiveness of its AFFH pro- grams (including Action 6.1 and 10.1), including sites that develop in moderate-resource areas.
Responsible Agency: Community Development Department
Potential Funding Source: General Fund and permit fees
Timeframe: Mid-cycle (2027)
Objectives: Identify and monitor adequate sites available for development, and increase the baseline of affordable units in moderate resource areas.
Packet Page 482 of 846Attachment 5 Page 201 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
200
6.3 Quantified Objectives
State Housing Law requires that quantified objectives be established for new construction, rehabil- itation, conservation, and preservation activities that will occur during the Housing Element cycle.
Table 6-3 summarizes the City’s quantified objectives by income category for the 2023-2031 plan- ning period. New construction estimates include units in approved and under review projects, pro- jected accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and the minimum remaining RHNA capacity.
Table 6-3: City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Quantified Objectives New Construction1
Income Category Approved
Projected
ADUs
Remaining
RHNA Rehabilitation2
Conservation/
Preservation3
Extremely-Low-Income4 91
728 60 170
Very-Low-Income 77 14
Low-Income 332 14
Moderate-Income 413 14 112 20 -
Above-Moderate-In-
come
2,430 4 - - -
Total 3,340 46 843 80 170
1. New construction objectives represent the City’s RHNA for the Sixth Cycle Housing Element update. Estimates include units from approved and under review projects, as well as projected accessory dwelling units (ADUs).
2. The Fairfield Housing Authority may utilize available funding – HOME, CDBG, etc. allocations – to provide funding during the planning period to fund projects that improve and maintain the quality of the City’s housing stock and resi- dential infrastructure. Estimates are based on 1-year goals for housing rehabilitation in the City’s 2021-2022 Annual Action Plan, projected over the 8-year period.
3. Conservation estimates are based on the number of estimated assisted units at-risk of conversion to market rate provided by the California Housing Partnership. These data identify homes without a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability beyond the indicated timeframe and unless otherwise noted are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. Fairfield’s assisted units are at moderate to very high risk of conversion, and the city has 170 potentially at-risk units. At-risk units are discussed further in the Housing Needs Assessment.
4. The total very-low-income housing need is 792 units. Extremely-low-income housing need is assumed to be 50 percent of very-low-income housing need, or 396 units.
Packet Page 483 of 846Attachment 5 Page 202 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
201
This page left intentionally blank
Packet Page 484 of 846Attachment 5 Page 203 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
202
Appendix A. Evaluation of Prior Housing Element
A.1 Regional Housing Need Allocation Progress
During the 2015-2023 Housing Element period, Fairfield’s Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) was 3,100 housing units across all income levels. The City identified sites capable of ac- commodating a total of 7,198 units (232.2 percent of the RHNA), largely in the Train Station Spe- cific Plan and in the downtown area along West Texas Street.
While the City has met its above-moderate housing allocation and is on track to meet its moderate- income allocation for the 5th cycle, the City is falling short of its low-income and very-low-income housing targets. The City has limited control over housing market conditions, and subsidies avail- able for affordable housing development are often not sufficient to cover the high costs of develop- ment, which include land, construction, and labor costs. Between 2015 and 2021, the City permitted a total of 152 very-low-income units (including extremely-low-income units), 109 low-income units, 371 moderate-income units, and 2,776 above-moderate-income units. See Chart A-1 for a comparison of approval rates to the 5th cycle RHNA, as well as a comparison to the increased 6th cycle allocation.
Chart A-1. Comparison of 5th and 6th Cycle RHNA
792
464
539
1,274
152
109
371
2,776
779
404
456
1,461
Very Low
Low
Moderate
Above Moderate
Cycle 5 Allocation Cycle 5 Permitted Cycle 6 Allocation Packet Page 485 of 846Attachment 5 Page 204 of 565
Appendix A
203
A.2 Evaluation of Goals, Policies, and Actions
ASSESSMENT OF GOALS AND POLICIES
The 2015-2023 Housing Element outlined seven housing objectives with 32 policies and 78 policy actions to be taken to achieve those goals. The accomplishments of the goals and policies of the previous Housing Element is summarized in Table A-1 below. This is a high-level analysis meant to inform broad changes in the City’s goals and policies, and this Housing Element carries forward and consolidates goals and policies where appropriate.
ASSESSMENT OF ACTIONS
Among the 78 policy actions, there is opportunity for streamlining and consolidation. Some pro- grams have been completed or already implemented, many with the adoption of the Heart of Fair- field Specific Plan and implementation of the Train Station Specific Plan. Many policies do not have discrete timelines and could benefit from additional specificity. The Housing Action Plan provided in this Housing Element maintains effective actions that are appropriate to the Housing Element and consolidates related actions. A detailed assessment of each housing action is provided in Table A-1 below. The evaluation is based on input from a variety of City departments and agencies – including the Fairfield Housing Authority and Fairfield Community Development Department.
While individual housing actions are evaluated in Table A-1, the Housing Element must also assess the cumulative impact of housing actions on special needs groups. Objective 6, and all policies con- tained within, addresses fair housing issues and promotes actions to meet the housing needs of statutorily protected groups, many of which are considered “special needs.” There are 26 actions directly aimed at special needs groups – including persons experiencing homelessness, persons with a disability, older adults, migrant workers, extremely-low-income households, and Travis Air Force Base personnel.
Staff have identified additional follow-up actions and opportunities to further implement the Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan. While the majority of these actions have been identified as effective, there is still a clear gap in meeting the housing needs of some of these special needs groups – especially migrant workers, and those experiencing homelessness. Housing needs of migrant workers, partic- ularly those that may be undocumented or working in neighboring Napa, were identified as an area of concern. Additionally, as indicated in the needs assessment, the housing crisis has continued throughout the period, and rates of homelessness have increased. While individual City actions may be effective, more comprehensive steps need to be taken to encourage the production of emer- gency shelters, transitional and supportive housing, as well as housing affordable to lower-income groups.
Other steps the City will take to adequately meet the needs of special needs groups during the 2023- 2031 period are described in the Housing Action Plan.
Packet Page 486 of 846Attachment 5 Page 205 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
204
Table A-1 City Progress Report: Evaluating Objectives and Policies Since 2014 (Based on 2014-2022 Fairfield Housing Element)
No. Description Accomplishments
and Effectiveness
Should this objec-
tive/policy be re-
tained in the up-
date?
Continued Appropriateness
OBJECTIVE
1 Housing Opportunities:
Provide for varied
housing opportunities,
in terms of type, price,
amenities,
neighborhood design,
and location, for all
income groups and
family types.
Implementation
of Train Station
Specific Plan
includes this type
of varied
housing.
Yes Stakeholders indicated an
ongoing need for a greater
variety of housing types,
development patterns, and
amenities to meet the needs
of all stakeholders.
POLICY 1.1
Encourage multifamily
housing at appropriate
locations and densities,
focusing where possible
such new housing near
employment,
transportation, services,
and recreational
amenities.
Train Station
Specific Plan
implementation.
Heart of Fairfield
Plan entitlements
Yes Stakeholders would like to
see a variety of multifamily
housing types such as
townhomes, apartments, and
condominiums.
POLICY 1.2 Encourage mixed use
development that
provides unique housing
types, pedestrian
friendly design, home
ownership,
opportunities for
entrepreneurship and
employment, and access
to transit and services
such as childcare.
Planning for
Train Station
Town Center
continues.
Implementation
of the Heart of
Fairfield Plan,
including new
housing along
the West Texas
Street corridor.
Identification of
additional
corridors and
properties
suitable for
mixed-use
development
such as the North
Texas Street
corridor.
Yes
Stakeholders would like to
see new mixed-use
developments to increase
housing supply while
addressing needs for
additional commercial
services, as well as related
goals such as reducing
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).
Packet Page 487 of 846Attachment 5 Page 206 of 565
Appendix A
205
Table A-1 City Progress Report: Evaluating Objectives and Policies Since 2014 (Based on 2014-2022 Fairfield Housing Element)
No. Description Accomplishments
and Effectiveness
Should this objec-
tive/policy be re-
tained in the up-
date?
Continued Appropriateness
OBJECTIVE
2 Infill Development:
Encourage infill housing
in developed areas of
the City.
Heart of Fairfield
implementation
and East Tabor
housing
entitlements.
Yes Stakeholders have identified
infill development as a
strategy for new housing and
meeting City goals and
objectives related to
transportation and economic
development.
POLICY 2.1 Encourage property
owners of adjoining
parcels to consolidate or
otherwise cooperatively
develop their parcels.
Santa Monica
Street.
Yes The City is considering the
development of an Infill
Development Plan to identify
and promote target sites,
housing prototypes for
certain lot sizes, focus areas,
and necessary infrastructure
to support infill development.
POLICY 2.2 Encourage property
owners of smaller
parcels (less than two
acres) to work with the
City to develop
affordable ownership
housing where rental
housing is infeasible.
Heart of Fairfield
Plan
implementation.
Yes Opportunities have been
identified to encourage
property owners of smaller
parcels to develop affordable
ownership housing through
the City’s ADU Program and
potential future programs
such as low interest
rehabilitation loans for small
multifamily property owners
with shorter term
affordability covenants.
POLICY 2.3 Support infill housing
through public outreach
efforts in existing
neighborhoods.
Heart of Fairfield
Plan
implementation.
Fairfield is
currently
selecting a Real
Estate firm to
acquire land and
promote the
development of
high density
Yes The City is considering
developing a program to
acquire and build new units
directly and/or offer funding
to small property owners to
acquire parcels and develop
new ownership or rental
housing.
Packet Page 488 of 846Attachment 5 Page 207 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
206
Table A-1 City Progress Report: Evaluating Objectives and Policies Since 2014 (Based on 2014-2022 Fairfield Housing Element)
No. Description Accomplishments
and Effectiveness
Should this objec-
tive/policy be re-
tained in the up-
date?
Continued Appropriateness
ownership
housing.
OBJECTIVE
3 Affordability: Meet the
housing needs of
extremely low-, very
low-, low- and
moderate-income
households identified in
the Regional Housing
Needs Allocation.
Yes Stakeholders and the State of
California have identified
meeting the needs of
extremely-low-, very-low-,
low-, and moderate-income
households as a top priority.
POLICY 3.1 Assist developers
interested in developing
new affordable housing
for all income groups
(extremely low-, very
low-, low- and
moderate- income
households).
META Housing,
Mid Peninsula,
EAH, and
Parkside Flats
projects were all
supported by the
City in their
funding
packages. FHA
provided land,
funds and Project
Based Vouchers
(PBVs) to MidPen
Housing
development and
required 34 of 72
units be
affordable to
extremely-low-
and very-low-
income
households.
Yes Per SB 341, the Fairfield
Housing Authority (FHA) has
an obligation to target a
specific percentage of funds
for affordable housing to
lower/moderate income
groups.
POLICY 3.2 Support the use of state
and federal programs
and local and nonprofit
funding sources as
funding for affordable
housing construction
and rehabilitation.
The City is
developing
Lending and
Mortgage
Revenue Bond
Guidelines that
support the use
of local
Yes A Local Housing Trust Fund
and other funding
mechanisms are being
developed to source Local
Affordable Housing Lending
programs.
Packet Page 489 of 846Attachment 5 Page 208 of 565
Appendix A
207
Table A-1 City Progress Report: Evaluating Objectives and Policies Since 2014 (Based on 2014-2022 Fairfield Housing Element)
No. Description Accomplishments
and Effectiveness
Should this objec-
tive/policy be re-
tained in the up-
date?
Continued Appropriateness
government and
other funds
toward the
development of
affordable
housing
development.
POLICY 3.3 Encourage
homeownership for
moderate- and low-
income homebuyers.
The City has
developed and
implemented a
variety of
programs in past
years. Some
programs are
being “rebooted”
now. Three-unit
homeownership
project with
Habitat for
Humanity.
The City is
promoting the
development of
the previous Sem
Yeto school site
into a
homeownership
development for
low, moderate
and market rate
home buyers.
Yes A portion (20%) of Permanent
Local Housing Allocation
Program funds will be
targeted to home ownership
activities. These funds will be
available for 5 years, but this
may become an ongoing
resource.
POLICY 3.4 Implement state
requirements regarding
the location of
manufactured homes.
City has
approved mobile
homes as ADUs
subject to City
Ordinance
Yes
POLICY 3.5 Use Successor Housing
Agency revenues to
fund housing
rehabilitation programs
Mid Peninsula
and the use of
CDBG funds to
promote housing
Yes The City is and will be using
HOME, Cal Home and CDBG
funds for these programs not
low mod funds.
Packet Page 490 of 846Attachment 5 Page 209 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
208
Table A-1 City Progress Report: Evaluating Objectives and Policies Since 2014 (Based on 2014-2022 Fairfield Housing Element)
No. Description Accomplishments
and Effectiveness
Should this objec-
tive/policy be re-
tained in the up-
date?
Continued Appropriateness
and home buyer
assistance efforts
rehabilitation
program for low-
income
households.
POLICY 3.6 Support the Housing
Choice Voucher
Program for very low-
income households.
City continues to
operate the
Home Choice
Voucher (HCV)
Program.
Yes
POLICY 3.7 Maintain the
affordability of existing
affordable housing
developments.
Long term
restrictions
continue to be
applied to all
projects that
require City
funding.
Yes
POLICY 3.8 Encourage long-term
housing affordability.
See above Yes
OBJECTIVE
4 Relocation Assistance:
Provide relocation
assistance and, where
appropriate,
replacement of
affordable housing
removed in the City.
Yes Although the removal of
affordable housing has not
been an issue to date, the
City will continue to monitor
the potential conversion of
existing affordable units and
take actions to mitigate any
impacts.
POLICY 4.1 Assist lower income
households displaced by
the removal of
affordable units.
The City has not
experienced the
conversion of
existing
affordable units
during the 5th
Cycle Housing
Element.
Yes The conversion of affordable
housing units has not been a
recent issue. When property
owners that have utilized
state or federal funds for
project financing remove
affordable units, they are
required to adhere to
relocation requirements. The
City will take actions on this
topic if the property is owned
and managed by the City.
Packet Page 491 of 846Attachment 5 Page 210 of 565
Appendix A
209
Table A-1 City Progress Report: Evaluating Objectives and Policies Since 2014 (Based on 2014-2022 Fairfield Housing Element)
No. Description Accomplishments
and Effectiveness
Should this objec-
tive/policy be re-
tained in the up-
date?
Continued Appropriateness
OBJECTIVE
5 Preservation: Improve
and conserve the
existing supply of
housing and the City’s
neighborhoods.
Yes
POLICY 5.1 Continue to enforce the
City’s Community
Preservation Ordinance
and building codes.
Ongoing efforts
through Code
Enforcement and
the Building and
Fire Safety
Division of the
Community
Development
Department.
Yes
POLICY 5.2 Use available state and
federal funds for
rehabilitation assistance
for low-income
households, focusing
where appropriate on
projects benefiting
seniors, the disabled,
and veterans.
Housing
Rehabilitation
activities have
been limited over
past several
years, but will be
ramping up in
2022. Annual
volunteer-driven
programs such as
the SHARE and
Touch Up the
Town programs
will be facilitated
to assist low-
income families
and seniors with
minor
rehabilitation
projects.
Yes
POLICY 5.3 Continue to monitor
housing conditions.
Accomplishments
and effectiveness
is limited.
Monitoring is
primarily
complaint-driven
Yes
Packet Page 492 of 846Attachment 5 Page 211 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
210
Table A-1 City Progress Report: Evaluating Objectives and Policies Since 2014 (Based on 2014-2022 Fairfield Housing Element)
No. Description Accomplishments
and Effectiveness
Should this objec-
tive/policy be re-
tained in the up-
date?
Continued Appropriateness
through Code
Enforcement and
the Building and
Fire Safety
Division of the
Community
Development
Department.
POLICY 5.4 Reduce the impacts of
the Housing Finance
Crisis on neighborhood
livability, appearance,
and public safety.
No The impacts of the Housing
Finance Crisis from 2008 to
2014) are largely resolved.
POLICY 5.5 Preserve the
affordability of housing
which received federal,
state, and/or local
support, including
projects which are at
risk of converting from
affordable housing to
market rents.
Yes This policy is duplicative of
other policies and programs
and will be consolidated.
OBJECTIVE
6 Special Needs: Create
housing opportunities
for people with special
needs.
POLICY 6.1 Support the efforts of
Community Action
Partnership of Solano
Joint Powers Authority,
Solano County, and local
social service providers
to increase their
capacity to serve the
homeless
No Place Like
Home funds from
Solano County
were granted to
MidPen Housing
to provide
permanent
housing for
homeless. City
also committed
51 Project Based
Vouchers
targeting
extremely-low-,
Yes Homelessness was identified
as a top priority by
stakeholders for the 6th Cycle
Housing Element.
Packet Page 493 of 846Attachment 5 Page 212 of 565
Appendix A
211
Table A-1 City Progress Report: Evaluating Objectives and Policies Since 2014 (Based on 2014-2022 Fairfield Housing Element)
No. Description Accomplishments
and Effectiveness
Should this objec-
tive/policy be re-
tained in the up-
date?
Continued Appropriateness
very-low- and
low-income
homeless and/or
near homeless
households.
POLICY 6.2 Comply with all State
legal requirements,
including SB 2,
pertaining to zoning
provisions for homeless
shelters, transitional
housing, and supportive
housing.
SB2 compliance
accomplished
during last
Element cycle.
City also adopted
an Ordinance
facilitating the
development of
transitional
housing through
the “boarding
house” land use.
Homeless
Services Division
created and
implemented a
Temporary
Shelter Permit
Program to
increase
opportunity for
emergency
shelter services.
Yes New legal requirements are
continually being adopted by
the State of California.
POLICY 6.3 Support
nondiscrimination in the
sale, rental, and
financing of housing.
City contracts
with Fair Housing
Services of
Northern
California to help
address
discrimination in
housing.
Yes The City funds several
organizations using CDBG
grants that provide legal
services to low-income
households regarding these
issues. The City will continue
funding these organizations.
POLICY 6.4 Provide for needed
social services in new
and rehabilitated
affordable housing,
Several approved
projects including
those developed
by META,
Yes The provision of social
services is a requirement in
Lending Guidelines and will
be emphasized in all future
Packet Page 494 of 846Attachment 5 Page 213 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
212
Table A-1 City Progress Report: Evaluating Objectives and Policies Since 2014 (Based on 2014-2022 Fairfield Housing Element)
No. Description Accomplishments
and Effectiveness
Should this objec-
tive/policy be re-
tained in the up-
date?
Continued Appropriateness
including services for
single mothers and
families. All multifamily
projects that include
Redevelopment Agency
or City funding shall
address social services
and amenities such as
childcare, counseling,
and education.
Parkside Flats
and Mid Penn
offer social
services.
The City has
expanded this
requirement to
include
emergency
shelter and
support services
for all city-
funded homeless
services
programs.
development projects
receiving City subsidies. It's
common for developers of
affordable housing to provide
social services on site. Many
affordable housing
developers rely on these
programs to maximize points
on state bonds and credit
applications.
POLICY 6.5 Support housing
programs targeted to
older adults, 55 years of
age and above, taking
into account lifestyle,
health issues, and
income.
None Yes Supportive housing programs
for older adults is currently
addressed in CDBG funding.
The City will consider
supportive housing programs
and other methods for
addressing the needs of older
adults.
POLICY 6.6 Support efforts to meet
the housing needs of
Travis Air Force Base
personnel.
City continues to
work with the
Travis Airforce
Base and City of
Vacaville on
planning issues
related to the
base.
Yes The Georgetown property
remains an ongoing issue.
This development has the
potential to provide
affordable housing for
military and other low-
income families provided it is
rehabilitated, although water
and emergency response
access continues to provide a
barrier.
POLICY 6.7 Ensure that new
residential
developments include
housing accessible to
persons with disabilities
and others with physical
City implements
the California
Building Code.
Yes The City will comply with the
new State Affirmatively Fair
Housing Requirements. The
City ensures housing
accommodates the needs of
persons will disabilities
Packet Page 495 of 846Attachment 5 Page 214 of 565
Appendix A
213
Table A-1 City Progress Report: Evaluating Objectives and Policies Since 2014 (Based on 2014-2022 Fairfield Housing Element)
No. Description Accomplishments
and Effectiveness
Should this objec-
tive/policy be re-
tained in the up-
date?
Continued Appropriateness
conditions that make it
difficult for them to use
conventional housing.
through Fair Housing efforts
and the installation of
accessibility features using
CDBG rehabilitation grants.
POLICY 6.8 Encourage housing for
larger families.
Recently
approved
projects,
including META,
Santa Monica
Street, Parkside
Flats and Fair
Haven Commons
, offer larger
(three-bedroom)
units. The
market meets
this need for
above moderate
households
Yes. The acquisition of the
Verdant project at Green
Valley apartments through
the California Community
Housing Agency bond
program is providing family
size (three-bedroom) units to
households at 80%, 100%,
and 120% of Area Median
Income.
POLICY 6.9 Support regional and
County efforts to meet
the needs of migrant
and seasonal farm
workers and their
families.
None No Fairfield has a high number
of migrant and seasonal
workers who commute to
Napa Valley daily. Many are
currently living in lower-
priced motels on North Texas
Street and low-rent
apartments with up to 15
people living in one
apartment to save costs.
Continue addressing the need
for affordable housing
targeting homeless,
extremely-low-, very-low-
and low-income households,
as these populations overlap
with the migrant population.
POLICY
6.10 Address the needs of
developmentally
disabled individuals.
None
This is required by the
Analysis of Impediments as
Packet Page 496 of 846Attachment 5 Page 215 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
214
Table A-1 City Progress Report: Evaluating Objectives and Policies Since 2014 (Based on 2014-2022 Fairfield Housing Element)
No. Description Accomplishments
and Effectiveness
Should this objec-
tive/policy be re-
tained in the up-
date?
Continued Appropriateness
well as the recent Housing
and Urban Development Fair
Housing and Equal
Opportunity – particularly for
multi-family properties and
subrecipients. All tax credit
projects must provide two
percent of housing units to
the hearing and visually
impaired population.
OBJECTIVE
7 Energy Conservation:
Promote energy
conservation.
POLICY 7.1 Implement state energy
conservation standards.
State and
Municipal
Building Codes.
Yes
POLICY 7.2 Encourage energy-
conserving development
patterns.
Train Station
Specific Plan is
centered around
a train station
and transit-
oriented
development.
Implementation
of the Heart of
Fairfield, which
encourages
compact infill
and transit-
oriented
development.
Yes
POLICY 7.3 Assist low-income
households in
weatherproofing their
homes.
None Yes The City receives regular
requests from residents on
fixed incomes for grants and
loans to protect their
properties from extreme
temperatures and address
high utility bills. The City may
address this issue through
Packet Page 497 of 846Attachment 5 Page 216 of 565
Appendix A
215
Table A-1 City Progress Report: Evaluating Objectives and Policies Since 2014 (Based on 2014-2022 Fairfield Housing Element)
No. Description Accomplishments
and Effectiveness
Should this objec-
tive/policy be re-
tained in the up-
date?
Continued Appropriateness
general rehabilitation
guidelines.
Packet Page 498 of 846Attachment 5 Page 217 of 565
1 Appendix B. Community Outreach
B.1 Materials
For a summary of community outreach, please see Chapter 1. This appendix contains the following mate- rials:
•Citywide postcard, distributed to over 40,000 households •Frequently Asked Questions document, distributed at pop-up and in-person events •Trilingual flyer, distributed at pop-up and in-person events, displayed at bus stops, and included as handout for small business outreach
•Housing Element Stakeholder Meeting Summary: Housing Advocates •Housing Element Stakeholder Meeting Summary: For-Profit and Non-Profit Housing Developers •Fairfield Forward 2050 Housing Workshop Report
•Fairfield Forward 2050 Housing Workshop Social Media
•Fairfield Forward 2050 Housing Workshop Slides
•Comments received during public comment period, August 23rd through September 22nrd, 2022 Other surveys, meeting summaries, and General Plan Update background documents are available at https://www.fairfieldforward.com/meeting-documents and https://www.fairfieldforward.com/reports- products.
Packet Page 499 of 846Attachment 5 Page 218 of 565
HELP SHAPE FAIRFIELD'S FUTURE
The City of Fairfield is updating its General Plan,
the city’s long-range roadmap for change and
preservation. The plan will address topics such
as land use, housing, economic opportunity,
open space, environmental protection, public
health and social equity, and transportation. The
plan’s success depends on your input!
Visit Fairfieldforward.com/participate to:
Sign up for online community workshops
– Feb 11th at 6pm
– Feb 13th at 10am
Take an online visioning survey
Ang City Of Fairfield ay nagsasagawa na
baguhin ang Pangkalahatang Plano, ang layunin
ay pagbabago at pangangalaga ng mapa ng
daan. Yung Proyekto Pasulong ng Fairfield ang
sasagot sa ag-uusapan ay paano gagamitin ang
mga lupa, pagpapabahay, oportunidad sa pangk-
abuhayan, bakanteng lote, proteksyon nang
kapaligiran, kalusugang pampubliko, kabutihang
panlahat at transportasyon. Ang ikakatagumpay
nang plano ay depende sa iyong mga boses.
Pumunta sa Fairfieldforward.com/participate
upang:
Pumunta kayo sa online Community Work-
shops
– 6pm, Pebrero 11
– 10am, Pebrero 13
Siguraduhin nyo na kunin ang online Visioning
Survey
MAG TULUNGAN BAGUHIN ANG KINABU
KA SAN NG FAIRFIELD
La Ciudad de Fairfield está actualizando su plan
general, este es el mapa y guía a largo plazo
para el cambio y preservación de la ciudad. El
plan va cubrir temas tales como el uso de la
tierra, vivienda, oportunidad económica,
espacio abierto, protección ambiental, salud
pública y equidad social y transportación. ¡El
éxito de este proyecto, llamado Fairfield
Adelante, depende de su participación!
Visite Fairfieldforward.com/participate para:
Inscribirse para nuestros próximos eventos
comunitarios virtuales en:
– 6pm, 11 de febrero
– 10am, 13 de febrero
Tome la encuesta visionaria
AYUDE DISEÑAR EL FUTURO DE FAIRFIELD
Packet Page 500 of 846Attachment 5 Page 219 of 565
Inscribirse a la lista de correo electrónico del proyecto para recibir actualizaciones y oportunidades de participar en:
www.fairfieldforward.com/participate
Subscribe to the project email list for updates and opportunities to participate at: www.fairfieldforward.com/participate
Mag-subscribe sa listahan ng email ng proyekto para sa mga update at pagkakataon na lumahok sa:
www.fairfieldforward.com/participate
Join us! ¡Unése a nosotros! Sumali ka!
www.Fairfi eldforward.com/participate
LOCAL POSTAL CUSTOMER
Packet Page 501 of 846Attachment 5 Page 220 of 565
What is a General Plan?
The General Plan is the roadmap to guide
future development and preservation in
Fairfield. This document will set the vision and
goals for growth in our city for years to come.
The General Plan addresses land use, commu-
nity design, transportation, housing, climate
change, and social justice. It also can help to
support businesses and jobs.
Why does it matter?
You, your family, or your business will be
impacted by the policies in the General Plan
and you can help shape them. You are an
expert on living or working in Fairfield, and we
want to hear your vision for the City! We need
your participation to help us identify and fix
what could be better, preserve and enhance
what is special, and shape a more equitable,
sustainable and dynamic Fairfield in 2050.
How can I participate?
►Subscribe to receive project updates at
ht tp://fairfieldforward.com/subscribe
►Take surveys, attend events like this one,
and attend project workshops
►You can always contact the Project team
and tell us your opinion about what changes
you would like to see in Fairfield for you and
your family.
¿Qué es un Plan General?
El Plan General es el esquema para guiar el desar-
rollo futuro y la preservación en Fairfield. Este
documento establecerá la visión y las metas para el
crecimiento de Fairfield en los próximos años. El Plan
General aborda el uso de la tierra/territorio, diseño
comunitario, transporte, viviendas, cambio climático,
y justicia social. También puede apoyar empresas
y empleos.
¿Por qué eso importa?
Usted, su familia, o su empresa van a ser impact-
ados por las pólizas en el Plan General y usted
puede ayudar a darles forma. Usted es experto/a
en lo que es vivir o trabajar en Fairfield, y queremos
escuchar su visión para la Ciudad! Necesitamos su
participación para ayudarnos a identificar y arreglar
lo que podría ser mejor, preservar y mejorar lo que
es especial y dar forma a un Fairfield más equitativo,
sostenible y dinámico en el año 2050.
¿Cómo puedo participar?
►Inscribirse para recibir actu-
alizaciones del proyecto en
http://fairfieldforward.com/subscribe
►Tomar encuestas, asistir a eventos como este y
asistir a talleres del proyecto
►Siempre puede contactar el equipo del proyecto y
decirnos su opinión del cambio que quieres ver
en Fairfield para usted y su familia.
Get involved today at / Participe hoy en:
ww w.FairfieldForward.com
Packet Page 502 of 846Attachment 5 Page 221 of 565
Get involved today at / Participe hoy en / Makisali ngayon sa:
w w w.FairfieldForward.com
H ELP PLAN FAIRFIELD’S FUTURE!
¡Ayude a planificar el futuro de Fairfield! Tulungan Planuhin ang Hinaharap ng Fairfield! The City of Fairfield is drafting
its General Plan for the next 30
years. We need your participation
to help us identify and fix what
could be better, preserve and
enhance what is special, and
La ciudad de Fairfield está
redactando su plan general
para los próximos 30 años.
Necesitamos su participación para
ayudarnos a identificar y arreglar
lo que podría ser mejor, preservar
Ang Lungsod ng Fairfield ay naglal-
abas ng Pangkalahatang Plano para
sa susunod na tatlumpung taon. Kail-
angan namin ang iyong pakikilahok
upang matulungan kaming makilala
at ayusin kung ano ang maaaring
maging mas mahusay, mapanatili at
shape a more equitable, sustainable
and dynamic Fairfield in 2050. No
matter how much time you have,
there are ways to contribute and
make your voice heard.
y mejorar lo que es especial y dar
forma a un Fairfield más equitativo,
sostenible y dinámico en el año 2050.
No importa cuánto tiempo tenga, hay
varias formas de contribuir y hacer su
voz escuchada.
mapahusay kung ano ang espesyal, at
bumuo ng isang mas pantay, napap-
anatiling at pabago-bagong Fairfield
noong 2050. Hindi mahalaga kung
gaano karaming oras ang mayroon ka,
may mga paraan upang mag-ambag at
gumawa narinig ng boses mo.
Packet Page 503 of 846Attachment 5 Page 222 of 565
Housing Element Stakeholder Meeting 1: Housing
Advocates
OCTOBER 5, 2021
ATTENDEES
Fairfield Staff
• Amy Kreimeier
• Brian Miller
Dyett & Bhatia
• Alison Moore
• Matt Alvarez-Nissen
• Katherine Stiegemeyer
Stakeholders
• Caminar Solano Region
• Bethel Community Church
• SHELTER Inc.
DISCUSSION NOTES
The HE focuses on special needs groups. IF you serve any of these groups, what are their needs, and how can they be better met?
• There are very few resources/inventory available for those who have little to no income • Unhoused population is aging as well as general population • Need to consider needs of those with disabilities or aging who have a fixed-income • Housing is one aspect – but supportive services for those going into housing is needed What types of housing do your clients/customers prefer? • Need housing developed for those experiencing mental health disorders – in particular sites where they can live alone rather than communally – people need privacy as their working through the dynamics that put them into permanent supportive housing • Studios and apartments for individuals with mental health needs • Rental housing for families
Packet Page 504 of 846Attachment 5 Page 223 of 565
Are there certain areas where you think housing should/should not be developed? • Many of the residents served by Bethel live in East Tabor corridor, Grande Circle • Living in the older neighborhoods of the city, not the new up-and-coming areas • Wherever housing goes you should consider those with lower incomes – TSSP should include consideration for low-income residents
• Need consideration for transportation when planning for low-income housing – oftentimes people in these socioeconomic situations rely on alternate transportation modes • Also focusing on areas where they can access amenities and services easily and not always have to rely on the bus to get somewhere
Major challenges/constraints
• Affordability – lots of new housing going in at One Lake but only one place with apartments, don’t know what the price level is going to be
- Amy – that apartment complex is going to be 100% affordable (not sure of the breakdown of income levels)
• We need a greater percentage of low-income units if we’re doing a large development What can the city do to promote affordable housing?
• How do people find out about affordable housing (such as that at One Lake)? • Because units are so limited in their availability, people are constantly scrambling – causes a sense of uncertainty – we could do a better job of advertising units and shaping the way that we advertise • Brian – city wants higher incomes in HoF to support economic development/revitalization goals.
There is an affordable housing aspect, but it’s not intended to be dominant - Fairfield doesn’t have an inclusionary housing program like some cities do • Rental subsidies have been helpful – vouchers as well as programs that provide help with move-in costs, deposits, etc.
• Partnering with agencies or entities that provide the wrap-around support components will be immeasurable in terms of providing long-term housing to residents • Classes that help people build skills on entering the rental market • Amy – help with credit, financial education, putting services where people are (e.g., daycare, mental health services)
• Changing the name/mindset of “affordable” – that “affordable” means poverty or is derogatory – rather, affordable should encompass most of us – those that aren’t rich
Packet Page 505 of 846Attachment 5 Page 224 of 565
Housing Element Stakeholder Meeting 2: Developers
OCTOBER 8, 2021
ATTENDEES
Fairfield Staff
• Amy Kreimeier
• Brian Miller
Dyett & Bhatia
• Alison Moore
• Matt Alvarez-Nissen
• Katherine Stiegemeyer
Stakeholders
• EAH Housing
• De Novo Homes
• AG Spanos
• Seeno Developers
• Republic Urban Properties
• Lewis Planned Communities
• MidPen Housing
DISCUSSION NOTES
What do you think are the major challenges facing Fairfield, in terms of housing? • There is an overabundance of commercial land in town (especially in Cordelia), with opportunities for medium to higher density residential. o Office complex off campus lane, by the Costco, etc. that are just sitting vacant. Residential overlay or rezone to residential would be great.
• That plus the reality of the construction market, supply chain issues, labor market, etc. Land is always a price driver. The City needs to look at its fee programs. o In the Northeast area, the fee program hasn’t been updated since 2013. o Cost of project on the ground vs project in the fee book can be divergent by as much as 30 or 40 percent.
• The City can proactively help itself by keeping those programs current and giving developers certainty.
Affordable developer challenges:
Packet Page 506 of 846Attachment 5 Page 225 of 565
• One of the challenges was getting local funding from the City. There has been a lot of City staff turnover, not really been a formal process to apply for local funding. • Hard to get state funding without local commitment.
• Development fees are high, lack of funding for affordable housing. Lower development fees for affordable housing projects, could be mitigated by the city. Staffing at the city has been an issue, not enough capacity even for the building permit process. • Large footprint of Fairfield is a challenge. Lots of different populations and needs spread throughout the city.
• Need for more dispersal of housing types, but also how to make those areas more attractive with more amenities. City policies will play a huge role in this. • The state has adopted the TCAC opportunity maps, Fairfield does not fare very well in those maps. It is more difficult to move projects forward that aren’t 100 percent supportive housing and not in a high opportunity area.
• Need to look at requirements in the zoning code. There are lots of constraints for smaller lot development, like parking, setbacks, private open space, amenities, etc. The outcome is many projects are too expensive. Code plus development fees make things expensive. • Especially near the train station, some of the highest costs in town. Any interim solution would be helpful, like a fee reduction holiday.
What development standards present the greatest challenges? • The amount of offsite infrastructure required is a bit overburdening and could make a project infeasible. For a project that meets the missing middle, there are a lot of improvements required. The City needs to step back to back to see which improvements are necessary. Extra improvements make it difficult for a for rent developer, you can’t pass costs along like a for sale developer could.
• Another participant noted that no conditions of approval were overly onerous for offsite improvements. Fees are higher than she has seen in Alameda County or Hayward, etc. other places have more breaks on impact fees for affordable housing. • Another developer used the density bonus to get some waivers, like parking, private open space, etc. some of those requirements do add costs
• The city is a good partner, but they are understaffed. When you’re trying to move with a rapid market, delays become problematic. Cost driver is fees, as fees are high. They’re not exorbitant, but they’re high. But fees are supposed to pay for staffing, and they have to bring in 3rd party staffing to help expedite the process. o The City should simplify things and create a streamlined approval process. There is lots of give and take in the building process, but utilizing standards that already exist could eliminate lots of this.
o PG&E public utility easement. Trying to mandate that all SFR needs 10 feet.
Conflicting standards with city zoning. Livermore got around this. Look to example cities.
Packet Page 507 of 846Attachment 5 Page 226 of 565
What are trends in housing development that could have the biggest positive or negative impact? • The City could provide a wider range of densities that are allowed. It might not pencil right now, but could be attainable down the road. Don’t make minimum densities too high. Medium density 8-20 range, etc.
• For sale single family – small lot higher density detached, 8 -10 on the for sale side. Yard and a driveway. Attainability by design.
• 25-30 du/ac stacked flat apartments
• Short of credits, 30 might be the max
• For market rate, the sweet spot is 8-10. In the zoning for RM, the common open space percentage set aside for the community and the rear yard private space really skews the densities, more than other jurisdictions. Without that, would be in the 10-12. • The more flexible development standards can be, the more they can avoid doing PD rezones, neighborhood opposition groups, CEQA exemptions, streamline entitlement process, etc. • Private open space makes lot coverage extremely difficult. The standard presumes everyone wants certain things, but what they’ve seen is there is a lot of different ways to get to that open space. No flexibility in the current zoning code, would like to see inventiveness. • One developer’s project is just under 30 du/ac; a three story walkup. It is hard to do very high density just because of high costs. State funding sources in Fairfield would require at least 30 du/ac to get points, wouldn’t be competitive without those points. Would like to see some flexibility to go above 30 du/ac to get those infill points. • What affected one developer’s affordable project in Suisun was relaxed parking standards because the project was close to transit.
• Another developer used the density bonus to reduce parking. At their current site in Fairfield, the density is over 20 du/ac; a mix of 2 and 3 story walkup. Can’t really afford to go higher density with podium, doesn’t pencil out and there’s just not enough local funding. Local AMIs are lower in Solano, so can’t afford the higher rates.
• Density is important for state funding, that 30 du/ac threshold shuts them out of funding • There is a much bigger gap on lower-income RHNA numbers, due to a lack of local funding. • Affordable by design is an important aspect to all this. Easy to push costs on less dense and higher income housing. Not really creating affordable housing. From the median density level, there is a way to get to more affordable housing via design.
• Look at similar cities that have successful projects, like no front yard (water, energy savings, etc.).
Working towards designs that reduce costs
Look at neighborhoods with single car garages, small setbacks, etc. and people love it. More potential in Fairfield
• Accessory Dwelling Units
o In Sonoma, the City required them to build it instead of optional. Ended up finding out that people liked them, but didn’t want to pay the nominal sq foot for new development.
Packet Page 508 of 846Attachment 5 Page 227 of 565
o Promoting attached in-law units as part of the main structure would be conducive.
Doesn’t necessarily need to be detached.
o Promote anybody that wants to develop attached ADU. Make people aware of incentives.
What amount of subsidy is needed to make units affordable? • It depends on the income level you target. Different level of subsidy to reach lower incomes. Not a magic number. At least 10% of funding needs to come from locality for tax credit affordable.
Needs to come as a first commitment, first money in.
Is there anything else you would like to add?
• When selecting sites, try to run it through TCAC and the state funding sources. Make sure all the funding criteria is in place. Affordable housing developers run this analysis, make sure they line up.
• Look at other cities’ successful programs.
o Livermore building standards, lots of similarities. Not the fee program, but look at the zoning. Also look at West Sacramento, Sacramento (medium density), plethora of good projects in other cities. Examples of Lewis’ other projects across the state. o Like with ADUs, have some creativity and flexibility on how that might be achieved. o Too much private open space
• Zoning and development standards.
o In the city of Petaluma, they have form based codes for their SP. Helpful for designing affordable housing development, reduce setbacks, reduced parking, etc.
What are the top two things you’d like to see in the Housing Element? • Impact fee credits and flexibility,
o Calculating the density – told their calculation goes to the center line of the public streets instead of future right of way. On the lower end of density, including extra space they wouldn’t be able to develop. More challenging to meet that minimum du/ac
• Developable sites that have gone through a SP or some sort of EIR process • A low-moderate fund
• Local match and fee credits
• Fee release on higher density (impact fees) and changes at the state level (per sq ft vs per door fee programs). Changes in zoning.
o Confirms that other cities calculate density based on future right of way, not center line of the street.
Packet Page 509 of 846Attachment 5 Page 228 of 565
Fairfield Forward 2050 Housing Workshop
1 Fairfield Forward 2050
Housing Workshop Report
JUNE 1, 2022
The City of Fairfield
Packet Page 510 of 846Attachment 5 Page 229 of 565
Fairfield Forward 2050
2 Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... 2 Project Background and Meeting Objectives ............................................................................ 3 Workshop Location and Format ................................................................................................ 3 Breakout Group Discussions ...................................................................................................... 3 Appendix A: Breakout Group Facilitator Notes ......................................................................... 4
Packet Page 511 of 846Attachment 5 Page 230 of 565
Fairfield Forward 2050 Housing Workshop
3 Project Background and Meeting Objectives
Workshop Location and Format
Breakout Group Discussions
Packet Page 512 of 846Attachment 5 Page 231 of 565
Fairfield Forward 2050
4 KEY TAKEAWAYS
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Appendix A: Breakout Group Facilitator Notes
GROUP 1 NOTES
Packet Page 513 of 846Attachment 5 Page 232 of 565
Fairfield Forward 2050 Housing Workshop
5 •
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Discussion
•
•
•
•
•
Packet Page 514 of 846Attachment 5 Page 233 of 565
Fairfield Forward 2050
6 •
•
•
•
•
o
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Packet Page 515 of 846Attachment 5 Page 234 of 565
Fairfield Forward 2050 Housing Workshop
7 •
•
•
o
o
o
•
•
o
o
o
o
o
o
•
o
o
Packet Page 516 of 846Attachment 5 Page 235 of 565
Fairfield Forward 2050
8 o
•
•
•
•
-
o
o
o
o
o
-
-
o
-
-
-
o
o
o
-
o
Packet Page 517 of 846Attachment 5 Page 236 of 565
Fairfield Forward 2050 Housing Workshop
9 Zoom Chat Transcript
Packet Page 518 of 846Attachment 5 Page 237 of 565
Fairfield Forward 2050
10 Packet Page 519 of 846Attachment 5 Page 238 of 565
Fairfield Forward 2050 Housing Workshop
11 Packet Page 520 of 846Attachment 5 Page 239 of 565
Fairfield Forward 2050
12 Packet Page 521 of 846Attachment 5 Page 240 of 565
Packet Page 522 of 846Attachment 5 Page 241 of 565
Packet Page 523 of 846Attachment 5 Page 242 of 565
Fairfield Forward General Plan
Update and Climate Action Plan
Housing Element Workshop
May 9th, 2022
Packet Page 524 of 846Attachment 5 Page 243 of 565
OBJECTIVES
•Learn about the Housing
Element Update and its
relationship to the General Plan
Update
•Discuss where housing should
go in Fairfield
•Get your input on show the City
should produce more housing,
preserve existing housing, and
protect tenants
Packet Page 525 of 846Attachment 5 Page 244 of 565
La traducción en español está disponible. Por favor “levante la mano” (marque *9 por teléfono.)
In your meeting/webinar controls, click Interpretation.
Select the language that you would like to hear:English.
En los controles de
la reunión o el seminario web,haga clic en Interpretación.
Haga clic en el idioma que desee escuchar: español (Spanish). (Opcional)
Para escuchar solo el idioma interpretado,haga clic en Silenciar a udio original.
INTERPRETATION
If on phone,
*6 unmute
*9 raise hand
Packet Page 526 of 846Attachment 5 Page 245 of 565
AGENDA
1.Introductions to City Staff
and Consulting Team
2.Overview of General Plan
Update
3.Housing Element
Requirements and Fairfield’s
Housing Needs
1.Housing Sites
2.Housing Programs
4. Discussion
Packet Page 527 of 846Attachment 5 Page 246 of 565
Overview of General Plan
Up date
Packet Page 528 of 846Attachment 5 Page 247 of 565
•Long-range plan for the future of
Fairfield in 2050
•Last comprehensively updated in 2002
•Housing Element Update is parallel to
the General Plan Update
•Policy direction and shared goals
inform the Housing Element
•Land use classifications outlined in
GPU are used in the site selection
process
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Packet Page 529 of 846Attachment 5 Page 248 of 565
WHAT WE'VE HEARD
•Importance of addressing homelessness and
long-term solutions to provide housing.
•Pressing need for comprehensive services
fo r unhoused individuals to address mental
health,transitional housing, job training, and
other needs in order to achieve long-term
housing stability.
•Preference for mixed use, single-family, and the
preservation of existing housing
•Desire to focus housing in infill areas (areas
where development already exists)
•Desire for more diverse housing options
•Rental family housing
•More affordable live-work units
•Homes for younger couples or single
people wanting to live in mixed-use areas
•Workforce housing to allow entry-
level employees to live in Fairfield before
they move to home ownership
•Major transformation along North Texas St and
at Solano Town Center mall
Packet Page 530 of 846Attachment 5 Page 249 of 565
ZOOM POLL
What housing
issues are most
important to you?
Packet Page 531 of 846Attachment 5 Page 250 of 565
Housing Element
Re quirements and Fairfield’s
Housing Needs
Packet Page 532 of 846Attachment 5 Page 251 of 565
HOUSING ELEMENT BACKGROUND
•Housing Element -One of eight required
elements of the City’s General Plan; includes
policies that:
•Provide opportunities for housing development for
all economic segments of the community
•Remove constraints on housing supply and
affordability
•Reviewed by State Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD)
•Planning Period: January 2023 through
December 2030
Packet Page 533 of 846Attachment 5 Page 252 of 565
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION
•Fairfield’s “fair share” of projected regional need from January 2023 to December 2030 (6th cycle)
•All seven incorporated cities and unincorporated Solano County chose to form a subregional entity
Income Group 5th Cycle RHNA 6th Cycle RHNA
Units Percent Units Percent
Very -Low and Extremely-Low Income ( 120% of AMI, or over $119,150) 1,461 47.1% 1,274 41.5% Total 3,100 100.0% 3,069 100.0%
AMI=Area Median Income. For family of 4 in Solano County, AMI is $99,300 Packet Page 534 of 846Attachment 5 Page 253 of 565
HOUSING ELEMENT COMPONENTS
•Housing Needs Assessment
•Evaluate existing supply and housing needs of
the community, including special needs groups
•Constraints and Opportunities
•Identify governmental and non-governmental
constraints
•Housing Sites Inventory and Analysis
•Identify land suitable for
residential development to meet RHNA goals
•Programs
•Develop programs to meet housing needs
Housing Sites
Where is Fairfield planning for
housing? Is there enough land?
Housing Strategies
How will Fairfield meet the needs
of its people and achieve housing
growth?
Packet Page 535 of 846Attachment 5 Page 254 of 565
AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
•AB 686 (2018) requires Housing
Elements to affirmatively further
fair housing (AFFH)
•Include analysis of the following
topics:
•Fair Housing Enforcement and
Capacity
•Segregation and Integration
•Racially/Ethnically Concentrated
Areas of Poverty
•Access to Opportunity
•Disproportionate Housing Needs
(including displacement risk)
Packet Page 536 of 846Attachment 5 Page 255 of 565
AGE DISTRIBUTION
Age Group 2000 2010 2019
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Under 24 39,359 40.9% 39,745 37.7% 39,552 34.3%
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 and Older 15,197 15.8% 21,459 20.4% 27,787 24.1%
Total 96,178 100.0% 105,321 100.0% 115,282 100.0%
Fairfield's
population is aging.
Packet Page 537 of 846Attachment 5 Page 256 of 565
CURRENT HOUSING STOCK
Housing Type 2010 2020 Percent
Change
(2010-2020)
Units Percent Units 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%
Total 37,184 100.0% 40,220 100.0% 8.2%
Most of
Fairfield's
current housing
stock is single-
family detached.
Packet Page 538 of 846Attachment 5 Page 257 of 565
NEW HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
Income Level Units Built 2014-
2020
5th Cycle RHNA (2014-2022)
Projected
Need
Percent Met
Extremely-and
Very -Low Income 95 779 12%
Low Income 96 404 23.8%
Moderate Income 368 456 80.7%
Above-Moderate
Income 2,498 1,461 171.0%
Total 3,051 3,100 98.4%
Fairfield has
exceeded its above-
moderate housing
allocation but still
has a ways to go to
meet its lower
income categories.
Packet Page 539 of 846Attachment 5 Page 258 of 565
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY-RENTERS
Fair Market Rent: $2,382
Market rate source: Fair Market Rate Rent, HUD Packet Page 540 of 846Attachment 5 Page 259 of 565
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY-HOMEOWNERS
Packet Page 541 of 846Attachment 5 Page 260 of 565
SUMMARY OF HOUSING NEED
•Homeownership and rental costs are becoming increasingly unaffordable
•Single-family homes remain the dominant housing type,
although a significant number of units in larger multifamily projects have been built
•Need for housing opportunities for special needs groups including persons experiencing homelessness, farmworkers, and military employees at Travis Air Force Base.
Packet Page 542 of 846Attachment 5 Page 261 of 565
SUMMARY OF CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
•Challenges
•Current housing market in Fairfield is skewed
heavily towards single-family home development
•New housing should help to promote a better jobs-
housing balance in Fairfield
•Opportunities
•Growth in the Train Station Specific Plan and Heart
of Fairfield Specific Plan areas
•Fast tracked CEQA clear for projects that comply with the Specific Plans
•Significant vacant land for new housing located within the TSSP area
Packet Page 543 of 846Attachment 5 Page 262 of 565
HOUSING SITES INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
•Prepare an inventory of land suitable for residential development by RHNA income category
•Ensure that selected sites meet State requirements, especially for sites intended for lower income units
•Sites must show how Fairfield is planning for affordable housing in higher resource areas
•Sites for lower incomes must be between 0.5 and 10 acres; minimum density of 30 units per acre; and must not be located in hazard area
•General Plan Update ensures that there will be adequate sites to meet RHNA
Packet Page 544 of 846Attachment 5 Page 263 of 565
WHERE SHOULD
H OUSING GO?
Packet Page 545 of 846Attachment 5 Page 264 of 565
THE HOUSING ACTION PLAN: THREE P’S
PRODUCTION
Build more affordable
homes as well as more
homes in general
PRESERVATION
Keep existing stock of
affordable homes
affordable
PROTECTION
Protect communities’ ability to
stay together through tenant
protections that address
displacement
Packet Page 546 of 846Attachment 5 Page 265 of 565
DISCUSSION
Packet Page 547 of 846Attachment 5 Page 266 of 565
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
•What has your experience been like with housing in
Fairfield? What housing issues are you affected by?
•Where should housing go?
•Do you agree with identified locations?
•Can you think of others?
•What should the City focus on to:
•Produce more housing?
•Protect existing affordable housing?
•Protect tenants?
Packet Page 548 of 846Attachment 5 Page 267 of 565
Thank you!
Contact:
Jessie Hernandez, Associate Planner
[email protected]
Office 707-428-7450 / Fax 707-428-7621
Packet Page 549 of 846Attachment 5 Page 268 of 565
From: Noah Rumbaoa <
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2022 12:32 PM
To: Hernandez, Jessie
Subject: 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Comments
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear city staff and members of the Planning Commission, Please find below my comments for Fairfield’s 6th cycle Housing Element. I present these comments as a resident of Fairfield. These comments are informed by my own experiences and education, by outreach conducted with Early College High School students last year, and from other draft Housing Elements throughout Solano County (particularly the draft Vacaville Housing Element).
1. Adopt programs that incentivize and require building “missing middle” housing, strengthening Fairfield’s commitment to providing a mix of housing types, unit sizes, and affordability ranges. While the General Plan update’s guiding principles and Goal A of the draft Housing Element say that Fairfield is interested in having an array of housing types, there are not many actions that will make it easier to build “missing middle” types of housing. This includes duplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, cottages, multiplexes, and other housing types that are severely lacking in most parts of Fairfield. These types of housing provide different housing opportunities that can suit different housing needs and preferences. Currently, only Action 2.3 Design Standards and Support says that the City should adopt standards for one type of “missing middle” housing: live-work units. During outreach with high schoolers at Early College High School last year, many students recommended that the City adopt policies that make it easier to build other types of housing and to create mixed-use communities. Students argued that this could provide more functionality into lot spaces, make neighborhoods more walkable, provide more housing, and bring communities and businesses closer together. Vacaville’s draft Housing Element has various programs that can help achieve this:
o Program HE-3. Variety of Housing Types: clearly identifies “missing middle” housing as a priority and compels the City to amend the Municipal Code to incentivize diverse housing types and require new subdivisions to include housing other than single-family homes. This includes the following provision: The City will consider amending the Land Use and Development Code…to require new subdivisions to include two-, three-, and four-plexes or other targeted missing housing types that are designed to look cohesive with adjacent single-family homes.
o Program HE-17. Citywide Densities and Zoning: Increase minimum and maximum densities in lower density zones, such as the Residential Rural, CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Packet Page 550 of 846Attachment 5 Page 269 of 565
Residential Estates, Residential Low, and Residential Low Medium density zones, to allow for townhomes, duplexes, or other creative housing solutions that can be sold at a lower cost than detached, single- family homes to the populations in need of housing.
o Program HE-17. Citywide Densities and Zoning: Review of the outdoor recreation space standards to see if there is an opportunity to lessen the requirements or allow flexibility for multifamily, mixed-use, and affordable housing projects throughout the city.
2. Support Action 6.1 Change Zoning in Appropriate Nonresidential Zones.
This action will help to meet the General Plan update’s guiding principles and the Housing Element’s goal of creating walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods in commercial areas. High schoolers recommended a similar policy last year as a way to revitalize dying commercial areas (particularly at the mall and along North Texas) and to create walkable, resilient neighborhoods.
3. Support Action 6.3 Efficiency Units. This action will help to permit a diverse array of housing types as described in comment #1.
4. Incorporate “universal design” policies to better provide housing for persons with disabilities. While Action 7.2 Housing for Persons with Disabilities is a great start, the City could do more to encourage housing development that is friendly to those with different abilities. Vacaville’s draft Housing Element has a program (Program HE-2. Special Housing Needs and Underserved Populations) that encourages new units to be universally designed for both residents and visitors who may be older or who may have disabilities.
5. Develop resources and loan programs to facilitate ADU production. ADUs provide another type of housing that can be more affordable and provide housing for a greater array of needs. Action 5.1 ADU Incentives Program has some great ideas to increase ADU production, including exploring pre-approved ADU kits and allowing for reduced setbacks. As a similarly-sized city, Vacaville’s draft housing element has a program (Program HE-4. Accessory Dwelling Units/Junior Accessory Dwelling Units) that has the following actions:
o Collaborate with the Napa-Sonoma ADU Center to create a similar resource program and services to property owners in Vacaville who may be interested in adding an ADU to their property.
o Work with local lending organizations to create an ADU/JADU construction loan program - similar to Napa-Sonoma ADU Center’s loan program through Redwood Credit Union - that will help fund construction of these units.
o Research and coordinate with nonprofit organizations, builders, and banks regarding funding/assisting with construction costs and connect ADU/JADU owners and renters with that information. This will include encouraging financial institutions to appoint an “ADU/JADU Ambassador” who will be the local representative within the financial institution. The City would provide training and educational materials in multiple languages to the ambassadors. The City will maintain a list of ADU/JADU Ambassadors Packet Page 551 of 846Attachment 5 Page 270 of 565
and distribute the list to interested homeowners seeking information about finding loans for ADU/JADU development.
o Hold a community “ADU/JADU Open House” to share ideas and inspire homeowners to build these types of units.
6. Support Action 1.2 Inclusionary Housing. Housing affordability affects many people, especially young people and people of color who may not have access to resources or institutional knowledge that can help them find affordable housing.
In working with Early College students, housing affordability and preventing displacement were identified by students as high priorities. Adoption of an Inclusionary Housing policy will help to ensure the City meets its lower-income RHNA and has an adequate supply of affordable housing for its residents.
7. Support Action 8.2 Housing for Homeless and Special Needs. Providing housing for our unhoused community is a top priority not only for Early College students, but for the community and state as a whole. The City should go beyond state law in allowing housing, including navigation centers and permanent supportive housing, by-right throughout the city.
8. Create an action to increase community support for housing. In order to provide the diverse array of housing to meet the needs of all community members, including our seniors, youth, and unhoused, the City should adopt an action similar to one in Vacaville’s draft Housing Element. Their Program HE-13.
Community Support states: “The City will provide information to the public that could help bolster community support related to the range of missing housing types in the City…These information sessions could provide a forum for discussion regarding residential development costs and the cost of operating affordable housing, as well as addressing housing projects in light of housing needs. This campaign could include City Council working sessions; social media content; information available on the City’s website; and outreach to local journalists, media outlets, and community organizations. This type of action is especially important to help educate the community on the need for housing, its impacts, and how “missing middle” housing can be compatible with existing single-family neighborhoods.
9. Allow for greater flexibility to encourage more housing at a lower cost. In order to make providing housing more affordable, the City should adopt actions similar to those proposed in Vacaville’s draft Housing Element to ensure that developers can create affordable housing projects that are economically feasible.
This can include:
o Program HE-19. Alternative Parking Standards: If a new housing development project needs reduced parking to develop, the City could consider allowing developers to provide creative solutions, where feasible, to reduce parking requirements. Creative solutions may include supplemental transit passes, increased bicycle parking, a shared vehicles program, or other solutions agreed on by the City and the developer.
Packet Page 552 of 846Attachment 5 Page 271 of 565
10. Adopt an action for the City to facilitate the acquisition of at-risk affordable units by another for-profit or nonprofit entity to preserve affordable units.
Preventing displacement was a high priority identified by students at Early College High School. While Action 3.2 Preservation of At-Risk Housing Units is a good start to allow the City to directly intervene financially, Fairfield should have another action that directs the City to also try to “facilitate the acquisition of at-risk affordable units by another for-profit or nonprofit entity” as mentioned in Vacaville’s draft Housing Element.
o Program HE-27. At-Risk Units: If there are any units at risk of converting to market rate, the City shall:
i. Contact property owners of units at risk of converting to market-rate housing within three years of affordability expiration to discuss the City’s desire to preserve complexes/units as affordable housing. ii. Coordinate with owners of expiring subsidies to ensure the required notices to tenants are sent out at three years, 12 months, and six months.
iii. Reach out to agencies interested in purchasing and/or managing at-risk units.
iv. Work with tenants to provide education regarding tenant rights and conversion procedures pursuant to California law
All of the sites identified below will help to affirmatively further fair housing and create more walkable, diverse communities. These are goals identified in the General Plan update guiding principles and vision, by students at Early College High School, and by the Housing Element itself.
11. Cordelia Housing Sites. The opportunity sites identified off of Suisun Valley Road for low- and very-low-income housing should remain in the Housing Element. As a high-resource area, these three sites would help to bring a diversity of income ranges and perspectives to Green Valley / Cordelia.
Additionally, all three sites are within walking and biking distance to Solano College, the Westamerica office area, the jobs along the Business Center Drive corridor, and the Green Valley Shopping Center. This would especially be true if a protected bikeway were built on Business Center Drive (which should be considered as part of the larger General Plan update). While Cordelia has seen a lot of housing development throughout the last decade, these sites should remain in the Housing Element to help bring socioeconomic diversity to a mostly affluent area. Additionally, depending on the vision chosen for Cordelia, these sites could have even greater access to jobs and retail. Of all the locations in Cordelia, these three sites will help to affirmatively further fair housing by locating affordable housing near jobs, educational facilities, and shops.
12. Oliver Road Housing Sites. Like the sites in Cordelia, the opportunity sites identified off of Oliver Road for low- and very-low-income housing should also remain in the Housing Element. These sites provide affordable housing with access to jobs, restaurants, and retail within walking and biking distance.
Additionally, if future pedestrian and bike improvements were made to Travis Boulevard, these sites would also have close access to the Fairfield Gateway Packet Page 553 of 846Attachment 5 Page 272 of 565
PDA across the freeway, an area whose redevelopment is highly supported by young people, City Council, and the draft Housing Element itself. Like in Cordelia, these sites also help to affirmatively further fair housing.
13. E. Travis @ Sunset Housing Sites. Like the other sites, the opportunity site located at the southwest corner of East Travis Boulevard and Sunset Avenue will bring affordable housing close to jobs and retail across the street.
14. North Texas @ Cement Hill Housing Site. Like the other sites, this opportunity site will also provide affordable housing near jobs and retail. This also includes providing teacher housing within walking and biking distance to Fairfield High School, Sem Yeto High School, and the Public Safety Academy. Additionally, with future improvements to North Texas (including possible BRT and mixed-use development), this site could have great pedestrian, active transportation, and transit access to other parts of Fairfield, including downtown.
Thank you for your consideration,
Noah Rumbaoa
he/him
Packet Page 554 of 846Attachment 5 Page 273 of 565
From: Betty Green-Heffern <
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 2:20 PM
To: Hernandez, Jessie
Subject: Fairfield Forward 2050 comments
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Jessie,
I have just reviewed the draft City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element update and have serious concerns about the “Opportunity Sites” identified for more housing along Suisun Valley Road.
I attended the public meeting in April at Cordelia Library and our study group provided public input that the three vacant parcels along Suisun Valley Road, (which is adjacent to our neighborhood - Turnstone Homeowners) would be ideal locations for a school, park and/or retail (especially grocery) that we are severely lacking along Suisun Valley Road.
The draft housing element further adds housing in an area where existing housing lacks vital neighborhood resources. This includes the inability to walk to retail shopping such as groceries, no planning for schools to accommodate the many new students for all the new housing in this area in the past five to ten years (including the new dense apartment complex just built at Suisun Valley Road and Business Circle drive), and the lack of any public park in the entire North Cordelia area east of Green Valley Road.
Can you explain why these vacant parcels are recommended for rezoning for additional housing when they should be rezoned for schools, parks and neighborhood retail to fill existing needs?
I look forward to your response which I can share with our homeowner association and the other two home owner associations located adjacent to these vacant parcels. As is evident by our attendance at the April public meeting, we are all interested in working with the city to make the plans for the North Cordelia area conform to best practices which include schools, parks and daily services.
Thanks for your consideration.
Betty Green-Heffern
680 Peridot Place
Fairfield, CA
Packet Page 555 of 846Attachment 5 Page 274 of 565
From: Noah Rumbaoa https://www.onelakefamilyapts.com/
Thank you!
Noah Rumbaoa
he/him
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Packet Page 556 of 846Attachment 5 Page 275 of 565
From: n mdiz <
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 4:23 PM
To: Hernandez, Jessie
Cc: Feinstein, David M
Subject: Fairfield Housing Element: Fair housing policy violations
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
The Cordelia area of Fairfield has had NO master plan that allowed for good infrastructure to support the growing population created by approved housing projects.
The Train Specific Plan Area does have a great Master Plan. Infrastructure is Already in place for future residents of Fairfield. That is the Logical and Equitable location to assign high density apartment developments.
In Cordelia, Rodriguez High School was built in 2001. Yet Red Top Road is still just 2 lanes (one in each direction) with a FULL four way stop (no direct flow to the freeway). This is a perfect example of the lack of planning in Cordelia.
Now, to probably please some developer, the planning department again is targeting our area for over 257 high density unit apartments under the guise of complying with the RHNA low income housing component. A statement was made that the developer would NOT be required to build them for low income housing. So this appears to be a way to get 3 Spanos style apartments built in the North Cordelia area. Is the developer going to be the current owner... West America Bank? Or are they selling the parcels to Spanos or another developer?
A property owner called in to request that the Solano Mall be used for the low income high density housing requirement. Yet you chose to ignore the caller because you want the designation for the two West America Bank parcels. IF you were honestly searching for a solution that works for the city, the caller's request should have been seized as an avenue to solving the housing dilemma as the General Plan process already identified the Mall for future transformation.
As I suggested, the Train Specific Area already has the proper Master plan and the infrastructure to support 257 high density (possibly low income) units.
You are supposed to utilize fair housing principles in making decisions like this. But you are violating those principles as you plan to cram more apartments in a section of Fairfield that cannot sustain these changes.
Remove the two West America Parcels (and the parcel at Link/Pittman/Central Way as a backup) from your designated high density plans as you clearly admitted there are problems in the Cordelia area. There is NO equitable distribution requirement, just a citywide allocation. So, try the Mall (as the owner requested) or the Train Specific Plan area. Or, since there is no requirement that the apartments CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Packet Page 557 of 846Attachment 5 Page 276 of 565
be built for low income housing, even the downtown Fairfield area would better be served by this designation.
Here are some vacant lots (per Google maps):
Great Jones @ Empire
Texas @ Taylor
Packet Page 558 of 846Attachment 5 Page 277 of 565
Holiday Lane:
Indiana Street
Packet Page 559 of 846Attachment 5 Page 278 of 565
Pennsylvania @ Canova
Packet Page 560 of 846Attachment 5 Page 279 of 565
Your presentation said you have 10 days to respond to the community. I look forward to reading your written response to my comments.
Nora Dizon
Packet Page 561 of 846Attachment 5 Page 280 of 565
Packet Page 562 of 846Attachment 5 Page 281 of 565
Packet Page 563 of 846Attachment 5 Page 282 of 565
Packet Page 564 of 846Attachment 5 Page 283 of 565
Packet Page 565 of 846Attachment 5 Page 284 of 565
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 1314 Lincoln Ave., Ste. A, San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 457-5025 TDD: (800) 735-2922 www.fairhousingnorcal.org
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California
SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY: [email protected]
September 22, 2022
Jessie Hernandez
Associate Planner
Members General Plan Updating Team
RE: Fairfield Draft Housing Element
Dear General Plan Updating Team:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Housing Element (“Draft”). We appreciate all the work that has gone into producing this document, and we offer our comments for incorporation into the final document that moves Fairfield in the direction of significant progress to achieve housing justice and meet current and future housing needs.
We stand as partners committed to this goal.
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC) is a private nonprofit organization dedicated to assisting individuals experiencing housing discrimination and educating the community, including tenants, housing providers, and government employees, as to their rights and responsibilities under federal and state fair housing laws. The mission of FHANC is to ensure equal housing opportunity and to educate the community on the value of diversity in housing.
FHANC provides free comprehensive fair housing counseling services to individuals alleging housing discrimination in the cities of Fairfield and Vallejo in Solano County, as well as Marin County and Sonoma County (except the incorporated city of Petaluma).
FHANC also provides other services, such as foreclosure prevention counseling and trainings to housing providers, in other neighboring counties.
In addition to counseling and education services, FHANC recruits, trains and employs fair housing testers in order to investigate claims of housing discrimination and to assist in conducting systemic investigations.
At the outset, we urge the City’s planners and consultants to strengthen specificity throughout the plan to ensure it is clear, aligned, and actionable. State law requires all Housing Element programs to have beneficial impact within the planning period, including Packet Page 566 of 846Attachment 5 Page 285 of 565
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 1314 Lincoln Ave., Ste. A, San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 457-5025 TDD: (800) 735-2922 www.fairhousingnorcal.org
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California
identification of specific actions, which agency or official is responsible for those actions, and a timeline.1
Specifically, programs to affirmatively further fair housing must identify clear “metrics and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved.”2 Furthermore, a recent survey of HCD reviews of draft housing actions from Southern California jurisdictions emphasizes that time bound actions with “specific commitments [from local actors], metrics, and milestones” are required.3
FHANC appreciates the analysis and commitments that were included in the various sections addressing the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing (“AFFH”), including Table 3-6: Summary of Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Priorities, Fair Housing Goals (Section 6.1.D), and Fair Housing Programs (Section 6.2.10), as well as the FY 2022- 27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (Appendix D). However, these sections do not include sufficient detail and specificity, including the required metrics and milestones, to make the fair housing priorities and commitments outlined meaningful. Further, the Draft should be clearer about which specific programs and actions will serve to directly meet the City’s fair housing goals, as well as all of the other housing goals outlined in the Draft.
Finally, we urge Fairfield to commit to advancing policies that offer strong tenant protections as a key component of affirmatively furthering fair housing.
In order to meet the City’s requirement to affirmatively further fair housing, we urge the planning team to incorporate the suggestions below into Fairfield’s revised housing element.
Strengthen Connections of Programs to Fair Housing Policies and Goals Section 6.1 of the Draft includes Goals and Policies that are part of the City’s housing action plan. Section 6.2 outlines Programs and Actions to meet these Goals and Policies. However, it is unclear which programs and actions outlined in Section 6.2, and how exactly these programs and actions, will serve to meet each goal outline in Section 6.1.
We appreciate that programs can meet different policies and goals. But in the current version, there is no way for a reader to see which programs meet which policies. It is not the responsibility of citizens and organizations to sift through the programs to check that each policy or goal is supported by a particular program.
• Programs could be labeled with each policy/goal they support if there are more than one.
1 Gov. Code § 65583(c).
2 Gov. Code § 65583(c)(10)(A)(iv).
3 ABAG, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Policy Tips Memo Learning from Southern California & Sacramento: Early Experiences in Complying with AB686.
Packet Page 567 of 846Attachment 5 Page 286 of 565
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 1314 Lincoln Ave., Ste. A, San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 457-5025 TDD: (800) 735-2922 www.fairhousingnorcal.org
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California
• Hyperlinks could be used to indicate in the policy section which programs are related, and allow readers to see them
• A Table could be created to show them in a matrix
• AFFH actions should also be flagged in the body of the text alongside the requisite programs, rather than relegated to its own separate program.
Goal D in section 6.1 is to “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.” (p. 178).
Program 10 is a program to “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” (p. 189). However, the description of Program 10 primarily points to other programs and highlights the City’s contract with FHANC to provide fair housing counseling, investigation, mediation, and assistance with filing complaints. Program 10 states that that Programs 4, 6, 7, and 8 will serve to AFFH by rehabilitating homeowner and rental housing, encouraging the development of affordable housing, encouraging residential development, and addressing the needs of special-needs groups. However, the Draft does not specifically explain how these programs outlined under Program 10 will directly support each of the fair housing goals under Goal D, such as “Support nondiscrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing.” Further, most of the goals use words like “support,” and “encourage.” This non- committal language should be revised to include specific commitments to action in the sections involving AFFH, and in all sections of the Housing Element.
Overall, there is a lack of specific commitments and required metrics both in the “Goals and Policies” and “Programs” sections of the Draft. We urge the City to comply with its AFFH requirements by revising the Element to include quantifiable and measurable metrics in its fair housing goals and programs, and to explain exactly which programs and actions will allow the City to reach each distinct goal.
Prioritize Specific Policies and Programs to Protect Tenants We urge Fairfield to revise the Element to include a commitment to advancing policies and programs that offer strong tenant protections as a crucial component of affirmatively furthering fair housing. In the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice section, Table 44 outlines various housing policies compiled by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) critical to the development of affordable housing (p. 82 of Appendix D). In the chart, you note that Fairfield does not have several key policies that protect tenants, such as Rent Stabilization and Just Cause Eviction. Fairfield should commit to enacting these and other policies/ordinances to maximize housing opportunity and protect the rights of all tenants, including those of protected classes:
Rent Stabilization: Further limiting the rent increase caps enacted by the state is crucial to address the displacement of Fairfield’s low-income renters.
Packet Page 568 of 846Attachment 5 Page 287 of 565
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 1314 Lincoln Ave., Ste. A, San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 457-5025 TDD: (800) 735-2922 www.fairhousingnorcal.org
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California
Just Cause Eviction: A Just Cause Eviction ordinance would offer tenants, especially those of protected classes, crucial protection. Note that one of the leading causes of evictions and displacement are the no fault just causes - substantial remodels, owner move-ins, and withdrawal from the rental market. These no-fault just causes are often used, and abused, by owners to remove tenants so that rents can be increased to market rate, further eroding affordable housing stock. Strengthening no-fault just causes for evictions through higher relocation payments, longer eviction notice periods, and a right for a tenant to return at the same rent at the time of displacement, apart from lawful, annual rent increases are critical to a general plan that complies with state law and addressing the displacement of Fairfield’s BIPOC and senior renters. A just cause ordinance should include:
• Substantial repairs - Repairs for health and safety concerns only and permits obtained before notice to vacate served; tenant has right to return under same terms/rent, subject to allowable rent increases
• Withdrawal from the rental market - Clarify that a sale of the property is not “withdrawal” and is not a just cause for eviction; owner is required to file notice with the city/county; longer notice period and right to return for displaced tenants. • Right to Return if owner/owner’s family move out of the unit within 2 years, or if the owner/owner’s family fail to move into the unit within 30 days of the tenant’s removal.
Community or Tenant Right to Purchase (“COPA/TOPA”): As a key intervention against speculation, TOPA/COPA preserves currently affordable housing and generates new permanently affordable housing for future generations. TOPA/COPA expands stability and wealth-building opportunities for tenants by creating pathways to homeownership.
Tenant Bill of Rights: The purpose of a Tenant Bill of Rights (TBR) is to state unequivocally that all Fairfield residents have the right to clean, safe, and secure housing, which includes but is not limited to:
• Clean, safe housing - stronger protections for tenants from eviction if they deduct repairs from rent
• A rental registry.
• Tenant Commission- Seats reserved that represent low-income seniors, persons with disabilities, federally subsidized housing including LIHTC, and communities of color that provides information, referrals, and advice to tenants and advises City leadership on programs and policies affecting Fairfield tenants.
• Fair Chance Housing - The use of criminal history in obtaining housing should be eliminated, given the disparate impact on people of color, using Berkeley, Oakland, and Seattle as templates for such an ordinance.
• Nonpayment notices - Require landlords to provide a 7-day warning letter before a 3- day notice to pay or quit.
Packet Page 569 of 846Attachment 5 Page 288 of 565
_____________________________________________________________________________________ 1314 Lincoln Ave., Ste. A, San Rafael, CA 94901 (415) 457-5025 TDD: (800) 735-2922 www.fairhousingnorcal.org
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California
• Protections for subletting - Subletting not a just cause for eviction IF landlord unreasonably withheld consent following written request by tenant, so long as maximum number of occupants does not exceed allowable limits. • Protections for families - Addition of family members not just cause for eviction, so long as the number of occupants does not exceed allowable limits. Protections for families - Addition of family members not just cause for eviction, so long as the number of occupants does not exceed allowable limits.
• Anti-retaliation - Rebuttable presumption if tenant asserted rights, including but not limited to, requesting a reasonable accommodation, reporting sexual harassment, and otherwise filing complaints against housing provider staff within 6 months.
The Draft should include the above proven policies and programs to improve and conserve existing, non-subsidized, affordable housing stock and address the unmet needs of low- income, protected class tenants in order to meet the obligations under Housing Element Law.
Conclusion
Our agency is committed to housing justice and meeting the current and future housing needs of Fairfield citizens. There is a tremendous opportunity with this Housing Element to outline specific, aligned, and actionable plans that will have widespread impact for years and decades to come. Fairfield must seize this opportunity to take the lead to outline and advance specific policies and practices to realize the goal of fair housing opportunity and housing justice for all who call Fairfield home.
Thank you for your work and time on this urgent and important opportunity. We thank you, again, for the opportunity to comment on Fairfield’s Draft Housing Element and we look forward to reading your responses to the comments and recommendations made throughout this letter as part of your submission of the Draft Housing Element to HCD.
Sincerely,
Caroline Peattie
Executive Director
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California
Savannah Wheeler
Staff Attorney/Housing Counselor
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California
Packet Page 570 of 846Attachment 5 Page 289 of 565
From: Joseph Green-Heffern <
Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2022 2:34 PM
To: Hernandez, Jessie; Feinstein, David M
Subject: Followup Comment regarding Planning Commission Meeting of 14September2022
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
During the wrap-up of last nights Planning Commission Meeting regarding the draft Housing Element, Commissioner Chris Matthews made a comment about the lack of grocery stores in the Cordelia Area that I disagree with. It was not appropriate for me to comment at the time, but I want to do so now. I ask that you forward my followup comment on to Commissioner Matthews and the other Commissioners.
Paraphrasing, he said that more population is needed to justify adding a grocery store in the Cordelia Area, so it is OK to continue adding housing in the Cordelia area first before stores might be added. I have also heard this expressed by City Staff in prior public meetings trying to justify the lack of grocery and local neighborhood retail in the Cordelia Area. I am concerned that these statements are misleading and propagate a convenient excuse. There are likely plenty of other reasons for the lack of grocery stores in the area, lack of population is NOT the primary reason. My rationale (crude but nevertheless instructive) looks at population density per grocery store in the Cordelia area, the rest of Fairfield and Napa, as follows.
Cordelia Area
Population served - 30,000 (based on approximately 20k within City limits plus another 10k in Green Valley and west side of Suisun Valley whose access is via Green Valley/Suisun Valley Rds.) Grocery Stores - 2 - 1 Safeway, but lets also include Costco Grocery Density: ~1/15,000 people
Rest of Fairfield (excluding Cordelia)
Population served - 100,000 (based on approximately 120k for City overall, minus 20k in Cordelia) Grocery Stores - 9 full service based on Google Maps. Note, this excludes quite a few smaller ethnic/specialty food stores)
Grocery Density: ~1/11,000 people
Napa
Population - 90,000, (based on approximately 80k within the City limits plus another 10k in nearby county areas close to the city)
Grocery Stores - 10 full service based on Google Maps. Note, this excludes quite a few smaller ethnic/specialty food stores.
Grocery Density: ~1/9,000 people
If you were to include the many smaller specialty/ethnic groceries that are iin Fairfield and Napa, but rare in Cordelia, the gap is probably even greater.T his analysis shows that from the population CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Packet Page 571 of 846Attachment 5 Page 290 of 565
perspective, the Cordelia area could easily support an additional grocery store, and likely the other typically associated neighborhood retail.
Please focus on fixing the other underlying reasons that we lack grocery and neighborhood retail in Cordelia (e.g. lack of a plan/zoning to show where it might be built, highway/local street/pedestrian access, better marketing/negotiations with landowners and developers, etc.) and please stop using the population issue as an excuse.
Joe Green-Heffern
Packet Page 572 of 846Attachment 5 Page 291 of 565
From: yvette woods <
Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 6:58 PM
To: Hernandez, Jessie
Subject: Housing draft
Follow Up Flag: Flag for follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Where in this plan are you addressing the schools and police. The schools can barely accommodate the children they have and the police do not have enough people to patrol the beats that they have now.
The schools want new taxes added on to our property for the schools and developers are not being held accountable for over building. It’s all well and good to want to build more affordable housing But you need to make sure you sufficient infrastructure to accommodate the new housing. If anything new housing shouldn’t happen unless resources are in place to handle the extra population you know it will attract.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Packet Page 573 of 846Attachment 5 Page 292 of 565
From: Brian Steele <
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2022 12:06 PM
To: Hernandez, Jessie
Cc: Caden Proctor
Subject: Housing Element
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Good Afternoon,
I read through the Housing Element and wanted to encourage the inclusion of “Nelson Hill” in Cordelia, a 230-acre property currently in the County within the City’s Sphere of Influence currently identified in the City’s current General Plan as a “Masterplan” site for a future housing and open space development. .
We are excited to be a part of the continued growth and tradition of Fairfield and would be looking to advance discussions once the newly seated council approves a preferred alternative in early 2023.
Thank you,
Brian M. Steele
Principal | Waymark Development
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Packet Page 574 of 846Attachment 5 Page 293 of 565
From:
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2022 10:06 AM
To: Hernandez, Jessie
Subject: Housing Element
Hi, Jessie, I’ve started reading the Housing Element. In Chapter 1 on page 14, there is a sentence that needs editing but it says the Housing Element will maintain “internal consistency” with the General Plan.
Does this sentence refer to the existing General Plan or the one that is being drafted? Thanks. Marilyn
Marilyn Farley
“Hope is not a state of mind. It is a state of action. It is in the praxis of resistance, solidarity, and love that we can find a path to a brighter world. That is how I get through the darkness.” Ady Barkan
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Packet Page 575 of 846Attachment 5 Page 294 of 565
Comments to Fairfield Planning Commission 14Sept2022
My name is Joe Green-Heffern. I live in the North Cordelia area and am vice president of the Turnstone HOA that includes 145 medium density homes just north of West America Bank. This is adjacent to where the draft Housing Element proposes allowing 3 vacant commercial/industrial parcels to be developed for high density housing.
You may have read my recent Letter to the Editor “What’s still missing in North Cordelia?” that was published in the Daily Republic last Sunday. It advocates putting a moratorium in place on any new housing in the North Cordelia area until the City has a clear plan to fill the gap of what’s already missing in the area for existing residents, let alone to meet the needs of added housing. The City must first identify/zone any remaining vacant or underutilized sites needed to fill elementary school, park, grocery and other neighborhood retail gaps before adding any new housing.
In making this recommendation, I ask you to consider the following facts:
•All the housing added in the past 20 years east of Green Valley Rd., including 4 single family neighborhoods, and all the apartments along Business Center Drive, have been built without the addition of any neighborhood services. Most of these units were on land previously zoned commercial or industrial.
•There are no grocery stores, neighborhood retail, parks or elementary schools within 1 to 2 miles of all these homes; and certainly not within the 1/2 to 1 mile desired walking distance for higher density apartment dwellers. In addition, what services do exist are on the other side of of 1 2
Packet Page 576 of 846Attachment 5 Page 295 of 565
Green Valley Rd with access through highly congested intersections, or along Pittman Rd. with no pedestrian access over I-80.
•For the past 20 years the City has catered to owners of vacant commercial properties at the expense of existing and future residents in North Cordelia by allowing haphazard development without preserving land for neighborhood services and amenities.
•The current draft Housing Element continues this trend by targeting some of the few remaining parcels for high density housing before the General Plan Update confirms where missing neighborhood services and public amenities should be located.
So let me say it clearly - no more rezoning for housing in North Cordelia until you have identified where and when to build the park, school, grocery and other retail that is already missing. If you haven’t figured out where to locate the missing neighborhood services and amenities over the past 20 years, then the time to do so is now.
of 2 2
Packet Page 577 of 846Attachment 5 Page 296 of 565
Tags: A5Printed in the September 11, 2022 edition on page A5 | Published on September 11, 2022 | Last Modified on September 9, 2022 at 3:19 pm
By By Letter to the EditorLetter to the Editor
Letter to the Editor: What’s still missing in North
Cordelia?
A Sept. 14 Planning Commission meeting will consider the Draft Housing Element for 2023-2031 as part of the ongoing update to Fairfield’s General Plan ( www.fairfieldforward.com) . Unfortunately, this housing plan continues to ignore public feedback provided to the city over the past year (including an April 28 workshop at the Fairfield-Cordelia Library), about the need to provide for important services already missing in the North Cordelia area before adding more housing.
Of particular concern for North Cordelia residents, the plan identifies three “opportunity sites” along Suisun Valley Road that are currently zoned commercial office/industrial that would be rezoned for high-density housing to help address the city’s shortage of low- and very low-income housing.
While this housing shortage should be addressed, and these opportunity sites may be favorably located relative to public transit and jobs, these sites do not satisfy the other important criteria of proximity to vital public and neighborhood retail services. This is especially important for lower-income residents who are more dependent on walking to meet their daily needs, and as apartment dwellers, more reliant on neighborhood parks for recreation.
School, park, grocery and other neighborhood commercial services are already severely lacking for existing residents in the North Cordelia area, let alone for additional residents of the nearly completed Green Valley II apartments and more high-density housing along Suisun Valley Road.
The city should put a moratorium on rezoning for any additional housing in the North Cordelia area until the city has a clear plan to fill the gap of what’s already missing in Cordelia. The city must first identify/zone sites needed to fill the local school, park, grocery and neighborhood retail gaps before adding any new housing.
Please show up on Sept. 14 to provide your input to the Planning Commission.
Joe Green-HeffernJoe Green-Heffern
Fairfield
Packet Page 578 of 846Attachment 5 Page 297 of 565
Jessie Hernandez
Associate Planner
City of Fairfield
Sent Via email: [email protected]
Re: Public comments on City of Fairfield’s Draft Housing Element
Dear Jessie Hernandez:
Legal Services of Northern California (LSNC) writes to submit public comments on the City’s Draft Housing Element (DHE).
LSNC provides free legal services to low-income Solano County residents, including assistance with eviction defense. Most of our clients are extremely low income households and a lack of affordable and safe housing is the number one issue clients contact us about.
Our comments focus on the inventory of sites to accommodate the very low and low income RHNA. We hope that our comments will assist the City with strengthening its Draft HE to ensure it complies with Housing Element law and better meets the needs lower income residents in Fairfield. We may also have further comments as the process goes forward.
A. Inventory of sites and meeting the RHNA
LSNC has multiple concerns about the Draft HE’s analysis as to how it is meeting its low- income RHNA, including the list of available sites to meet the City’s very low and low-income RHNA. As written, there is not enough information in the DHE to determine if the City has enough sites to meet the minimum legal requirements. Upon its face, however, it appears they do not.
1. Pipeline Projects
The Draft HE identifies five “pipeline projects” to credit 500 units towards its very low and low income RHNA. However, the Draft HE does not contain the required analysis to show these projects can be used toward the RHNA. The City may use “[p[rojects that have been approved, permitted, or received a certificate of occupancy since the beginning of the RHNA projected period may be credited toward meeting the RHNA allocation based on the affordability and unit Packet Page 579 of 846Attachment 5 Page 298 of 565
2 count of the development. For these projects, affordability is based on the actual or projected sale prices, rent levels, or other mechanisms establishing affordability in the planning period of the units within the project.” HCD Site Inventory Guidebook at p. 5. Here, the Draft HE does not provide specific information about the actual rents or funding sources for any of the five “pipeline projects.” This information must be included to demonstrate these projects may be used to meet the very low and low income RHNA. Also, one project (Parkside Flats” is listed as “under review” and so does not appear to be “approved” or “permitted.” Therefore, this project does not appear to qualify to be used to meet the very low and low income RHNA.
2. Sites Inventory List
The Sites Inventory analysis in the DHE is found in Appendix C at page 208, and a complete list of sites is found in Table C-16. This table does not have the headings contained in the required Site Inventory Form, and is in very small font. As such, the table is extremely difficult to read and interpret. For example, LSNC did not see any clear indication whether the site was used in prior planning periods. Also, LSNC is not clear on which columns represent minimum density and maximum density.
i. The DHE does not include a sufficient analysis of the non-vacant sites.
Table C-2 shows that the City is relying on non-vacant sites to accommodate 285 units toward the very low and low income RHNA. However, the Draft HE does not include sufficient analysis to do so. If a jurisdiction relies on non-vacant sites in its Sites Inventory, Government Code section 65583.2(g)(1) requires the jurisdiction to:
[s]pecify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period and shall provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential. The methodology shall consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, the city’s or county’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current market demand for the existing use, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites.
Here, the Draft HH has a general discussion of non-vacant sites on page 222. But this analysis fails to discuss the specifics of each non-vacant site. Further, the City’s methodology appears to be flawed and not consistent with HCD’s guidance. HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook lists the following as potentially appropriate non-vacant sites:
● Sites with obsolete uses that have the potential for redevelopment, such as a vacant restaurant.
● Non-vacant publicly owned surplus or excess land; portions of blighted areas with abandoned or vacant buildings.
Packet Page 580 of 846Attachment 5 Page 299 of 565
3 ● Existing high opportunity developed areas with mixed-used potential. ● Non Vacant substandard or irregular lots that could be consolidated. ● Any other suitable underutilized land. (P. 24)
But, the Draft HE includes 12 sites with operating businesses on them (parcels 0152280150, 0031190710, 0031143250, 0031143260, 0031143250, 0031123360, 0031133310, 0152280080, 0162132020, 0030175180, 0030241090, and 016232020). These sites, as well as any other non- vacant site, cannot be included toward the very low and low income RHNA because the Draft HE does not demonstrate the factors required by the statute and the Site Inventory Guidebook. ii. Sites zoned for commercial use.
The Draft HE relies on a number of sites that are zoned for commercial use and only allow housing “conditionally” to meet its very low and low income RHNA. However, the Draft HE does not discuss whether there is any history of multi-family or affordable housing to lower income households being built in such zones. LSNC questions whether these sites have any realistic capacity and more information is needed to determine if these sites can be included. iii. Sites from prior planning periods.
The City includes two vacant sites used in the prior two planning periods to meet its very low and low income RHNA. While the City does include Program 6.2 to rezone these sites as required, the program needs to be updated to include a specific date which cannot be more than three years from the beginning of the planning period.
iv. Much more is needed to ensure the sites affirmatively further fair housing.
Map C-5 and Table C-15 demonstrate that the City’s location of sites for very low and low income RHNA does not affirmatively further fair housing. While the City asserts that it has a total capacity of 1,756 units for very low and low income RHNA (see Table C-2), only 343 of these projected units are in “moderate resource areas” (see TableC-15.) Further, all of the sites identified in Table C-15 are zoned commercial and only allow housing “conditionally.” As discussed above, the DHE has not provided analysis to demonstrate there is realistic capacity in zones in which housing is only allowed conditionally. Of the parcels that the DHE identify as affirmatively furthering fair housing, half of the parcels identified are in the Cordelia area. This area, as the DHE notes when identifying limitations on building affordable housing, is “constrained in terms of educational, roadway, and other infrastructure capacity” and without access to public transportation or services. As it has major constraints to development, the DHE must incorporate policies and programs to remediate those conditions if it wishes to use them in furtherance of its affirmatively furthering fair housing requirement.
B. Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (page 189)
The DHE includes additional analysis to assist the City in determining what factors have created the segregation that exists in the City. Some of these additional figures lack a key or explanation Packet Page 581 of 846Attachment 5 Page 300 of 565
4 of their importance, such as Figures X. Additional information is also needed when describing the resources available to residents facing discrimination.
The DHE merely states that in order to address fair housing issues, the City contracts with and directs residents to FHANC, which provides counseling, investigation, mediation and assistance with filing complaints. (p. 160). While referrals to FHANC are extremely valuable at enforcing tenants’ rights in the face of discrimination, it is limited in its ability to prevent it, or to effect systemic change.
For instance, the City identified potential discrimination in lending practices, resulting in denial of home loans to certain ethnic groups as a potential cause of neighborhood segregation. The city has not identified how referrals to FHANC will prevent or address this issue.
C. Previous Housing Element Progress
Government code section 65588 (a) requires the city to review its previous housing element and analyze its effectiveness, comparing the differences between what was planned in the element and what was achieved. The DHE attempts to meet this requirement on pages 193-195, but falls short of meeting the “effectiveness” and “appropriateness” elements of the statute. Specifically, the DHE notes kinds of status updates, for instance, under Policy 3.6: Support the Housing Choice Voucher Program for Very low-income households,” it notes “City continues to operate the Home Choice Voucher Program.” The DHE provides no analysis into whether the program has been effective in the attainment of the city’s housing goals and objectives, or provide any data to that effect. Nor does it note the appropriateness of the policy in contributing to the attainment of the City’s housing goal. The DHE would benefit from the addition of information such as how many Housing Choice Vouchers have been issued since the last housing element, or how many are currently in use, and any opportunities for expansion of the program. The DHE could also note how this program contributes to the City’s goal of increasing its affordable housing stock for low and very low income residents. Overall, actual results or outcome of the previous Housing Elements goals, objectives, and policies should be described in this section of the DHE.
The Draft fails to adequately discuss or evaluate the reasons for the severe shortfall of permits issued for and construction of low-income housing compared to the City’s approval and construction of above moderate income housing. Given this vast disparity, City should re- evaluate the appropriateness of its policies and the effectiveness of its Housing Element, in contributing towards state and local housing goals.
D. Strengthening Tenant Protections
The DHE’s data shows that no very-low- and extremely-low-income households would be able to afford rental units at the appropriate size. (page 68) Additionally, about 36.5 percent of Fairfield households are paying above the recommended HUD standard for housing costs Packet Page 582 of 846Attachment 5 Page 301 of 565
5 (spending 30 percent or less of household income on housing costs). The City claims in the DHE that it cannot control market rent prices, but fails to consider passage of rent control. The City’s policies and program should include explicit commitments towards strengthening tenant protections and keeping rental housing affordable. While state law provides some limited rent stabilization for certain units under the Tenant Protection Act, it caps annual rent increases at rates of as high as 10%, the current maximum rent increase, and does not apply to all residents in Fairfield. Reliance upon the state law is inadequate to prevent displacement of the City’s low- income and rent-burdened households.
Thank you for considering our comments regarding the City’s draft housing element. Please feel free to contact us at (707) 515-4117 or by email to if you have any further questions or need any additional information.
Sincerely,
LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
/s/ Tessa Hammer
Tessa Hammer
Staff Attorney
Packet Page 583 of 846Attachment 5 Page 302 of 565
From: Alan Moore <
Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2022 3:39 PM
To: Hernandez, Jessie
Subject: Proposed income Housing at Travis and Oliver
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear
I see that you are proposing to build low-income housing as described in the subject above. I ask you the following questions, why demolish existing buildings with established business in order to put up new housing? There are existing lots in Fairfield that are free of existing buildings. Why erect Low-income housing next to upper income housing? as it will lower the value of sounding residences. I am sure that Low-income housing will bring in people that need housing but also bring in crime. As an example, check on Grande Circle. As you can tell from this subject I live in This area! I can assure you that a majority of the residents here feel the same way. Will you please inform me and other residents of this area about any meetings that I can attend that discusses this subject.
Thank you, Alan Moore
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Packet Page 584 of 846Attachment 5 Page 303 of 565
From:
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 7:31 PM
To: Hernandez, Jessie
Subject: Proposed low income housing
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi,
So for my comments for the dwellings on Oliver the question is is the city planning on tearing down the existing dwellings that are located in this area?
Having had the planning commission already turn down a Dutch Bros in the parking lot of the Dollar Tree parking lot due to too much traffic on to Oliver I would think this is the same issue if not worse with housing.
Why is the city not using open spaces to place housing such as the corner of Pennsylvania and Brighton Dr.. We also have the open lot on North Texas where the old bowling alley was. Also there are open lots on the corner of Fairfield Ave and Tabor.
What about the plot of land at the base of Rancho Solano? Why is the city trying to cram in housing into areas that can not sustain the influx of vehicles and people.
I did not see any house slotted for the area of Business Center Dr and Suisun Valley Rd. either.
I really wish more city planners lived in Fairfield to see how these ideas really impact the areas in both traffic and people. Surveys are just that and do not give a true picture of the area.
Thank you for your time.
Packet Page 585 of 846Attachment 5 Page 304 of 565
From: Carol Chervinko <
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2022 9:24 PM
To: Hernandez, Jessie
Subject: Re: We Want to Hear from You! Share Your Thoughts on Fairfield's Draft Housing Element
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Associate Planner Mr. Hernandez,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide my comments on the detailed Fairfield Housing Element Draft analysis. My comments are:
• The voters in Fairfield should be allowed to vote on zoning ordinance changes. The City Council should not be allowed to make these kinds of changes because the Council Members are somewhat out of touch from the pressing needs of the communities they serve. For example, there is little thought given to transportation needs with the erection of multi-family units. Spanos, a developer working in Fairfield who wants to build more multi-family units, claimed to have performed a time study at Business Center Drive and Green Valley Road prior to the development of the Nova apartments. When Spanos was pressed to reveal the results of their time study, it was learned that the time study was done at off hours at 9:00am and 3:00pm when traffic in the area is typically not congested. This is not an acceptable traffic and time study yet City Council approved a zoning change from commercial/retail to residential for the Nova apartments. Zoning Ordinance outlined on page 84 in the Draft states that zoning ordinances are not a barrier to housing production, and this is because City Council changes zoning ordinances. • Regarding first time home buyers, has there been any discussion to offer first time home buyers an incentive to buy a home in Fairfield? Seeno, who builds homes within Fairfield, had offered a first time home buyers grant back in 1985 when my husband and I purchased our first CA home in Cordelia. Seeno subsidized the mortgage payments in year 1 and year 2. The grant was based on limited income for 2 wage earners, and the house had to be owner occupied. This was at a time when mortgage interest rates were 11%. This subsidy helped defray the first two years of the mortgage payment because at the time it was expected that the wage earners would get salary increases every year. Once a homeowner is established, the homeowner would likely trade in their first home some years later for a more expensive home so home ownership retention increases. Developers should be made to help first time home buyers get into the housing market for the home that they develop.
• Regarding helping seniors in Fairfield, instead of seniors leaving the city to find more affordable home ownership elsewher,e a property tax freeze could be a solution and be an incentive to stay in Fairfield. Here is some additional data by year on California's Department of Aging website. Data & Reports | California Department of Aging - State of California
Data & Reports | California Department of Aging -
State of California
State of California
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Packet Page 586 of 846Attachment 5 Page 305 of 565
• The former Walmart building on Chadbourne Road has been vacant for several years. It was once used as an event center for 2 years. This building could be used as a homeless overnight shelter or weekly shelter if plumbing was installed and numerous bathrooms/showers erected. There could also be an office contained in the building for social services for those individuals wanting assistance in more permanent housing.
I look forward to seeing the final copy of the Fairfield Housing Element analysis.
Carol Chervinko
On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 at 10:56:33 AM PDT, Hernandez, Jessie wrote:
Hi,
The City of Fairfield’s Draft Housing Element is now published on our General Plan website:
https://www.fairfieldforward.com/housing-element
Please join our Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday, September 14th at 6:00 pm at the City Council Chamber at 1000 Webster Street to provide feedback on the Draft Housing Element.
You can also submit comments and questions by email to me at [email protected] until September 22nd, 2022. There will be additional opportunities to provide input throughout the process.
We hope to see you soon!
Best,
Jessie Hernandez
Packet Page 587 of 846Attachment 5 Page 306 of 565
Jessie Hernandez | Associate Planner
Community Development Department | City of Fairfield
O | 707-428-7450
1000 Webster St, Fairfield, CA 94533
[email protected]
www.fairfield.ca.gov
City Hall is closed the 1st and 3rd Fridays of the Month
Packet Page 588 of 846Attachment 5 Page 307 of 565
From: Jennifer Houk <
Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2022 9:10 PM
To: Hernandez, Jessie
Subject: Suisun Valley Rd. Residential planning
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello sir,
I am a concerned citizen writing in I am sure with a concern and request that you have heard before. I do not believe that this city should be building anymore housing specifically low income housing until you do something about the infrastructure. The schools are overcrowded and cannot take more students at either Nelda Mundy or Suisun Valley elementary. I am saddened by the fact that this city continues to add housing without more educational options and also more road age options. Shopping in the are of Suisun Valley Rd. Is also a huge need. If you have already approved the middle green valley project for housing, and we do not have room for those children at the schools either. With more option to work from home, our city and county has a chance to be a successful up and coming community with a few good school options that will add to property values and in turn also to our property tax values, that will help the city. Please do not continue to build without creating more schools. You are ruining what small proud community we have left. I grew up in fairfield, across town. Where we had serious grit and life was not easy for kids growing up, no matter who they were. I do not want they created by more over crowding in our schools where we are currently. It is going to ruin it. I’m sorry but it is. It’s not that I don’t want low income housing. I understand the need, I don’t want any housing in our area without my infrastructure changes first. Starting with additional school facilities.
Thank you,
Jennifer Houk
Sent from my iPhone
Packet Page 589 of 846Attachment 5 Page 308 of 565
ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO
FAIR HOUSING CHOICE
for the
FY 2022-27 Consolidated Plan Period
City Manager’s Office
1000 Webster Street
Fairfield, CA 94533
Adopted by Resolution 2022-147 July 5, 2022
Packet Page 590 of 846Attachment 5 Page 309 of 565
For assistance or questions, please contact:
LaTanya R. Terrones, MBA
Senior Management Analyst
Housing Services Department
City of Fairfield
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 707-428 -7454
Mailing Address: City of Fairfield CDBG, 1000 Webster St., Fairfield, CA 94533 City website: https://www.fairfield.ca.gov/
CDBG website:
https://www.fairfield.ca.gov/gov/depts/cd/affordable/community_development_block_grant_ (cdbg)_program.asp
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and California Law, it is the policy of the City of Fairfield to offer documents in a manner that is readily accessible to everyone, including individuals with disabilities and Limited English Proficiency. If you are a person with a disability and require information or materials in an appropriate alternative format, or if you require any other accommodation or language assistance, please contact La Tanya Terrones, Management Analysis Senior for the Housing Services Department, by telephone at (707) 428-7454 or by email at [email protected]. Hearing impaired individuals may call the California Relay Service at (800) 735-2929 or TDD (707) 399-5623 for assistance.
Packet Page 591 of 846Attachment 5 Page 310 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page i of 86 Table of Contents
1. AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING ................................................................ 1
2. DEFINITIONS AND DATA SOURCES ................................................................................ 3 Definitions ........................................................................................................................ 3 Data Sources ..................................................................................................................... 4
3. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION PROCESS ......................................................................... 6
4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE ........................................................................................... 8 Data .................................................................................................................................. 8 Community Characteristics .............................................................................................. 8 Population ........................................................................................................................ 9 Sex and Age ...................................................................................................................... 9 Households .................................................................................................................... 11 Household/Family Size ............................................................................................. 11 Large Households ..................................................................................................... 11 Single-Parent Households – Female and Male .......................................................... 12 Veterans ......................................................................................................................... 12 Race/Ethnicity ................................................................................................................ 14 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) ............................... 16 Characteristics of the R/ECAP Area 2526.07 .............................................................. 22 Income Data ................................................................................................................... 22 Poverty ........................................................................................................................... 25 Language and National Origin ........................................................................................ 28 Special Needs Populations – Non-Homeless (Special Populations) ................................... 29 People With Disabilities ............................................................................................ 31 Elderly and Frail Elderly ............................................................................................. 37 Education & Employment ............................................................................................... 38 Employment ................................................................................................................... 41 Lower Income Census Tracts and Block Groups ............................................................ 42 Defining “Low Income” ............................................................................................ 42 Census Tracts and Block Groups .............................................................................. 44 Areas of Minority Concentration .................................................................................... 47 Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic ....................................................................................... 52 COVID-19 Job Impacts .............................................................................................. 52 Recovery and Resilience ........................................................................................... 52 Key Highlights from the 2020 Index Our Changing Economy .................................. 53 Changing Community ............................................................................................... 54 Considerations for the Future .................................................................................. 54 City of Fairfield Responses to COVID Pandemic ....................................................... 55
5. HOUSING .................................................................................................................... 57 Housing Profile ............................................................................................................... 57 Age of Housing Stock ................................................................................................ 59 Packet Page 592 of 846Attachment 5 Page 311 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page ii of 86 Overcrowding ........................................................................................................... 59 Housing Cost ............................................................................................................ 60
6. LENDING PRACTICES ................................................................................................... 62 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) Data ............................................................... 62 2020 HMDA Data for Fairfield ................................................................................. 63
7. LAWS, POLICIES AND FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING ....................................................... 70 Federal Fair Housing Laws and Executive Orders ............................................................ 70 State Laws ...................................................................................................................... 73 Private Sector PRACTICES .............................................................................................. 79 Real Estate Sales Practices in the State of California ............................................... 79 Rental and Property Management .......................................................................... 80
8. GOVERNMENT BARRIERS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE .................................................... 82 Land Use Policies and Practices ..................................................................................... 83 Fairfield General Plan ............................................................................................... 83 Specific Plans ............................................................................................................ 84 Zoning Ordinance ..................................................................................................... 85 Fairfield Density Bonus Options ............................................................................... 85 Special Needs Housing .................................................................................................... 86 Community Care Facilities .......................................................................................... 86 Emergency Shelters .................................................................................................. 86 Transitional Housing ................................................................................................. 87 Building Codes, Accessibility, and ADA Compliance ....................................................... 87 Resources and Incentives for Affordable Housing ......................................................... 89 Assisted Housing Projects ........................................................................................ 89
9. FAIRFIELD’S HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES & PROGRAMS ............................................. 81
10. FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................... 83 Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC) ................................................ 83 Fair Housing Audits of City of Fairfield/Solano County ............................................ 83 2010 Analysis of Impediments ....................................................................................... 84 Impediment 1: Residential segregation by race, ethnicity, or income .................... 84 Impediment 2: Concentration of subsidized housing ............................................... 85 Impediment 3: High number of foreclosures negatively affecting the quality of residential neighborhoods ....................................................................................... 85 Impediment 4: Reduce administrative barriers to affordable housing .................... 86 Impediment 5: Negative financial and social influences on fair housing activity.... 89 Impediment 6: Discriminatory lending practices ..................................................... 89 Other Actions to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing ..................................................... 90 Annual Action Plans ................................................................................................. 90 Annual Performance Reports (CAPERs) ................................................................... 90
11. IMPEDIMENTS AND ACTIONS TO OVERCOME FOR FY 2022-27..................................... 92 Impediment #1. Residential Segregation .............................................................................. 92 Packet Page 593 of 846Attachment 5 Page 312 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page iii of 86 Impediment #2. Insufficient Affordable Housing ................................................................... 93 Impediment #3. Institutional Barriers .................................................................................... 96 Impediment #4. Pandemic Increased Housing Instability ..................................................... 98 Impediment #5. Lack of Knowledge About Fair Housing Rights ............................................ 99 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... 103 Appendix 1. Housing Choice Survey ..................................................................................... 104 Appendix 2. Quality of Life Survey ....................................................................................... 157 Appendix 3. Outreach List for Public Meetings ................................................................... 186 Appendix 4. Outreach and Advertisements for Public Meetings ........................................ 189 Appendix 5. Public Meeting Participants and Comments ................................................... 194 Appendix 6. Housing Element Programs ............................................................................. 201
Packet Page 594 of 846Attachment 5 Page 313 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 1 of 199
1. AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
Equal access to housing choice is crucial to America’s commitment to equality and opportunity for all. Title VIII of the United States Civil Rights Act of 1968, more commonly known as the Fair Housing Act, provides housing opportunities by prohibiting discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. The Act was amended in 1988 to provide stiffer penalties, establish an administrative enforcement mechanism, and expand its coverage to prohibit discrimination based on familial status and disability.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), specifically HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO), administers and enforces the Fair Housing Act and other civil rights laws. Affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) is a basic, long-standing component of HUD’s Community Planning and Development programs. The AFFH requirements derived from Section 808(e)(5) of the Fair Housing Act, which requires the HUD Secretary to administer HUD’s Housing and Urban Development programs in a manner to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH).1
In 2015, HUD published a final rule on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing that outlined procedures HUD-funded jurisdictions and public housing authorities were to take to promote access to fair housing and equal opportunity. This rule stipulated that HUD grantees and housing authorities take meaningful actions to overcome segregation patterns. They alsofoster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity for protected classes (race, color, national origin or ancestry, sex, religion, familial status, and mental and physical disability). Under HUD’s final rule, grantees must take actions to:
• Address disparities in housing need;
• Replace segregated living patterns with integrated and balanced living patterns; • Transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity; and
• Foster and maintain compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.
To assist grantees and housing authorities affirmatively further fair housing, HUD provided publicly-available data, maps, and an assessment tool to evaluate the state of fair housing within their communities so that they could set locally-determined priorities and goals.
HUD’s final rule mandated that most grantees begin submitting to HUD an assessment
1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Fair Housing Planning Guide:
Volume 1 (Chapter 1: Fair Housing Planning Historical Overview, Page 13). March 1996.
Packet Page 595 of 846Attachment 5 Page 314 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 2 of 199 developed using these tools in 2017; however, in 2018, the HUD Secretary issued a Notice that extended the deadline for undertaking the new AFFH process until at least October 2020. The Notice further required grantees prepare and keepa current “Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice” (AI) on file. Therefore, this AI follows the requirements in HUD’s updated Fair Housing Planning Guide and incorporates the maps and data developed by HUD for use by grantees as part of the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing final rule.
In an AI, local communities that receive HUD grant funds must evaluate barriers to fair housing choice and develop and implement strategies and actions to overcome any identified impediments. Through this process, grantees promote fair housing choices for all persons, including classes protected under the Fair Housing Act, and:
• Provide opportunities for racially and ethnically inclusive patterns of housing occupancy;
• Identify structural and systemic barriers to fair housing choice; and • Promote housing that is physically accessible and usable by persons with disabilities.
HUD will presume that the grantee is meeting its obligation and certification to affirmatively further fair housing by taking actions that address the impediments, including:
• Analyzing and eliminating housing discrimination within the jurisdiction; • Promoting fair housing choice for all persons;
• Providing opportunities for racially and ethnically inclusive patterns of housing occupancy;
• Promoting housing that is physically accessible to all persons to include those persons with disabilities; and
• Fostering compliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act.
HUD requires Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program grantees to document AFFH actions in their annual performance report (the CAPER) submitted to HUD.
Packet Page 596 of 846Attachment 5 Page 315 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 3 of 199
2. DEFINITIONS AND DATA SOURCES
DEFINITIONS
ABAG – Association of Bay Area Governments for the nine county San Francisco Bay Area, including Solano County where Fairfield is located.
Affirmatively Further Fair Housing – HUD’s Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) choice regulation was developed to comply with “the 1968 Fair Housing Act’s obligation for state and local governments to improve and achieve more meaningful outcomes from fair housing policies, so that every American has the right to fair housing, regardless of their race, color, national origin, religion, sex, disability or familial status.”2
Fair Housing Choice - The ability of persons of similar income levels to have available to them the same housing choices regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, familial status, or disability.
Affordable – The definition used throughout this analysis is HUD’s definition. Housing is "affordable" if it costs no more than 30% of a household's total monthly gross income. For rental housing, the 30% amount includes any tenant-paid utility costs. For homeowners, the 30% amount includes the monthly mortgage payment, property taxes, homeowner insurance, and any condo or association fees.
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – The HUD Fair Housing Planning Guide says that impediments to fair housing choice include: any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin, which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices; and any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status, or national origin.
Protected Classes – The following definition of federally protected classes is used in this document. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibits housing discrimination based on race, color, national origin or ancestry, sex, or religion. The 1988 Fair Housing Amendments Act added familial status and mental and physical disability as protected classes. (Please note that the State of California has additional classes protected from
2 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “HUD Publishes New Proposed Rule on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Choice.” Press Release No. 13-110. July 19, 2013.
Packet Page 597 of 846Attachment 5 Page 316 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 4 of 199 discrimination: sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions); genetic information; marital status; sexual orientation; gender identity and gender expression; AIDS/HIV; medical condition; political activities or affiliations; military or veteran status; and status as a victim of domestic violence, assault, or stalking.) While this AI focuses on the federal protected classes, all identified barriers to housing choice will be included.
R/ECAP - Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty -- identifies the geographic area(s) where racial/ethnic groups experience the highest levels of segregation.
Heart of Fairfield Plan – a formal Plan adopted by the City Council in May 2017 to revitalize and transform the downtown area of Fairfield. This Plan includes specific areas also targeted within the City’s Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative and includes incentives for businesses and property owners to improve building facades, signage, and rehabilitation of their property.
*********************************************************
DATA SOURCES
The following data sources were used in preparing this AI:
• American Community Survey (ACS) – The American Community Survey is an ongoing statistical survey that samples a small percentage of the U.S. population every year, thus providing communities with more current population and housing data throughout the ten years between censuses. This approach trades the accuracy of the Decennial Census Data for the relative immediacy of continuously polled data from every year. ACS data is compiled from an annual sample of approximately three million addresses rather than an actual count (such as the Decennial Census’s SF-1 data) and therefore is susceptible to sampling errors. This data is released in two different formats: single-year estimates and multi-year estimates. • ACS Multi-Year Estimates – More current than Census 2010 data, this dataset is most frequently used. Because sampling error is reduced when estimates are collected over a longer period of time, 5-year estimates will be more accurate (but less recent) than 1-year estimates. All maps are based on the multi- year ACS estimates unless otherwise noted. The most current available period (2013-2017) was utilized whenever possible. Occasionally, the single year 2018 was used in this report when it was appropriate.
Packet Page 598 of 846Attachment 5 Page 317 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 5 of 199 • Community Planning Development (CPD) Maps — CPD Maps offers a large amount of data in a way that is easy to access. The website allows grantees and the general public to search, query, and display information to identify trends and analyze the needs of their community. In addition to updated U.S. Census data, CPD Maps includes data sets that highlight the accomplishments and results of HUD programs by displaying Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), and other HUD-funded community assets. • HUD-eGIS Open Data Storefront – provides a one-stop-shop where users can search for and discover HUD’s geospatial datasets, web-based mapping tools, and application programming interfaces. Two of the HUD’s enterprise applications in the Storefront have been used to develop this AI: CPD Maps and the AFFH-T (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Tool) map, which assists communities to set local fair housing priorities and goals. • US Census (2010 and 2000 Census Summary File 1 (SF-1) and, where appropriate, the 1990 Census Summary File) – This dataset contains what is known as “100% data,” meaning that it contains the data collected from every household that participated in the Census and is not based on a representative sample of the population. Though this dataset is very broad in terms of coverage of the total population, it is limited in the depth of the information collected. Basic characteristics such as age, sex, and race are collected, but not more detailed information such as disability status, occupation, and income. The statistics are available for a variety of geographic levels, with most tables obtainable down to the census tract or block group level. • City of Fairfield Language Access Plan (LAP) – in 2021, the City conducted an extensive analysis to determine the demographic profile of Fairfield. The analysis included an assessment of the population’s primary language. Based on that analysis, the City created a LAP to ensure equal access and delivery of information for all Fairfield residents, no matter their proficiency in English.
Packet Page 599 of 846Attachment 5 Page 318 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 6 of 199
3. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION PROCESS
Utilizing the City’s Community Outreach Plan, the following expresses the methods utilized to ensure all Fairfield residents, including non-English speaking residents and those with disabilities, were made aware of the City’s request to gather community input on residents’ experiences with Fair Housing Choice in Fairfield.
City staff conducted outreach at public events from January 2019 – to March 2019 and received 43 responses to a Fair Housing Survey. In addition, the City published a public notice in the Daily Republic (local newspaper) on September 18, 2019, announcing the intent of the AI process. Information was placed on two City Facebook pages, two Instagram sites, Twitter, NextDoor, TV Channel 26, and the City’s website. The announcement was also sent to a list- serve of 112 social service agencies and stakeholders. The public notice encouraged residents to fill out a Fair Housing Choice survey to share their housing experiences and barriers they or others had faced in obtaining the housing they wanted and needed. A second notice, utilizing the same tools as described above, was subsequently sent out notifying the residents of meetings the City held to obtain public input.
A total of 314 responded to the Fair Housing Choice surveys. People reported concerns about increased crime in their neighborhoods. While approximately 40% of respondents reported that they were somewhat familiar with Fair Housing laws, 67% did not know where to go to report a fair housing complaint. About 50% of the respondents reported paying more than 30% of their income for housing. 86% reported that they had never been discriminated against. 64% of the respondents were female; 47% reported household incomes of $93,500 and above; 22% reported they were people with a disability. In terms of racial/Hispanic origin, 48% were White; 18% were African American; 11% were Hispanic; 9.27% Asian; and 13% identified as “other.” The majority of people taking the survey were between the ages of 35-
64. In terms of race, this sample was somewhat reflective of Fairfield’s demographics.
However, the percentage of people of Hispanic origin taking the survey was less than half of the percentage in Fairfield listed in the 2017 American Community Survey. 60% have lived in Fairfield for ten years or more.
TABLE 1 depicts the barriers to Housing Choice that people taking the survey experience. (Please note: all of the survey responses can be found in Appendix 1. Housing Choice Survey.) Packet Page 600 of 846Attachment 5 Page 319 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 7 of 199 Table 1. Barriers to Housing Choice You Have Experienced or Seen
Approximately 30 people attended the public meeting held at the Fairfield Community Center (an accessible location). Their concerns focused on the lack of accessible housing for people with disabilities, the lack of affordable housing for all household types and the stereotypes and lack of understanding people with disabilities faced when seeking housing or having other housing problems. A list of attendees and comments from this and other public meetings can be found in Appendix 5. Public Meeting Participants and Comments.
Packet Page 601 of 846Attachment 5 Page 320 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 8 of 199
4. SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE
DATA
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.
MAP 1 – The Nine County SF Bay Area Showing Location of Fairfield
COMMUNITY CHARACTERISTICS
Founded in 1856, Fairfield is the county seat of Solano County, California, in the North Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area (MAP 1). The City was incorporated in 1905 as a General Law city. Fairfield is home to Travis Air Force Base (AFB), located three miles east of the central business district of Fairfield. Travis AFB has had a major impact on the community since a number of military families and retirees have chosen to make Fairfield their permanent home.
Packet Page 602 of 846Attachment 5 Page 321 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 9 of 199
POPULATION
In 2010, the City had a population of 105,321 (U.S. Census). The 2015-2019 ACS (2019 ACS) estimates the City’s population to be117,136. The City experienced an average annual growth rate of 0.95% between the years 2000 to 2010 and about a 1.24% annual growth rate between 2010 and 2019.
According to the County CA Department of Finance, the City’s population is approximately one- quarter of the total population of Solano. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Projections 2013 projects that the City will experience a population increase of 12% percent between 2010 and 2020, growing to 117,920 (an annual growth rate of 1.2%). ABAG estimates that the population will continue to increase during the following decade, with the population ultimately reaching 142,800 in 2040. Solano County is the most affordable county in the Bay Area. A primary reason for this projected growth is households’ search for more affordable housing and the amount of available, developable land in Fairfield. In addition, Fairfield is generally considered the midpoint between San Francisco and Sacramento, approximately 40 miles from the center of both cities. Fairfield may provide an affordable compromise location for two wage-earner households with jobs in each direction.
SEX AND AGE
According to the 2019 ACS, the City’s population is 49.1% male and 50.9% female. This ratio is consistent with 2000 and 2010 census data. TABLE 2 depicts data on the sex and age of Fairfield residents. As can be seen below, the median age has risen since 2000. Age data from 2010 shows almost every age category as about 7.5% of the overall population. However, when the 2010 and 2019 data are compared, 2017 data shows that children are a smaller percentage of the overall population under 20 years old, and people whose ages are 65+ are a larger percentage than in 2010. This is the likely reason for the slight increase in median age.
Table 2 - Change in Median Age
Year Median Age Rate of Change
2000 31.1 N/A
2010 33.7 8.4%
2017 34.8 3%
2019 35.3 1.4%
Packet Page 603 of 846Attachment 5 Page 322 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 10 of 199 The change in the percentage of the
population under 18 is shown to the
right (TABLE 3). From 2000 to
2019, the percentage of the
population under 18 has decreased.
In the United States, the population
under 18 in 2019 was 22.3%, as
reported by Child Trends. In California,
it was 23% per Census Reporter,
California Demographics. Fairfield’s
percentage of the population under
18 was 24.1%, higher than those
percentages. Thus, there are more
children in the city than the national
and state averages. TABLE 4 to the
left shows Fairfield’s population by
age and sex. The proportion of male
and female residents is consistent
with the data from 2000, 2010, and
2019.
Although the difference between females
and males is about 2.8% overall, the
difference between females and males
over age 65 has grown to 13%, shown in
TABLE 5 to the right.
Table 3 - Percent of Population Under 18
Year % Population below 18
years old
% Rate of Change
2000 29.8% N/A
2010 27% -9.3%
2017 25.4% -6.2%
2019 24.1% -1.07%
Table 4 - 2019 ACS Population by Age and Sex
(Median Age = 35.3 Yrs.)
Subject Estimate Percent
Total population 117,136
Male 56,959 48.6%
Female 60,177 51.4%
Under 5 yrs 8,260 7.1%
5 - 9 years 6,844 5.8%
10 - 14 years 8,526 7.3%
15 - 19 years 7,394 6.30%
20 - 24 years 7,592 6.50%
25 - 34 years 19,505 16.7%
35 - 44 years 16,587 14.2%
45 - 54 years 14,555 12.4%
55 - 59 years 6,223 5.3%
60 - 64 years 6,411 5.50%
65 - 74 years 9,406 8.0%
75 - 84 years 3,721 3.20%
85 years + 2,112 1.8%
Table 5 - Highlight of Differences between
Male and Female Population Over 65 yrs
Subject Estimate Percent
18 Years and over 88,851
Male 43,736 49.2%
Female 45,115 50.8%
65 years and over 15,239
Male 7152 46.9%
Female 8,087 53.1%
Packet Page 604 of 846Attachment 5 Page 323 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 11 of 199
HOUSEHOLDS
Another element that is consistent across time periods is that the city’s population consists primarily of family households. The 2000 Census showed family households as 74.9% of all households, and the 2019 ACS data show approximately 74.7% of households as family households. The increase in the number of family households (from 24,015 to 27,864 over this period) can be ascribed to the increase in construction of single-family housing and the search for housing in a more affordable location than in the other Bay Area counties. The rate of increase in the number of family households (16.0%) is slightly higher than the 17.3% rate of increase for the total population.
Household/Family Size
The 2000 census lists the average household (HH) size as 2.98 persons and the average family size as 3.42 persons. The difference between household and family size is that households include single individuals and unrelated people living together. The average family size has risen over time. The 2019 ACS computes the average household size as 3.10 persons; however, the married couple family household size is 3.59; the male householder’s (with no wife present) family household size is2.96; and the female householder’s (with no husband present) family household size is 3.70. The average household size of 3.10 is lower than the sizes of these family households because the City’s non-family household size is 1.43.
Large Households
Large households are those with five or more
individuals. The percentage of large households
as a percentage of Fairfield households has
increased from 2010 to 2019 (TABLE 6).
Large households are composed of owner and tenant households. The ACS data for 2019 shows that the percentage of 5+ owner households has decreased since 2010. The percentage of 5+ tenant households has increased since 2010. The special need of tenant households is for housing of sufficient size and number of bedrooms to prevent overcrowding. In the Housing chapter, we will see whether appropriate housing is available for these families.
Table 6 – Percent Increase in Large
Households
2010 2019
# 5+ HHs 5,174 5,090
% of 5+ HHs 15.00% 13.6%
Packet Page 605 of 846Attachment 5 Page 324 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 12 of 199 Single-Parent Households – Female and Male
There is now data available on single male households with children. The 2000 census (SF-1 demographic characteristics) does not contain the category of single male householders, and there does not appear to be data collected by the Census Bureau on single-male households before 2010. Between 2010 and 2019, the percentage of single-male households remained roughly the same, while female-headed and non-family households declined by a couple of percentage points. There are approximately three times as many female-headed households with children under 18 as the comparable male-headed households with no wife present. The percentage of married-couple households increased slightly over this period of time.
Census demographic data on families in poverty appears to focus only on female-headed households. According to the 2019 ACS, 23.8% of female-headed households had income that was below the poverty level. This compares to 21.1% in 2010. Only 3.8% of married-couple households had incomes below the poverty level during the same periods.
However, when we look at
data (TABLE 7) on households
with Supplemental Security
Income (SSI), cash public
assistance income, or Food
Stamps/SNAP in the past 12
months, we see that in 2010,
only 9.4% of male-headed
households received some
type of assistance. In 2019, it
decreased to 5.6% of the
male-headed households with
children under 18 years of age
received some type of
assistance. Female-headed
households with children
under 18 were at 44.9% in
2010 and increased to 70.9%
in 2019.
VETERANS
Table 7 – Households Receiving Some Type of
Supplemental Income Assistance
2010 2019
Total: 29,182 28,285
Living in a household with supplemental 4,779 4,286
In family households: 4,634 4,286
In married-couple family 2,036 1004
In male-householder, no wife present 451 240
In female householder, no husband 2,147 3,042
In non-family households 145 0
Living in a household with no Supplemental 24,403 23,999 In family households: 24,145 23,999
In married-couple family 17,639 16,059
In male-householder, no wife present 1,908 2,195
In female householder, no husband 4,598 5,745
In non-family households 258 0
Packet Page 606 of 846Attachment 5 Page 325 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 13 of 199 Veterans are a significant population in Fairfield due to Travis AFB and its medical facilities.
The 2019 ACS estimates that 7,648 veterans are living in Fairfield. Military employees at Travis AFB are listed as a special population in the City’s Housing Element. Travis personnel vary significantly in income, the permanence of tenure, and other factors. In 2010, female veterans’ median income was 57% of their male counterparts; in 2017, it was approximately 87%. This increase is likely due to the change in the roles of females in the military and the classifications open to them. TABLE 8 provides detailed characteristics of veterans in Fairfield.
TABLE 8 – Selected Characteristics of Veterans and Non-Veterans 2010 and 2017 Packet Page 607 of 846Attachment 5 Page 326 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 14 of 199
RACE/ETHNICITY
The 2019 ACS data has been summarized in TABLES 9 and 10 below. Approximately half of the City’s population is White. The City’s racial/Hispanic origin composition has changed over time. As can be seen from the table, people of White and Hispanic origin are the racial/ethnic populations that have increased the most between 2010 and 2019. This increase is consistent with that of many Bay Area cities.
As can be seen from MAP 2, 3, and 4, as people of color moved into Fairfield, Whites living in the City's central core moved to the north and west parts of the city.
Table 9 – Summary of 2019 ACS Race
or Hispanic Origin Population
Race or Hispanic Origin Population % of
Population
White 60,766 51.87%
Black or African American 16,993 14.50%
Asian 18,749 16.0%
Other 20,628 17.61%
Total 117,136 100%
Hispanic or Latino (any race) 32,347 27.61%
Table 10 – Percentage Change
2010-2019
% Change Between
2000-2019
16.59% Hispanic
12.8%% Asian
.27%% Black
25.03%% White
TABLE 8 – Selected Characteristics of Veterans and Non-Veterans 2010 and 2017 …continued Packet Page 608 of 846Attachment 5 Page 327 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 15 of 199 MAP 2. Location of People of Various Racial Groups and Hispanic Origin 1990 Map 3 – Location of People of Various Racial Groups and Hispanic Origin 2000 Packet Page 609 of 846Attachment 5 Page 328 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 16 of 199
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) This is the geographic area where racial/ethnic groups experience the highest levels of segregation or concentration. Concentration is defined as the existence of racial or ethnic minorities in a census tract at a rate of 10% or higher than the jurisdiction as a whole. As can be seen in the 1990 map above (MAP 2), per HUD’s maps, there were no R/ECAP areas in the city. MAP 2 shows one R/ECAP area, which is outside the Fairfield city limits in a relatively sparsely populated area. For 2000, HUD identified one R/ECAP area, which is census tract 2526.02. For 2010, HUD identified one R/ECAP area, but it was a different census tract, 2526.07 (MAP 5). This area is bordered by the railroad track Travis Blvd. and North Texas Street, with a much smaller triangle bordered by West Texas Street, Washington St. and the railroad track.
Map 4 – Location of People of Various Racial Groups and Hispanic Origin 2010 Packet Page 610 of 846Attachment 5 Page 329 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 21 of 199
So that the reader can
see where the R/ECAP
area is located within
the context of central
Fairfield, MAP 6 shows
the census tracts
located in that area.
Please note that not
all census tracts are
contiguous with city
boundaries. The
census tracts in color
have been previously
designated as
neighborhood
revitalization areas.
Map 5 – R/ECAP Area Census Tract 2526.07
Map 6 – Fairfield Census Tracts
Packet Page 611 of 846Attachment 5 Page 330 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 22 of 199 Characteristics of the R/ECAP Area 2526.07
INCOME DATA
The 2010 median household income
in Fairfield was $68,009, down from
the 2008 median income of $75,400
(City of Fairfield, CA. Housing Element
[2014-2022] of the General Plan.)
The dip in median incomes most likely
reflects the recession of 2008-2009.
The 2019 ACS shows that Fairfield’s
median household income has just increased beyond the 2008 level to $89,693 (TABLE 14).
MAPS 7 and 8 show how household incomes are arrayed across the city. The households with the highest incomes are in the census tracts west of I-80 and north of Air Base Parkway.
Table 11 – Selected Population Characteristics
Census Tract 2526.07
Identifier Number
Tract Population 2289
Tract Minority% 56.62%
Number of Families 401
Non-Hispanic White 993
Tract Minority Population 1296
American Indian Population 0
Asian/ Pacific Islander 54
African American 414
Hispanic 606
Other/Two or More Races 224
TABLE 12. Selected Housing Characteristics
CT 2526.07
Housing Units
Total Housing Units 1194
1 to 4 Family Units 806
Median House Age (Years) 53
Owner Occupied Units 400
Renter Occupied Units 709
Vacant Units 85
TABLE 13. Selected Income Characteristics CT 2526.07
Income
Tract Income Level Low
% Below Poverty Line 34.57%
2015 Median Family Income $35,288
2019 Estimated Median Family Income $39,148
2015 Median Household Income $34,417
TABLE 14 – Comparison of the City of Fairfield
and Solano Co. Median Household Incomes
City of Fairfield Solano County
Year Income % Rate
of Change Income % Rate
of Change
2000 $51,151 N/A $54,099 N/A
2010 $68,009 33% $68,409 26%
2019 $89,693 31.8% $86,652 26.6%
Packet Page 612 of 846Attachment 5 Page 331 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 23 of 199 MAP 7- Income by Location
MAP 8 - Detail Income Map
Packet Page 613 of 846Attachment 5 Page 332 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 24 of 199 TABLE 15 below shows the percentage of households at 30%, 50% and 80% by census tract— the dark green highlights the census tract within the R/ECAP area.
TABLE 15 – Household Incomes at 30%, 50%, and 80% HAMFI by Census Tract Census
Tract
% HH w/
Income
30% HAMFI
% HH w/
Income
50% HAMFI
% HH w/
Income 80%
HAMFI
Census
Tract
% HH w/
Income
30% HAMFI
% HH w/
Income
50% HAMFI
% HH w/
Income
80% HAMFI
252501 20 44.86 61.62 252913 3.89 6.59 17.37
252604 27.72 49.5 66.34 252610 3.88 17.96 42.72
253500 10.58 23.32 43.27 252703 9.28 20.25 41.35
252401 11.95 23.11 51.39 252707 17.18 29.14 50.92
252608 12.65 38.34 58.5 252314 4.76 17.58 29.3
252611 13.07 23.12 57.79 252402 25 36.63 56.69
252311 5.7 8.05 17.45 252915 1.21 6.88 11.74
252607 16.67 47.3 65.77 252702 17.27 24.55 42.5
252201 5.63 8.61 19.21 252315 5.49 10.99 21.98
252306 10.2 16.73 27.76 252316 7.96 14.16 29.65
252310 9.09 14.05 21.9 252317 0.47 3.06 11.53
252312 14.39 19.06 36.33 252605 21.95 37.13 65.04
252802 1.57 9.41 34.9 252606 28.13 43.12 59.63
252313 11.14 19.43 28.67 252706 1.77 9.29 27.88
252305 3.31 7.23 19.58 252801 7.83 28.31 51.2
252502 29.03 45.16 73.39 252202 2.53 5.54 19.94
Packet Page 614 of 846Attachment 5 Page 333 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 25 of 199 TABLE 16 is useful when
thinking about incomes by
race and Hispanic origin.
Unfortunately, the ACS
does not show household
size, so it cannot be directly
compared to the CDBG
income limits.
POVERTY
The poverty rate in
Fairfield is 9.3%
indicating that 1 out of
every 11 residents lives in
poverty. The poverty
rate of the state of
California is 15.1. Fairfield has a lower than average percentage of residents below the poverty line when compared to the rest of California. In Fairfield, the percentage of the population in poverty has been relatively consistent across census and ACS periods, as shown in TABLE 17.
TABLE 18 shows the percentage of persons below the poverty level by race and Hispanic origin according to the 2019 ACS. Of the major racial groups (Whites, African Americans, Asians, and Hispanic origin), African Americans had the highest percentage (14.2%) of persons below the poverty level, and Asians had the lowest percentage (6.3%). People of Hispanic origin (of any race) were 12% below the poverty level.
TABLE 17- Individuals in Poverty 2000-2017
2000
Census
% 2010
ACS % 2017
ACS %
Individuals in
poverty 8,496 9.3% 11,206 11% 10,820 9.3%
TABLE 16. Annual Gross Income & Race/Hispanic Origin
Packet Page 615 of 846Attachment 5 Page 334 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 26 of 199
TABLE 18 - 2019 ACS Poverty and Race/Ethnicity Percentage Below the Poverty Total Below Poverty
Level
% Below Poverty
Level
Estimate Margin
of Error
Estimate Margin
of
Error
Estimate Margin
of Error
Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin
White alone 51,394 +/-
1,633
4,569 +/- 742 8.9% +/- 2.4
Black or African American Alone 15,676 +/-
1,077
2,589 +/- 649 16.5% +/- 3,7
American Indian and Alaska Native
alone
572 +/- 189 106 +/- 87 18.5% +/-
14.9 Asian alone 19,595 +/-
1.097
813 +/- 296 4.1% +/- 1.5
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
alone
1,714 +/- 439 114 +/- 136 6.7% +/- 7.7
Some other race alone 13,308 +/-
1,491
2.422 +/- 712 18.2% +/- 5.3
Two or more races 8,504 +/- 853 1.144 +/- 396 13.5% +/- 4.2 Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 32,977 +/-
1,010
4,749 +/- 943 14.4% +/- 2.8
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 35.273 +/-
1,176
2,841 +/- 520 8.1% +/- 1.4
MAP 9 on the next page shows the location of various racial/Hispanic origin groups in Fairfield and the poverty index for various areas, according to HUD’s AFFH Maps. (Please note that the Low Poverty Index captures the depth and intensity of poverty in a given neighborhood. The index uses both family poverty rates and public assistance receipt in the form of cash welfare, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Values are inverted, and percentile ranked nationally. The resulting values range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty there is in a neighborhood.)
Packet Page 616 of 846Attachment 5 Page 335 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 27 of 199 TABLE 19 shows poverty by age and gender. Poverty rates for females, in general, increase from age 16 to 75+.TABLE 18. Poverty by Age and Gender
MAP 9 - Race/Hispanic Origin and Poverty Index
TABLE 19 – Poverty by Age and Gender
Packet Page 617 of 846Attachment 5 Page 336 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 28 of 199
LANGUAGE AND NATIONAL ORIGIN
The City’s created a Language Access Plan (LAP) in 2021 and is based on data from the 2011- 2015 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year estimate. Language data was projected for 101,904, which was the population over the age of five at that time for which a language could be determined. Of the 101,904 persons, 66,539 persons (65.3%) ages five and older speak English as their only language.
The major languages are spoken by the remaining 35.7% (37,001 persons) of the City's population, and those that speak English less than "very well" are:
• Spanish: 20% of the 101,904 reported language population (20,411 persons) o 8.2%of the101,904 reported language population (8,398 persons) speak English less than "very well."
• Tagalog: 6.3% (6,389 persons) of the 101,904 reported language population o 2.3% or 2,321 persons speak English less than "very well."
Although approximately 15 languages are spoken by Fairfield residents, all of the remaining languages have less than 1,000 speakers each. MAP 10 depicts the distribution of households that speak English less than well by language group. People whose primary language is Spanish appear to be clustered in the downtown, higher poverty census tracts; people whose primary language is Tagalog, Chinese, Korean, or other Indic languages appear to be scattered throughout the City.
MAP 11. Distribution of Households by National Origin
MAP 11 above shows the distribution of households by national origin in 2017. Please note that persons from Mexico are primarily located in the downtown census tracts with the greatest amount of poverty. Persons from the Philippines and India appear to be more evenly distributed throughout the City.
MAP 10. Distribution of Persons with Limited English Proficiency
Packet Page 618 of 846Attachment 5 Page 337 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 29 of 199 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS – NON-HOMELESS (SPECIAL POPULATIONS) Certain groups may have more difficulty finding housing and may require specialized services or assistance to obtain adequate housing. Owing to their special circumstances, they are more likely to have extremely low-, very low-, or low incomes. These groups include the elderly, frail elderly, persons with disabilities, persons with or recovering from alcohol or other drug addiction, victims of domestic violence, large households, single-parent headed households (female and male), farm workers, and Travis AFB households. The City has chosen Military Employees as a special needs category in its Housing Element.
HUD Income Categories:
• Extremely low-income households are defined as households earning less than 30% of the area median income.
• Very low-income households are defined as households earning less than 50% of area median income.
• Low-income households are defined as households earning less than 80% of area median income.
TABLE 20 shows the 2021 HUD Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) income limits for the City of Fairfield. Income limits are always listed by household (HH) size and are a percent of area median income (AMI).
TABLE 20 – 2021 HUD CDBG Income Limits
Household Size Vallejo-Fairfield, CA MSA
30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI
1 $20,450 $34,000 $54,350
2 $23,350 $38,850 $62,100
3 $26,250 $43,700 $69,850
4 $29,150 $48,550 $77,600
5 $31,500 $52,450 $83,850
6 $33,850 $56,350 $90,050
7 $36,150 $60,250 $96,250
8 $38,500 $64,100 $102,450
Packet Page 619 of 846Attachment 5 Page 338 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 31 of 199 People With Disabilities
In 2017, approximately 11.9% of Fairfield’s population were people with disabilities. TABLE 21 shows the percentage increase in each category between 2012 and 2017. While the civilian population of Fairfield only changed 11.6% over this time period, the number of people with a disability increased 31.68%. Although women and men were comparable as a percentage of the population as a whole, the percentage increase for men was twice that of women. Why did this increase occur? It occurred primarily for males ages 18-64. In looking at race/Hispanic origin, significantly greater increases were seen for those of Asian and Hispanic origin. This may be due to the presence of men who received a disability in the service, have been discharged, and continue to utilize the medical facilities at Travis AFB and/or enjoy living in Fairfield. The 2020 census should provide more information.
TABLE 21 – Disability Percentage Increase
2012–2017
Subject % Increase
Total civilian population 11.60%
Total civilian population w/ a disability 31.68%
SEX
Male 41.95%
Female 23.52%
RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN
White alone 28.04%
Black or African American 30.38%
Asian Alone 67.85%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 44.29%
AGE
18 - 64 48.72%
65+ 19.24%
HUD’s AFFH provides two maps (MAPS 11 & 12) identifying where people with disabilities live.
Packet Page 620 of 846Attachment 5 Page 339 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 32 of 199 Map 11 Distribution of People with Hearing, Vision, and Cognitive Disabilities
Map 12 Distribution of People w/Ambulatory & Self-Care Disabilities & Independent Living
On the whole, people with disabilities live throughout Fairfield. Therefore, accessible housing is a need throughout Fairfield.
Packet Page 621 of 846Attachment 5 Page 340 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 33 of 199 TABLE 22 – 2017 ACS Characteristics such as Sex, Age, Race/ Hispanic Origin of People with Disabilities
SUBJECT Total With a Disability % with a
Civilian Noninstitutionalized Population 1,109,640 13,064 11.90% SEX
Male 52,939 6,236 11.80%
Female 56,701 6,828 12.00%
Race and Hispanic or Latino Origin
White Alone 50,588 6,759 13.40%
Black Or African American Alone 15,484 2,545 16.40%
American Indian & Alaska Native Alone 572 144 25.20%
Asian Alone 19,490 1,994 10.20%
Native Hawaiian & Other Pacific Islander Alone 1,714 134 7.80% Some Other Race Alone 13,326 584 4.40%
Two Or More Races 8,466 904 10.70%
White Alone, Not Hispanic Or Latino 34,373 5,322 15.50% Hispanic Or Latino (Of Any Race) 33,059 2,450 7.40%
AGE
Under 5 Years 7,494 72 1.00%
5 To 17 Years 21,072 877 4.20%
18 To 34 Years 26,096 1,663 6.40%
35 To 64 Years 41,830 5,636 13.50%
65 To 74 Years 7,906 1,922 24.30%
75 Years and Over 5,242 2,894 55.20%
Disability Type by Detailed Age
With A Hearing Difficulty (X) 3,624 3.30%
Population Under 18 Years 28,566 138 0.50%
Population 18 To 64 Years 67,926 1,635 2.40%
Population 18 To 34 Years 26,096 297 1.10%
Population 35 To 64 Years 41,830 1,338 3.20%
Population 65 Years+ 13,148 1,851 14.10%
Population 65 To 74 Years 7,906 667 8.40%
Population 75 Years+ 5,242 1,184 22.60%
With A Vision Difficulty (X) 1,962 1.80%
Population Under 18 Years 28,566 134 0.50%
Population 18 To 64 Years 67,926 983 1.40%
Population 18 To 34 Years 26,096 175 0.70%
Population 35 To 64 Years 41,830 808 1.90%
Population 65 Years+ 13,148 845 6.40%
Population 65 To 74 Years 7,906 313 4.00%
Population 75 Years+ 5,242 532
10.10%
Packet Page 622 of 846Attachment 5 Page 341 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 34 of 199 TABLE 22 – Characteristics of People with Disabilities continued… SUBJECT Total With a Disability % with a
With A Cognitive Difficulty (X) 4,939 4.80%
Population Under 18 Years 21,072 694 3.30%
Population 18 To 64 Years 67,926 2,921 4.30%
Population 65 Years+ 13,148 1,324 10.10%
Population 65 To 74 Years 7,906 427 5.40%
Population 75 Years+ 5,242 897 17.10%
With An Ambulatory Difficulty (X) 7,108 7.00%
Population Under 18 Years 21,072 34 0.20%
Population 18 To 64 Years 67,926 3,713 5.50%
Population 18 To 34 Years 26,096 431 1.70%
Population 35 To 64 Years 41,830 3,282 7.80%
Population 65 Years+ 13,148 3,361 25.60%
Population 65 To 74 Years 7,906 1,306 16.50%
Population 75 Years+ 5,242 2,055 39.20%
With A Self-Care Difficulty (X) 3,048 3.00%
Population Under 18 Years 21,072 137 0.70%
Population 18 To 64 Years 67,926 1,516 2.20%
Population 18 To 34 Years 26,096 360 1.40%
Population 35 To 64 Years 41,830 1,156 2.80%
Population 65 Years And Over 13,148 1,395 10.60%
Population 65 To 74 Years 7,906 385 4.90%
Population 75 Years And Over 5,242 1,010 19.30%
With An Independent Living Difficulty (X 5,149 6.40%
Population 18 To 64 Years 67,926 2,913 4.30%
Population 18 To 34 Years 26,096 683 2.60%
Population 35 To 64 Years 41,830 2,230 5.30%
Population 65 Years And Over 13,148 2,236 17.00%
Population 65 To 74 Years 7,906 671 8.50%
Population 75 Years And Over 5,242 1,565 29.90%
TABLE 23 looks at some other characteristics of people with disabilities in Fairfield.
Packet Page 623 of 846Attachment 5 Page 342 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 35 of 199 TABLE 23 - 2017 ACS Employment, Transportation, Education, and Income Status Characteristics of People with Disabilities Subject
Total
Population Not
Institutionalized
With a
Disability
No
Disability
Population Age 16 and over 86,505 12,002 74,503
Employment Status
Employed 62.90% 24.20% 69.10%
Not in Labor Force 33.30% 71.80% 27.00%
Employed Population Age 16 and Over 54,401 2,903 51,498 Class of Worker
Private for-profit wage and salary workers 65.80% 54.00% 66.50% Employee of private company workers 64.50% 53.40% 65.10% Self-employed in own incorporated business workers 1.40% 0.60% 1.40% Private, not-for-profit wage and salary workers 8.10% 10.00% 8.00% Local government workers 10.20% 10.10% 10.20%
State government workers 4.90% 8.30% 4.70%
Federal government workers 5.00% 8.30% 4.80%
Self-employed in own not incorporated business workers 5.80% 9.40% 5.60% Unpaid family workers 0.10% 0.00% 0.10%
Occupation
Management, business, science, and arts occupations 31.60% 27.50% 31.90% Service occupations 21.80% 30.90% 21.30%
Sales and office occupations 21.70% 18.20% 21.90%
Natural resources, construction, and maintenance
occupations 10.60% 6.40% 10.90%
Production, transportation, & material moving occupations 14.20% 17.10% 14.10% Industry
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 1.90% 1.60% 1.90% Construction 7.40% 4.10% 7.60%
Manufacturing 9.40% 7.20% 9.50%
Wholesale trade 1.90% 1.70% 1.90%
Retail trade 11.60% 6.60% 11.90%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 7.30% 7.40% 7.30% Information 1.70% 0.30% 1.80%
Finance & insurance, and real estate, rental & leasing 5.80% 7.40% 5.70% Professional, scientific, & management & administrative & waste management services 8.50% 13.50% 8.20%
Educational services, health care & social assistance 25.00% 25.00% 24.90% Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation & food
svcs 8.90% 13.30% 8.70%
Other services (except public administration) 3.30% 2.00% 3.40% Public administration 7.20% 9.80% 7.10%
Packet Page 624 of 846Attachment 5 Page 343 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 36 of 199 TABLE 23 continued…
Subject
Total
Population Not
Institutionalized
With a
Disability
No
Disability
COMMUTING TO WORK
Workers Age 16 and over 53,165 2,725 50,440
Car, truck, or van - drove alone 76.90% 69.80% 77.30%
Car, truck, or van - carpooled 14.00% 13.30% 14.10%
Public transportation (excluding taxicab) 2.20% 6.00% 2.00% Walked 1.00% 3.60% 0.90%
Taxicab, motorcycle, bicycle, or other means 1.40% 3.20% 1.30% Worked from home 4.50% 4.20% 4.50%
On the whole, people with a disability have lower incomes than those without a disability.
One of the most interesting facts in TABLE 24 below is that 79% of people with a disability have incomes at or above 150% of the poverty level. The Federal Poverty Guideline in 2019 is $12,880, which does not vary by location. 150% of the poverty level is $19,320, which may sustain an individual but certainly not a family of three or more.
Table 24 – Earnings and Poverty Status, People with Disabilities, 2012 and 2019 2012
2017
Subject
Total Civilian
Population Not
Institutionalize
With a
Disability
No
Disability
Total
Population Not
Institutionalize
With a
Disability
No
Disability
EARNINGS IN PAST 12 MONTHS (IN 2012 INFLATION ADJUSTED DOLLARS) Population Age 16 & up 48,786 2,391 46,395 55,159 3,310 51,849 $1 to $4,999 or loss 9.9% 14.2% 9.7% 58,586 3,334 55,252 $5,000 to $14,999 17.2% 24.5% 16.9% 8.70% 12.40% 8.40%
$15,000 to $24,999 12.1% 11.0% 12.2% 12.10% 17.80% 11.80% $25,000 to $34,999 10.8% 7.9% 10.9% 11.70% 10.90% 11.80% $35,000 to $49,999 14.1% 14.4% 14.0% 11.30% 12.40% 11.20% $50,000 to $74,999 18.0% 14.3% 18.2% 16.20% 13.00% 16.40% $75,000 or more 17.9% 13.7% 18.1% 16.60% 21.50% 16.30%
Median Earnings 34,936 27,875 35,290 23.40% 12.00% 24.10% POVERTY STATUS IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS
Population Age 16 & up 73,713 9,217 64,496 86,505 12,002 74,503 Below 100% of poverty level 11.8% 19.7% 10.6% 7.90% 13.00% 7.10% 100-149% of poverty level 7.7% 8.3% 7.6% 5.90% 8.00% 5.60% At or above 150 % of
poverty level 80.6% 72.0% 81.8% 86.20% 79.00% 87.30%
Packet Page 625 of 846Attachment 5 Page 344 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 37 of 199 Elderly and Frail Elderly
HUD defines an elderly or senior citizen as 65+ years of age. Frail elderly is defined as an elderly person who is unable to perform at least three activities of daily living. (This is also a criterion for Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance payments for care in nursing homes.)
The following TABLE 25 depicts characteristics of the elderly in 2010 and 2019. It is noteworthy that while the population only increased by about 11%, the percentage of the population over 65 increased by about 47%.
The table regarding people with disabilities shows that there are about 4,000 seniors who need assistance with independent living and help with self-care.
TABLE 25 -Population over 65 Years
2010 2019
Subject Total 65 years and over Total 65 years and over Total population 103,698 9,529 115,282 14,087
SEX AND AGE
Male 48.60% 40.30% 48.9%% 43.5%
Female 51.40% 59.70% 51.1% 56.5%
Median age (years) 32.8 74.3 34.8 72.9
RACE AND HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN
One race 92.90% 97.40% 91.7% 96.60%
White 45.60% 59.60% 49.4% 56.8%
Black or African American 16.40% 14.30% 15.2% 15.20%
Asian 15.30% 17.20% 16.9% 21.2%
Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 25.90% 10.80% 29.3% 11.3% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 35.30% 53.00% 31. 50% 48.7%
RELATIONSHIP
Population in households 102,067 9,303 113,479 13,766
Householder or spouse 50.20% 81.50% 50.00% 80%
Parent 1.70% 9.90% 2.0% 9.6%
Other relatives 41.90% 7.80% 41.8% 7.6%
Nonrelatives 6.30% 0.70% 6.2% 2.80%
Unmarried partner 2.30% 0.60% 2.1% 0.60%
Householder living alone 18.50% 35.70% 18.40% 33.14%
Packet Page 626 of 846Attachment 5 Page 345 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 38 of 199
EDUCATION & EMPLOYMENT
Approximately 85.5% of Fairfield residents are high school graduates or higher, as outlined in TABLE 26.
TABLE 26 – Educational Attainment
Total % Male %
Male Female % Female
Subject
AGE BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 10,308 (X) 5,301 (X) 5,007 (X) Population 18 to 24 years 1,252 12.1% 825 15.6% 427 8.5% Less than high school graduate 3,945 38.3% 2,003 37.8% 1,942 38.8% High school graduate (includes
equivalency) 4,433 43.0% 2,147 40.5% 2,286 45.7%
Some college or associate's degree 678 6.6% 326 6.1% 352 7.0% Bachelor's degree or higher 75,730 (X) 36,783 (X) 38,947 (X) Population 25 years and over 4,955 6.5% 2,496 6.8% 2,459 6.3% Less than 9th grade 4,574 6.0% 2,624 7.1% 1,950 5.0%
9th to 12th grade, no diploma 16,847 22.2% 8,284 22.5% 8,563 22.0% High school graduate (includes
equivalency) 20,340 26.9% 9,957 27.1% 10,383 26.7%
Some college, no degree 7,619 10.1% 3,714 10.1% 3,905 10.0% Associate's degree 15,250 20.1% 6,957 18.9% 8,293 21.3% Bachelor's degree 6,145 8.1% 2,751 7.5% 3,394 8.7%
Graduate or professional degree 66,201 87.4% 31,663 86.1% 34,538 88.7% High school graduate or higher 21,395 28.3% 9,708 26.4% 11,687 30.0% Bachelor's degree or higher 18,377 (X) 9,541 (X) 8,836 (X) Population 25 to 34 years 16,300 88.7% 8,162 85.5% 8,138 92.1% High school graduate or higher 4,826 26.3% 1,964 20.6% 2,862 32.4% Bachelor's degree or higher 14,879 (X) 7,526 (X) 7,353 (X) Population 35 to 44 years 12,454 83.7% 6,182 82.1% 6,272 85.3% High school graduate or higher 4,580 30.8% 2,038 27.1% 2,542 34.6% Bachelor's degree or higher 28,387 (X) 13,583 (X) 14,804 (X) Population 45 to 64 years 24,905 87.7% 11,727 86.3% 13,178 89.0% High school graduate or higher 8,013 28.2% 3,656 26.9% 4,357 29.4% Bachelor's degree or higher 14,087 (X) 6,133 (X) 7,954 (X) Population 65 years and over 12,542 89.0% 5,592 91.2% 6,950 87.4% High school graduate or higher 3,976 28.2% 2,050 33.4% 1,926 24.2% Bachelor's degree or higher
RACE AND HISPANIC OR LATINO ORIGIN
BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 39,000 (X) 19,415 (X) 19,585 (X) White alone 34,397 88.2% 16,937 87.2% 17,460 89.1%
High school graduate or higher 10,640 27.3% 5,011 25.8% 5,629 28.7% Bachelor's degree or higher 27,221 (X) 13,383 (X) 13,838 (X) Packet Page 627 of 846Attachment 5 Page 346 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 39 of 199 White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 26,051 95.7% 12,782 95.5% 13,269 95.9% High school graduate or higher 8,852 32.5% 4,195 31.3% 4,657 33.7% Bachelor's degree or higher 12,185 (X) 6,165 (X) 6,020 (X)
Packet Page 628 of 846Attachment 5 Page 347 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 40 of 199 TABLE 26 – Educational Attainment continued…
Total % Male %
Male Female % Female
Black alone 11,397 93.5% 5,701 92.5% 5,696 94.6%
High school graduate or higher 2,899 23.8% 1,314 21.3% 1,585 26.3% Bachelor's degree or higher 396 (X) 112 (X) 284 (X)
American Indian or Alaska Native alone 309 78.0% 99 88.4% 210 73.9% High school graduate or higher 78 19.7% 16 14.3% 62 21.8% Bachelor's degree or higher 14,172 (X) 6,245 (X) 7,927 (X) Asian alone 12,737 89.9% 5,727 91.7% 7,010 88.4%
High school graduate or higher 6,017 42.5% 2,559 41.0% 3,458 43.6% Bachelor's degree or higher 1,057 (X) 399 (X) 658 (X)
Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander
alone 1,014 95.9% 383 96.0% 631 95.9%
High school graduate or higher 164 15.5% 63 15.8% 101 15.3% Bachelor's degree or higher 5,222 (X) 2,603 (X) 2,619 (X) Some other race alone 3,034 58.1% 1,221 46.9% 1,813 69.2% High school graduate or higher 510 9.8% 318 12.2% 192 7.3% Bachelor's degree or higher 3,698 (X) 1,844 (X) 1,854 (X) Two or more races 3,313 89.6% 1,595 86.5% 1,718 92.7%
High school graduate or higher 1,087 29.4% 427 23.2% 660 35.6% Bachelor's degree or higher 18,243 (X) 9,300 (X) 8,943 (X) Hispanic or Latino Origin 12,425 68.1% 5,952 64.0% 6,473 72.4% High school graduate or higher 2,531 13.9% 1,228 13.2% 1,303 14.6% Bachelor's degree or higher
POVERTY RATE FOR AGE 25 YEARS+ FOR
WHOM POVERTY STATUS IS
DETERMINED BY EDUCATIONAL
ATTAINMENT LEVEL
(X) 13.5% (X) 10.6% (X) 16.8%
Less than high school graduate (X) 8.3% (X) 7.2% (X) 9.4% High school graduate (includes
equivalency) (X) 7.6% (X) 5.3% (X) 9.7%
Some college or associate's degree (X) 2.2% (X) 2.4% (X) 2.1% Bachelor's degree or higher
MEDIAN EARNINGS IN THE PAST 12
MONTHS (IN 2019 INFLATION-ADJUSTED
$)
45,249 (X) 52,055 (X) 39,789 (X)
Population 25 years and over with
earnings 27,208 (X) 35,771 (X) 18,045 (X)
Less than high school graduate 37,149 (X) 41,466 (X) 26,963 (X) High school graduate (includes
equivalency) 45,572 (X) 52,621 (X) 39,482 (X)
Some college or associate's degree 68,941 (X) 81,218 (X) 52,311 (X) Bachelor's degree 75,268 (X) 96,442 (X) 65,227 (X)
Packet Page 629 of 846Attachment 5 Page 348 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 41 of 199
EMPLOYMENT
Travis AFB is the largest employer in the city and Solano County, and the massive Travis workforce has a local economic impact of more than $1 billion annually. The Base also contributes many highly skilled people to the local labor pool. TABLE 27 lists the major employers in Fairfield. Currently, Travis Air Force Base employs 7,260 active military personnel, 3,770 civilians, and 4,250 reserves for a total of 15,280 persons. Travis personnel varies significantly
in income, the permanence of
tenure, and other factors.
While some may benefit from
housing options on Travis Air
Force Base, other military
households do not.
Table 28 – Fairfield Employment by Gender
Subject Total Male %
Male Female %
Female
Civilian employed population 16 years and over 59,246 31,814 53.70% 27,432 46.30% Management, business, science, and arts occupations: 19,244 9,622 50.00% 9,622 50.00% Management, business, and financial occupations: 7,477 4,831 64.60% 2,646 35.40% Management occupations 4,495 3,193 71.00% 1,302 29.00%
Business and financial operations occupations 2,982 1,638 54.90% 1,344 45.10% Computer, engineering, and science occupations: 2,716 1,810 66.60% 906 33.40% Computer and mathematical occupations 1,376 958 69.60% 418 30.40% Architecture and engineering occupations 777 552 71.00% 225 29.00% Life, physical, and social science occupations 563 300 53.30% 263 46.70% Education, legal, community service, arts, & media
occupations: 5,390 1,871 34.70% 3,519 65.30%
Community and social service occupations 1,658 513 30.90% 1,145 69.10% Legal occupations 162 120 74.10% 42 25.90%
Educational instruction, and library occupations 2,744 697 25.40% 2,047 74.60% Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media
occupations 826 541 65.50% 285 34.50%
TABLE 27 – Fairfield Major Employers
Company Name #
Travis Air Force Base 13,414
County of Solano 2,633
Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District 2,213
Northbay Medical Center 1,969
Solano Community College 750
Partnership HealthPlan Healthcare 561
City of Fairfield 553
Jelly Belly Candy Company 489
Sutter Fairfield Medical Campus
475
Westamerica Bank 418
Packet Page 630 of 846Attachment 5 Page 349 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 42 of 199 Healthcare practitioners and technical occupations: 3,661 1,110 30.30% 2,551 69.70% Health diagnosing and treating practitioners &
other technical occupations 2,367 526 22.20% 1,841 77.80% Health technologists and technicians 1,294 584 45.10% 710 54.90% Service occupations: 13,276 5,499 41.40% 7,777 58.60%
Healthcare support occupations 3,694 904 24.50% 2,790 75.50% Protective service occupations: 2,113 1,893 89.60% 220 10.40% Firefighting & prevention & other protective
service workers 940 796 84.70% 144 15.30%
Law enforcement workers including supervisors 1,173 1,097 93.50% 76 6.50% Food preparation and serving related occupations 4,344 1,351 31.10% 2,993 68.90% Building and grounds cleaning & maintenance
occupations 2,001 1,232 61.60% 769 38.40%
Personal care and service occupations 1,124 119 10.60% 1,005 89.40% Sales and office occupations: 11,730 4,467 38.10% 7,263 61.90% Sales and related occupations 5,478 3,207 58.50% 2,271 41.50% Office and administrative support occupations 6,252 1,260 20.20% 4,992 79.80% Natural resources, construction & maintenance
occupations: 7,504 6,719 89.50% 785 10.50%
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 1,045 548 52.40% 497 47.60% Construction and extraction occupations 5,210 4,985 95.70% 225 4.30% Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations 1,249 1,186 95.00% 63 5.00% Production, transportation, and material moving
occupations: 7,492 5,507 73.50% 1,985 26.50%
Production occupations 3,487 2,346 67.30% 1,141 32.70%
Transportation occupations 1,714 1,305 76.10% 409 23.90% Material moving occupations 2,291 1,856 81.00% 435 19.00%
LOWER INCOME CENSUS TRACTS AND BLOCK GROUPS
Defining “Low Income”
Packet Page 631 of 846Attachment 5 Page 350 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 43 of 199 Each year, HUD determines the median income for every city or Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Income for Fairfield is calculated from the Vallejo-Fairfield MSA. Persons with a household income of 0-30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) are considered to be extremely low-income. Those with household incomes of 31-50% of the AMI are considered to be very low-income, while those with incomes of 51-80% AMI are considered by HUD to be low- income. All households with incomes of 80% or less than the area median income are “lower- income” or “low/mod” persons, meaning low to moderate-income persons.
Income limits are based
on the number of
people in the
household. In the chart
above, a family of four
(4) persons earning
$50,000 annually would
be considered Low-
Income (51-80% AMI).
A family of 4 earning
$78,000 would NOT be
considered lower-
income by HUD.
Table 30 - Lower Income Block Groups
Census
Tract
Block
Group
# of
low/mod
people
Total #
of
people
% of
low/mod
people
Sorted in descending order of block groups with
the highest % of lower-income residents
2525.02 2 830 990 84%
2524.02 3 1,505 1,855 81%
2526.05 3 1,240 1,580 78%
2526.11 3 1,015 1,295 78%
2525.02 1 535 685 78%
2526.07 2 2,365 3,115 76%
2526.04 2 1,040 1,415 73%
2526.06 3 1,855 2,565 72%
2526.05 1 2,090 2,960 71%
2523.14 2 485 695 70%
2525.01 2 1,565 2,245 70%
Packet Page 632 of 846Attachment 5 Page 351 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 44 of 199 Census Tracts and Block Groups
For the purpose of taking the national census
and reporting statistics, the entire nation has
been divided into small subdivisions with
boundaries that normally follow visible
features. Block groups are a subdivision of a
census tract. Some kinds of data are
reported only at the census tract level, while
other data is reported at the block group
level. Each year, the American Community
Survey (ACS) estimates the number of people
who are lower-income living in each census
tract block group.
The City of Fairfield, with a population of an
estimated 116,020 persons, is divided into 28
census tracts and 69 block groups. Of these,
29 block groups (or 42% of all the block
groups) are considered “lower-income.” This
means that they have a population of 51% or lower-income households that earn 80% or less than the area median income, as described above.
TABLE 30 (pink cells) shows that a total of 40,625 persons, or 35% of the City’s population, live in the 29 census block groups that are predominantly inhabited by lower-income persons.
There are 27,040 lower-income persons who live in those block groups. The average lower- income percentage of all the lower-income block groups is 65.5%. There are also three block groups (yellow highlight) that show percentages of lower-income residents that are approaching the 51% threshold, and these should be carefully watched. 2526.04 3 650 950 68%
2524.01 4 780 1,190 66%
2526.06 2 585 905 65%
2528.01 4 855 1,335 64%
2524.01 1 555 905 61%
2525.01 1 345 565 61%
2526.08 2 2,130 3,520 61%
2523.13 1 675 1,120 60%
2527.07 2 915 1,560 59%
2524.02 1 640 1,100 58%
2526.11 1 695 1,205 58%
2526.04 1 315 555 57%
2526.07 1 620 1,115 56%
2526.06 1 1,330 2,405 55%
2526.08 1 385 745 52%
2526.05 2 630 1,240 51%
2524.01 2 410 810 51%
27,040 40,625 65.5%
2528.01 3 475 945 50%
2527.07 1 1,540 3,140 49%
2523.16 2 675 1,440 47%
2,690 5,525 48.7%
Packet Page 633 of 846Attachment 5 Page 352 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 45 of 199 TABLE 31 shows a list of all Fairfield census
tracts by number so that it is easier to see
the associated block groups for each census
tract.
Packet Page 634 of 846Attachment 5 Page 353 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 46 of 199 Map 13 - Fairfield Census Tracts without Block Groups
Map 14 - Downtown Lower Income Areas
Packet Page 635 of 846Attachment 5 Page 354 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 47 of 199
AREAS OF MINORITY CONCENTRATION
The maps below (MAPS 15 & 16) show where members of racial groups and people of Hispanic origin live in Fairfield. MAP 15 shows there does not seem to be a concentration of minority groups in the R/ECAP area. Census tract 2526.06 appears to have a higher concentration. MAP 16 shows an increase in people of Hispanic origin in the central city core.
Packet Page 636 of 846Attachment 5 Page 355 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 48 of 199 Map 15 - 2010 Map of Racial Groups and Hispanic Origin
Map 15 – Trends Showing Location of Racial Groups and Hispanic Origin-2010 Census Packet Page 637 of 846Attachment 5 Page 356 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 49 of 199
The dot maps used throughout this AI are from HUD’s AFFH mapping system.
Packet Page 638 of 846Attachment 5 Page 357 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 50 of 199 MAP 15 is derived from HUD’s CPD Maps, which highlight areas of interest and depict areas of minority concentration. This area is comprised of census tracts 2526.05, 2526.06, 2526.07 and 2521.01. These census tracts are low-income and, as could be seen, primarily inhabited by various racial and Hispanic origin populations.
MAP 16. Areas of Minority Concentration
Packet Page 639 of 846Attachment 5 Page 358 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 51 of 199 Although HUD FHEO wants its funds to be used for residential developments outside of the areas of minority concentration, the state of California has labeled census tracts 2526.05, 2526.06 and 2526.07 as Opportunity Zones after the City contacted the Department of Finance. Established in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Opportunity Zones provide tax incentives for investment in designated low-income census tracts. California Opportunity Zones will support new investments in environmental justice, sustainability, climate change, and affordable housing. Additionally, Congress has provided an incentive for developing affordable housing in Qualified Census Tracts. HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research shows census tracts in the minority concentration area and 2525.01 and 2525.02 as qualified census tracts for the Low-Income Tax Credit program.
TABLE 29 lists census
tracts in Fairfield with the
highest proportion of
African Americans and
people of Asian and
Hispanic origin in the
downtown Fairfield area,
including the areas of
minority concentration
that HUD has identified.
A small area of one of these census tracts, 2524.01, appears to be in the area covered by the Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan.
The City’s race and Hispanic
origin table have been repeated
here so that the reader can
compare the percentage of each
group with those in the
downtown area. In all cases, the
percentage of people of Hispanic
origin in the census tracts above
is greater than the percentage of
Hispanics in the City population.
TABLE 32 – Percent of Racial Groups and People of
Hispanic Origin in the Downtown Area
Census Tract # % Black or
African American
% Asian Origin % Hispanic
Origin
2524.01 10.45 10.76 50.07
2525.01 11.06 7.01 49.82
2526.04 28.79 30.16 30.16
2526.05 15.18 7.38 45.40
2526.06 20.57 10.74 36.35
2526.07 16.86 6.41 45.59
TABLE 33 – Percentage of Racial and Hispanic Origin
Groups in Fairfield 2019
Race or Hispanic Origin % of Population
White 51.9%
Black or African American 14.5%
Asian 16%
Other 17.6%
Total: 100%
Hispanic or Latino (any race) 27.6%
Packet Page 640 of 846Attachment 5 Page 359 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 52 of 199 EFFECTS OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC
A year of the pandemic has taken a significant toll on the national, state and regional economies. The following analysis is contained in The Solano County 2020 Index of Economic and Community Progress (May 2021) which can be found online here:
https://www.solanocounty.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=34920 COVID-19 Job Impacts
Not surprisingly, the annual trend of job growth in Solano County was interrupted by the pandemic. Through the end of 2020, employers in the County retained 10,500 fewer non-farm employees at the start of that year. In addition, there were 16,500 few employed residents in Solano County (those both employed in and out of the County). Prior to March of 2020, the unemployment rate had been relatively stable, and near four percent, a level considered “full employment” by most economists.
By the end of 2020, the unemployment rate reached 9.5 percent, the highest rate since 2013.
This was actually an improvement over previous months leading to December 2020, reaching
15.7 percent in April of 2020. Employment data revealed significant job loss remains in March 2021, particularly in industries affected by statewide health and “social-distancing” orders:
retail, restaurants, business services, and tourism/hospitality. In addition, Solano County’s labor force has been dramatically changed as some workers had to give up their jobs to care for themselves or others in their households, while many others changed their work locations from office to home, often even changing where they lived.
Recovery and Resilience
A number of city, county, state, and federal agencies, including healthcare providers and members of private industry, have dedicated time and resources to mitigate the long-term effects of this economic downturn. In 2020, the County of Solano authorized discretionary funds from the Federal CARES Act to be spent on rental assistance grants for Solano County residents in jeopardy of evictions due to job loss and engaged with the Workforce Investment Board of Solano County to issue grants to small business owners to stay open and keep employees working.
In addition, over $584 million dollars of the federal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) was received by businesses and employers based in Solano County between April 2020 and March 2021. The county government continues to focus extreme efforts to address the health Packet Page 641 of 846Attachment 5 Page 360 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 53 of 199 impacts from COVID-19 in 2021 and continues to advocate for additional vaccines. On another positive note, the Solano EDC recently has just received a new EDA CARES Act Grant supported by matching funds from the County of Solano, all cities in the County, and Solano Transportation Authority to create a comprehensive regional plan for economic recovery. All of these efforts continue to move Solano County forward through economic recovery from COVID- 19 impacts and beyond.
Key Highlights from the 2020 Index Our Changing Economy • Solano County employers hired 10,500 fewer workers in 2020, a 7.3 percent decrease from 2019. Solano County’s labor force fell by 5,300 in 2020, with 2.5 percent of residents working or seeking a job.
• 183,600 residents of Solano County were employed as 2020 ended, 16,500 less than 2019.
• Solano County’s unemployment rate was 9.5 percent at the start of 2021, the highest rate for Solano County’s economy since 2013.
• Industry losses of jobs in 2020 were driven by hotel/motel, restaurant, other personal services, and retail jobs lost due to the COVID-19 recession. • Based on the most recent data available, inflation-adjusted (real) gross product for Solano County grew by 3.6 percent in 2019, slightly faster than both California and the national economy.
• Solano County’s personal income per person increased in 2019 by 3.7 percent after inflation.
• Median household income also increased in 2019 after inflation to $65,055 in 2012 dollars (+1.9%).
• Solano County median wages in 2020 increased from 2019 for local workers to just $0.02 below California on average; the first time on record that gap was closed, suggesting new jobs have been above average wages and pulling all wages up. • Poverty rates for Solano County residents fell in 2019 (the latest data), based on five- year averages.
• Regional cost of living increased for Solano County by 1.6 percent in 2019 (the latest data), slower than the state and national averages.
Packet Page 642 of 846Attachment 5 Page 361 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 54 of 199 • $584 million in PPP loans came to Solano County employers from April 2020 to April 2021 amid job losses from the COVID-19 recession, approximately 3.2 percent of county gross product.
• Social equity metrics for Solano County suggest the County has performed well since 2012 on poverty alleviation and median household income, less so on homeownership versus state and national averages for under-represented communities.
Changing Community
• Solano County’s population fell by 684 people in 2020 (-0.16 percent) and grew by 6.1 percent from 2010 to January 1, 2021.
• Solano County’s population is forecasted to grow from 2020 to 2060 by approximately
23.8 percent.
• Data from the US Postal Service suggests more households came to Solano County than left during 2020, even though the population fell.
• Median housing prices increased 7.9 percent in 2020 to $485,950; housing affordability in Solano County decreased slightly.
• Recent allocations of housing units from the state government assigned over 10,990 more units need to be built to balance supply and demand in Solano County between 2023 and 2031.
• Commute times to work increased in 2019 (the latest data) by 2.1 minutes from 2018 for Solano County residents; the COVID-19 recession may transform commute patterns to 2025.
• Solano County’s assessed property values increased to over $60 billion in the fiscal year 2019- 20, while taxable sales fell slightly in the calendar year 2020.
Considerations for the Future
The COVID-19 recession wreaked havoc on Solano County’s labor markets for the first half of 2020. Forecasts suggest that Solano County will return to preCOVID levels of employment by 2023, as re-opening and federal stimulus assist jobs recovery. Housing markets are forecasted to continue price growth in 2021 due to strong demand conditions but may exacerbate inequities for lower- to middle-income households trying to own homes.
Packet Page 643 of 846Attachment 5 Page 362 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 55 of 199 City of Fairfield Responses to COVID Pandemic
The City of Fairfield received $507,908 in CDBG COVID-1 funding, and $691,599 in COVID 3 funding, for a total of $1,198,683. To respond to the pandemic, the City took the following actions:
Eviction Prevention for Vulnerable Lower-Income Households • Project Sentinel – Tenant/Landlord Services to Maintain & Stabilize Housing was funded for $70,000 to assist the lowest income renters with mediation and dispute resolution services and well as direction to resources to help avoid evictions. As of the 4th quarter of FY 2020-21, 69 persons have been assisted. • SHELTER Inc. – Homeless Prevention and Rapid Rehousing Program was funded $377,439 to provide emergency rental assistance for households earning not more than 50% of the area median income who are in danger of eviction. By the end of FY 2020-21, 58 persons had been assisted with these funds. Many more were redirected to the State Emergency Rental Assistance Program, which offers much more robust assistance. At this time, it is unknown how many Fairfield residents at what levels of income have been assisted with this source.
Preventing COVID Transmission in Vulnerable Populations • Ohio Street House for At-Risk Homeless Residents was funded both for rehabilitation and operating expenses for a new six-unit residential structure, owned by the City, to provide ten beds of both emergency and transitional housing for the City’s most vulnerable unsheltered residents. Funding was $320,000 for rehabilitation and 301,332 for operating expenses, and renovations are complete.
• NorthBay Healthcare – COVID-19 Testing was funded $250,000 To provide Outreach Team that targeted senior nursing facilities to screen and test for COVID at multiple facilities and to purchase personal protective equipment and a rapid COVID testing machine.
• Mission Samoa Transitional Housing Project was funded $20,000 To provide transitional housing services for homeless parolee clients who have been released from jail, including homeless prevention case management and permanent housing counseling, transportation to medical appointments, and supplies for personal protective equipment and cleaning. Twenty persons served by Quarter 4 of FY 2020-21.
Packet Page 644 of 846Attachment 5 Page 363 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 56 of 199 • Child Haven Inc. COVID-Safe Mental Health Services for Abused Children was funded for 60,000 to provide CARE Clinic Services to children experiencing family violence, with over 70 children served in FY 2020-21.
Providing Food Security
• St. Marks Manna Food Pantry was funded to provide food distribution to lower-income families, with 793 persons served last fiscal year. The funding allowed them to purchase proteins to supplement Food Bank and donated foods, creating food bags that are distributed in drive-through events in the Fairfield lower-income area. • Senior Meals Program provided meals for lower-income seniors at the Senior Manor, Dover Woods, and Parkway Plaza Senior Apartments. The program provided meals to 277 seniors last year.
• Fairfield Main Street Association Meal Program was funded at $30,000 To provide meal vouchers to lower-income residents at Union Square Apartments, which also supported local downtown Fairfield restaurants during the pandemic. The program provided meals to 59 people.
Helping Fairfield Youth
• The Leaven – Parkway Gardens and Grande Circle Centers was funded for $37,084 To help the agency switch to remote after-school/home-school tutoring at two large lower- income housing complexes, serving 157 youth last year.
Packet Page 645 of 846Attachment 5 Page 364 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 57 of 199
5. HOUSING
HOUSING PROFILE
The primary type of housing in
Fairfield is single-family, owner-
occupied housing.
The City’s former Redevelopment
Agency acquired and demolished
24 four-plexes because they were blighted and created a high crime area. The developer who acquired the land built single-family homes there. However, the latest Housing Element recognizes the need for more varied housing stock and particularly for affordable housing.
The vacancy
rate in Fairfield
is very low,
particularly in
the single-
family owner-
occupied
market (TABLE
31). The 3.3% vacancy rate in ownership housing in 2010 can be ascribed to foreclosures in 2009 and onwards. Any rental vacancy rate below 5% is considered to be very low. Consistently, the rental vacancy rate – although higher than the homeownership rate – has been very low.
Those markets can be considered to be sellers or landlords markets because the demand for housing outstrips the supply of housing.
As can be seen in TABLE 32,
the number of one-
bedroom, two and three-
bedroom units have
increased over time, the
four-bedroom units were
almost the same in 2019 as
in 2010, and five-bedroom
units increased dramatically.
TABLE 34 - Number and Percentage of Single-Family Units Over Time
Single-Family Units 2005 2010 2019
Units in Structure 36,762 36,283 39,867
1-unit, detached 24,083 25,043 26,529
% of Total 65.51% 69.00% 66.5%
TABLE 35 - Occupied Units and Vacancy Rates
2005 2010 %
Change
2019 %
Change
Total housing units 36,762 36,283 -1.30% 39,867 9.0%
Occupied housing units 32,991 33,270 0.85% 37,310 12.1% Vacant housing units 3,771 3,013 -20.10% 2,557 -15.1%
Homeowner vacancy rate 0.7 3.3 371.43% 0.6 -81.8%
Rental vacancy rate 3.3 5.3 60.61% 2.9 -45.3%
TABLE 36 – # of Homes at Various Bedroom Sizes Over Time
BEDROOMS 2005 2010 %
Change
2019 %
Change
No bedroom 143 136 -4.90% 798 486.8%
1 bedroom 3055 2504 -18.04% 2,999 19.8%
2 bedrooms 8378 7765 -7.32% 8,462 9%
3 bedrooms 14935 14289 -4.33% 6%
4 bedrooms 8276 9662 16.75% 9,957 3.1%
5 or more 1975 1927 -2.43% 2,502 29.8%
Packet Page 646 of 846Attachment 5 Page 365 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 58 of 199 TABLE 33 looks at tenure (owner or renter) by race and Hispanic origin in 2000, 2010 and 2019.
Whites had a higher percentage of ownership housing, and African Americans, Asians, and Hispanics had a lower percentage than their representation in Fairfield’s population as a whole.
TABLE 37 – Tenure, Race and Hispanic Origin Over Time
2000 % of
Total 2010 % of
Total 2019 % of
Total
%
Change
2000-10
$
Change
2010-
Total Housing Units 31,792 100% 37,184 100.0 39,867 100% 16.96% 7.2% Occupied Housing Units 30,870 97.1 34,484 92.7 37,310 95.5% 11.71% 8.19% Vacant Housing 922 2.9 2,700 7.3 2557 4.5% 192.84% -.5.3%% Owner-Occupied 18,415 59.7 20,835 60.4 22,125 53% 13.14% 6.19% White 19,273 62.4 10,540 30.6 12,238 55.3% -45.31% 16.11% Black or African American 4,793 15.5 2,707 7.9 3,067 13.9% -43.52% -13. 29% American Indian/Alaska
263 0.9 86 0.2 No
No Info -67.30%
Asian 2,822 9.1 3,169 9.2 3,8733,
17.5% 12.30% 22.2%
Native Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander
255
0.8 163
0.5 284
1.3%
-36.08%
74.2%
Some other race 2,021 6.5 27 0.1 1,216 5.5% -98.66% 4,403.70 Two or more races 1,443 4.7 689 2.0 1310 5.9% -52.25% 90.13% Hispanic or Latino origin 4,270 13.8 3,454 10.0 4,188 18.9% -19.11% 21.25% Renter-occupied housing units* 13,649 39.6 15,185 % No Info 11.25% White No Info No Info 4,896 14.2 8,143 53.6% No Info 66.31% Black/ African American alone
householder
No Info
No Info
3,161
9.2 3,027
19.9%
No Info
-4.23%
American Indian and Alaska
Native alone householder No Info No Info 83 0.2 No
Info No Info No Info
Asian alone householder No Info No Info 1,272 3.7 1,988 13.1% No Info 56.28% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander alone householder No Info No Info 133 0.4 605 4% No Info 354.88% Some Other Race alone
No Info No Info 28 0.1 919 6.1% No Info 14%
Two or More Races householder No Info No Info 670 1.9 503 3.3% No Info -24.9% Hispanic or Latino householder No Info No Info 3,406 9.9 3,747 24.7% No Info 10.01% White alone householder (Not
Hispanic/Latino No Info No Info 1,178 3.4 5,487 36.1% No Info 365.78% * These categories were not listed in the 2000 DP-04
TABLE 34 looks at tenure by household size over the time from 2010 to 2019. Ownership housing decreased by 6.29%, although all housing units increased by 3.74 %. Rental housing increased by 33%.
Packet Page 647 of 846Attachment 5 Page 366 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 59 of 199 TABLE 38 - Tenure by Household Size
Age of Housing Stock
The vast majority of the city’s housing was constructed between 1970 and 2009. There will be another burst of housing construction, probably beginning in 2022-23 as development begins in the Train Station Specific Plan area. The Appendix contains detailed tables regarding the age of housing.
Overcrowding
For the purposes of this analysis, “overcrowding” is defined as an average “persons per room” ratio that exceeds 1.01. Severe overcrowding can be defined as more than 1.5 persons per room.
As can be seen in TABLE 35, the category with the greatest number of overcrowded units is
1.01 to occupants per room. HUD’s standard for housing authorities is two persons per bedroom plus one. There was a total of 595 owner-occupied units and 1,783 tenant units that Packet Page 648 of 846Attachment 5 Page 367 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 60 of 199 were overcrowded according to the 2017 ACS, 2.9% and 11.3%, respectively. (Data on the number of units overcrowded were not available for 2010 in the ACS.) Clearly, there are families who need homes/apartments with more bedrooms than they can afford. However, building 1,000 three-bedroom units will not reduce overcrowding if those units are not affordable to families who need them.
TABLE 39 – Overcrowding Data ACS 2017
Occupants Per Room Estimate Percentage
Occupied housing units 37,310 37,310
Owner-occupied 22,125 59.3%
Renter-occupied 15,185 40.7%
Average household size of owner-
occupied unit
3.24 (X)
Average household size of the renter-
occupied unit
2.88 (X)
Housing Cost
As noted above, housing cost is a key factor in reducing overcrowding. The cost to build housing, the availability of land to develop or redevelop housing and the market price of housing are factors in determining the price of a single-family house or rental unit. There is little that can be done to change the market price of housing except build more than the increase in population to increase the supply and build less than the demand, decreasing the supply and raising the market price. However, local governments and the State have a variety of tools that can be used to reduce the cost of housing. Jurisdictions can provide low-cost sites development subsidy funds to assist in constructing the housing and by waiving planning, building and fire fees.
In May 2019, an article in the Vallejo Times-Herald newspaper quoted a California Housing Partnership report that said, “If you don’t earn at least $36 per hour, you can’t afford to live in Solano County, the most affordable county in the Bay Area” (TABLE 36).
TABLE 40 - Comparisons of Home Value and Home Prices
Fairfield Solano County CA US
Median Estimated Home Value ($) 55,000 430,000 547,000 230,000 Estimated Home Value 12-Month 5.6 9 8.1 1.4
Median List Price ($) 470,000 420,000 480,000 89,900
Median Home Age 34 39 45 45
Own 56 59 54 64
Rent 44 41 46 36
Packet Page 649 of 846Attachment 5 Page 368 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 61 of 199 Realtors Property Resource by Nancy Meyer 7/18
Packet Page 650 of 846Attachment 5 Page 369 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 62 of 199
6. LENDING PRACTICES
HOME MORTGAGE DISCLOSURE ACT (HMDA) DATA
An analysis of lending practices is possible through an examination of data gathered from lending institutions in compliance with the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). The HMDA was enacted by Congress in 1975 and is implemented by the Federal Reserve Board as Regulation C. The intent of the Act is to provide the public with information related to financial institution lending practices and to aid public officials in targeting public capital investments to attract additional private sector investments.
Since the enactment of the HMDA in 1975, lending institutions have been required to collect and publicly disclose data regarding applicants, including the location of the loan (by census tract, county, and Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)); income, race and gender of the borrower; the number and dollar amount of each loan; property type; loan type; loan purpose; whether the property is owner-occupied; action taken for each application; and, if the application was denied, the reason(s) for denial. Property types examined include one-to-four family units, manufactured housing and multi-family developments.
HMDA data is a useful tool in accessing lending practices and trends within a jurisdiction. While many financial institutions are required to report loan activities, it is important to note that not all institutions are required to participate. Depository lending institutions – banks, credit unions, and savings associations – must file under HMDA if they hold assets exceeding the coverage threshold set annually by the Federal Reserve Board, have a home or branch office in one or more Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), and originated at least one home purchase or refinancing loan on a one-to-four family dwelling in the preceding calendar year. Such institutions must also file if they meet any one of the following three conditions: 1) is a federally insured or regulated institution; 2) originates a mortgage loan that is insured, guaranteed, or supplemented by a federal agency; or 3) originates a loan intended for sale to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac.
For-profit, non-depository institutions (such as mortgage companies) must file HMDA data if their value of the home purchase or refinancing loans exceeds 10% or more of their total loan originations or equals or exceeds $25 million; they either maintain a home or branch office in one or more MSAs, or in a given year execute five or more home purchase, home refinancing, or home improvement loan applications, originations, or loan purchases for properties located in MSAs; or they hold assets exceeding $10 million, or have executed more than 100 home purchase or refinancing loan originations in the preceding calendar year.
Packet Page 651 of 846Attachment 5 Page 370 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 63 of 199 It is recommended that the analysis of HMDA data be tempered by the knowledge that no one characteristic operates in isolation but must be considered in light of other factors. For instance, while it is possible to develop conclusions simply on the basis of race data, it is more accurate when all possible factors are considered, particularly in relation to loan denials and loan pricing. According to the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC), “with few exceptions, controlling for borrower-related factors reduces the differences among racial and ethnic groups.” Borrower-related factors include income, loan amount, lender, and other relevant information included in the HMDA data. Further, the FFIEC cautions that the information in the HMDA data, even when controlled for the borrower-related factors and the lender, “is insufficient to account fully for racial or ethnic differences in the incidence of higher-priced lending.” The FFIEC suggests that a more thorough analysis of the differences may require additional details from sources other than HMDA about factors, including the specific credit circumstances of each borrower, the specific loan products that they are seeking, and the business practices of the institutions that they approach for credit.
Although there is data for loan origination and denial by Fairfield’s census tracts, information about race, Hispanic origin and sex is only captured for the MSA. The following analysis is provided for the Vallejo-Fairfield MSA, summarizing 2020 HMDA data, the most recent year for which data are available. Where specific details are included in the HMDA records, a summary is provided below for loan denials, including information regarding the purpose of the loan application, the race of the applicant and the primary reason for denial. For the purposes of analysis, this report will focus only on the information available and will not make assumptions regarding data that is not available or was not provided as part of the mortgage application or in the HMDA reporting process.
2020 HMDA Data for Fairfield
In 2020, in the Fairfield-Vallejo MSA, there were 35,174 applications submitted. • 22,154 loans were originated or sold on the Secondary Market to purchase, refinance, or make improvements to single-family homes.
• Overall, the origination rate (the loan was accepted by the financing institution and homeowner) was 62.9%.
• Of the remaining applications, approximately 3,838 or 10.9% of all applications were denied.
• The remainder were approved but not accepted, withdrawn by the applicant, closed because the application was incomplete or not accepted by the borrower.
Packet Page 652 of 846Attachment 5 Page 371 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 64 of 199 It is important to note that financial institutions are not required to report reasons for loan denials, although many do so voluntarily. Also, while many loan applications are denied for more than one reason, this analysis refers to the primary reason for the denial of each loan.
Loans Closed - The balance of the 9,158 applications that were neither originated nor denied was closed for one reason of the reasons:
• 15.1% were withdrawn by the applicant,
• 5% were closed because they were incomplete,
• 2.5% purchased loan,
• less than seven had their preapproval request denied, and • 0.1% had their approval request approved but not accepted.
Detail on Loans Originated
Types of Loans - Of the 22,154 loans that were made/originated:
• 15,594 were conventional first liens,
• 5,645 were a combination of VA first liens (3,466) and FSA/RHS (Farm Service Agency/Rural Housing Service) first liens (2,179), and
• 886 were a combination of conventional subordinate liens (refinancing)(885) and FSA/RHS subordinate lien (1).
Purpose of Loans – Of the loans that were made/originated:
• 5,044 were for home purchase
• 346 were for home improvement
• 374 were for other purposes
• 12,032 were for refinancing
• 4,328 were for cash-out refinancing
Types of Housing – Of the loans that were made/originated:
• 22,069 were for single-family homes
• 78 were for manufactured homes
• 7 were multi-family loans on dwellings for five or more families
Race and Ethnicity – Of the 22,154 loans that were made/originated, the primary borrowers were:
• 3,828 or 17.3% of the borrowers were of Hispanic ethnicity, any race • 238 or 1% were American Indian or Alaska Native
• 3,717 6% were Asian, of which:
Packet Page 653 of 846Attachment 5 Page 372 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 65 of 199 o 50 were Asian Indian
o 34 were Chinese
o 255 were Filipino
o 12 were Japanese
o Six were Korean
o 12 were Vietnamese
o 2,348 were Other Asian
• 2,237 or 10% were Black
• 308 or 1% were Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
• 14,180 64% were White, and
• 1,436 or 6.5% did not provide a race/declined to state
Gender – Of the loans that were made/originated, the primary borrowers declared their gender to be:
• 14,268 or 64.4% of primary applicants were male
• 7,734 or 35% were female
• 124 or .6% selected both male and female
Detail on Loans Denied
There were 3,838 loans that were denied. Of these:
• 831 of the applicants were of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, any race • 69 or 1.8% were American Indian or Alaska Native
• 756 or 19.7% were Asian, of which:
o 25 were Asian Indian
o 12 were Chinese
o 67 were Filipino
o Three were Japanese
o Three were Vietnamese
o 646 were Asian or other Asian
• 562 or 14.6% were Black
• 54 or 1.4% were Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
• 2,032 or 52.9% were White, and
• 355 or 9.2% did not provide a race/declined to state
Gender
• 2,401 or 62.6% were male
• 1,405 or 36.6% were female
Packet Page 654 of 846Attachment 5 Page 373 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 66 of 199 • 71 or 1.8% selected both male and female
Analysis of Loan Denials
TABLE 41 - Analysis of 2020 HMDA Data
35,174 Total Applications (Apps)
2020 # App
# of Apps that
became
Originated &
Purchased
Loans
% of Apps that
became
Originated &
Purchased
Loans
# Apps
Denied
% of Apps
Denied
# Other
Disposition
of Apps
% Other
Disposition*
of Apps*
Hispanic 6,816 4,333 63.6% 831 12.2% 1,653 24.3%
Non-Hispanic 28,358 18,682 65.9% 3,007 10.6% 6,667 23.5% Total: 35,174 23,015 3,838 8,320
American
Indian/Alaskan 425 246 57.9% 69 16.2% 110 25.9%
Asian 6,095 3,871 63.5% 756 12.4% 1,468 24.1%
African American 3,971 2,365 59.6% 562 14.2% 1,044 26.3% Hawaiian/Pacific
Islands 507 325 64.1% 54 10.7% 118 23.3%
White 21,618 14,715 68.1% 2,032 9.4% 4,871 22.5%
Unknown 2,558 1,493 58.4% 355 13.9% 709 27.7%
Total: 35,174 23,015 3,828 8320
“Other Disposition” of applications includes those that were approved by not accepted, those withdrawn by the applicant, files closed incomplete, denial of preapproval request, & preapproval requests that were approved but not accepted.
Note that “American Indian” is a Racial common classification for persons who are Hispanic.
Packet Page 655 of 846Attachment 5 Page 374 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 67 of 199
As is evident in the above table and chart, Whites have a noticeably lower denial percentage than all other groups. Asians experience a 3% higher denial rate than Whites, African Americans experience a 4.5% higher denial rate, and American Indians/Alaskan Natives (a commonly used racial category for Hispanic persons) experience a 6.8% higher denial rate than Whites.
Gender
Of the 3,838 loans that were denied,
• 991 applications by females were denied (25.8%)
• 1,358 applications by males were denied (35.4%)
• 1,450 joint applications were denied (38%)
• 29 applications with gender not available (0.8%) were denied
TABLE 42 - Race and Sex in 2018 Mortgage Lending
Race and Sex # Apps
# Loans
Originated
or
Purchased
% Loans
Originated
or
Purchased
#
Applications
Denied
%
Applications
Denied
Hispanic
Not Hispanic
American Indian/ Alaskan
Male 60
Female 47
Joint 31
Not Available 0
Asian
Figure 1 2020 Loan Denial Percentage by Race and Ethnicity Packet Page 656 of 846Attachment 5 Page 375 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 68 of 199 Male 1,032
Female 994
Joint 1,529
Not Available 15
African American
Male 710
Female 805
Joint 668
Not Available 7
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
Male 96
Female 68
Joint 97
Not Available
White
Male 3,465
Female 2,934
Joint 6,494
Not Available 43
Two or more minority
races
Male 44
Female 45
Joint 39
Not Available 0
Race Not Available/Joint
Male 516
Female 334
Joint 1,812
Not Available 50
TABLE 43 looks at the same type of data for people of Hispanic origin and non-Hispanic origin. “Hispanic" category consists of applicants of minority races or Hispanic or Latino origin. “Non- Hispanic" consists of applicants of the White race who are not of Hispanic or Latino origin.
TABLE 43 - Race and Sex in 2018 Mortgage Lending
Ethnicity and Sex # Apps
# Loans
Originated
or
Purchased
% Loans
Originated
or
Purchased
#
Applications
Denied
%
Applications
Denied
Hispanic or Latino
Male
Female
Joint
Not Available
Total:
Packet Page 657 of 846Attachment 5 Page 376 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 69 of 199 Not Hispanic or Latino
Male
Female
Joint
Not Available
Total:
Joint
Male
Female
Joint
Not Available
Total:
Packet Page 658 of 846Attachment 5 Page 377 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 70 of 199
7. LAWS, POLICIES AND FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING
FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING LAWS AND EXECUTIVE ORDERS
Both Federal and State fair housing laws establish protected classes, govern the treatment of these individuals, and are designed to affirmatively further access to housing and community development resources to members of protected classes. This section provides an overview of these laws.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.
Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act) and as amended in 1988: Prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental and financing of dwellings, and in other housing-related transactions, based on:
• Race;
• Color;
• National origin;
• Religion;
• Sex;
• Familial status (including children under the age of 18 living with parents or legal custodians, pregnant women and people securing custody of children under the age of eighteen, or discrimination based on age); and
• Persons with physical, mental, and developmental disabilities.
Specifically, in the sale and rental of housing, no one may take any of the following actions based on these protected classes:
• Refuse to rent or sell housing;
• Refuse to negotiate for housing;
• Make housing unavailable or deny any dwelling listed for sale; • Set different terms, conditions, or privileges for sale or rental of a dwelling; • Provide different housing services or facilities;
• Falsely deny that housing is available for inspection, sale, or rental; • For-profit, persuade owners to sell or rent (blockbusting); • Deny anyone access to or membership in a facility or service (such as multiple listing service) related to the sale or rental of housing;
Packet Page 659 of 846Attachment 5 Page 378 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 71 of 199 • Refuse to allow reasonable modifications to dwell or common use areas, at the expense of the renter or owner, if necessary, for a person living with disabilities to use the housing; or
• Refuse to make reasonable accommodations in rules, policies, practices, or services if necessary for the disabled person to use the housing.
In Mortgage Lending, no one may take any of the following actions based on these protected classes:
• Refuse to make a mortgage loan;
• Refuse to provide information regarding loans;
• Impose different terms or conditions on loans, such as different interest rates, points, or fees;
• Discriminate in appraising property;
• Refuse to purchase a loan; or
• Set different terms or conditions for purchasing a loan.
In addition, it is illegal for anyone to:
• Threaten, coerce, intimidate, or interfere with anyone exercising a fair housing right or assisting others who exercise that right; or
• Advertise or make any statement that indicates a limitation or preference based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or handicap.
This prohibition against discriminatory advertising applies to single-family and owner-occupied housing that is otherwise exempt from the Fair Housing Act.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973: Prohibits discrimination based on disability in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.
Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (HCDA):
Prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, or religion in programs or activities receiving financial assistance from HUDs Community Development Block Grant Program. Sections 104(b) and 106 (d)(5) of the HCDA specifically require CDBG Program grantees to certify that they will affirmatively further fair housing. This requirement was also included in Section 105 (c) (13) of the National Affordable Housing Act of 1990 (the HOME Program).
Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Prohibits discrimination based on disabilities, services, or activities provided or made available by public entities (e.g., states, Packet Page 660 of 846Attachment 5 Page 379 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 72 of 199 counties, cities, public agencies/authorities, joint powers authorities). HUD enforces Title II when it relates to state and local public housing and housing assistance.
The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968: Requires that buildings and facilities designed, constructed, altered or leased with federal funds after September 1969 must be accessible to and usable by persons with a disability.
Age Discrimination Act of 1975: Prohibits discrimination of the basis of age in programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance.
Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974: Prohibits discrimination in lending based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, receipt of public assistance or the exercise of any right under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977: Under the supervision of the federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the CRA provides a framework for financial institutions, state and local governments and community organizations to jointly promote banking services to all members of a community. The CRA prohibits redlining (denying or increasing the cost of banking to residents of racially defined neighborhoods); and encourages efforts to meet the credit needs of all community members, including residents of low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. The CRA provides that “regulated financial institutions have continuing and affirmative obligations to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered.” Therefore, the CRA establishes federal regulatory procedures for monitoring the level of lending, investments and services in low-and moderate-income neighborhoods that are defined as underserved by lending institutions. The CRA creates an obligation for depository institutions to serve the entire community from which its deposits are garnered, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.
Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) of 1975: Requires banks, savings and loan associations and other financial institutions to publicly report detailed data on their home lending activity.
Under HMDA, lenders are required to publicly disclose the number of loan applications by census tract, income, race and gender of the borrower, the type of loan and the number and dollar amount of loans made. Starting in 1993, independent mortgage companies were also required to report HMDA data. HMDA creates a significant and publicly available tool by which mortgage-lending activity in communities can be assessed. HMDA data can be analyzed to determine bank performance and borrower choices. Executive Order 11063: Prohibits discrimination in the sale, leasing, rental, or other disposition of properties and facilities owned or operated by the federal government or provided with federal funds.
Packet Page 661 of 846Attachment 5 Page 380 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 73 of 199 Executive Order 12892 (as amended): Requires federal agencies to affirmatively further fair housing in their programs and activities and provides that the Secretary of HUD will be responsible for coordinating the effort. The Order also establishes the President’s Fair Housing Council, chaired by the Secretary of HUD.
Executive Order 12898: Requires each federal agency to conduct its program, policies and activities that substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner that does not exclude persons based on race, color, or national origin.
Executive Order 13166: Eliminates, to the extent possible, limited English proficiency as a barrier to full and meaningful participation by beneficiaries in all federally-assisted and federally conducted programs and activities.
Executive Order 13217: Requires federal agencies to evaluate their policies and programs to determine if any can be revised or modified to improve the availability of community-based living arrangements for persons with disabilities.
Equal Access Rule (24 CFR 5.105(a)(2) and 5.106): Under 24 CFR 5.105(a)(2), the regulations require that a determination of eligibility for housing that is assisted by HUD or is subject to a mortgage insured by HUD shall be made in accordance with the eligibility requirements provided for such program by HUD, and such housing shall be made available without regard to actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status. In addition, this regulation covers local housing programs funded with CDBG, HOME, etc. (whether run by grantees or subrecipients). It prohibits owners and program administrators from making an inquiry about such characteristics. Further, 24 CFR 5.106 specifically requires providers to establish, amend, or maintain program admissions, occupancy, and operating policies and procedures (including policies and procedures to protect individuals’ privacy and security), so that equal access is provided to individuals based on their gender identity. This requirement includes tenant selection and admission preferences. Such policies must ensure that an individual is placed, served, and accommodated in accordance with the individual’s gender identity and not subjected to intrusive questioning or asked to provide anatomical information or documentation to evidence the individual’s gender.
STATE LAWS
The following is a list of California’s statutes, rules and plans that have or might have an impact on fair housing choice. This section provides an overview of these statutes, policies, and/or plans.
Packet Page 662 of 846Attachment 5 Page 381 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 74 of 199
California Government Code section 12955 et seq - Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA):
Prohibits all housing providers, including local prohibits land-use policies and practices that have a disproportionate impact on persons protected by the fair housing laws unless they are necessary to achieve an important purpose sufficiently compelling to override the discriminatory effect and there are not less restrictive means to achieve the purpose. The FEHA also incorporates the Unruh Act (Civil Code section 51), the Ralph Act (Civil Code section 51.7) and Bane Act (Civil Code section 52.1) as follows.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code section 51): Provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California, including housing and accommodations, because of age, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. While the Unruh Civil Rights Act specifically lists “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition” as protected classes. The California Supreme Court has held that protections under the Unruh Act are not necessarily restricted to these characteristics.
The Ralph Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code section 51.7): Forbids acts of violence or threats of violence because of a person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or position in a labor dispute (California Civil Code section 51.7). Hate violence can be verbal or written threats, physical assault or attempted assault, graffiti, vandalism, or property damage. The Ralph Act provides that all persons have the right to be free from violence committed against themselves or their property because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of these characteristics.
The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code section 52.1): Provides another layer of protection for fair housing choice by protecting all people in California from interference by force or threat of force with an individual’s constitutional or statutory rights, including a right to equal access to housing and prohibits local governments, from discriminating in housing development and all actions related to the provision of housing based on: age (40 and over), ancestry, color, religious creed, denial of family and medical care leave, disability (mental and physical) including HIV and AIDS, marital status, medical condition (cancer and genetic characteristics), genetic information, national origin, race, religion, sex (which includes pregnancy, childbirth and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth), gender, gender identity, and gender expression and sexual orientation.
Packet Page 663 of 846Attachment 5 Page 382 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 75 of 199 Government Code section 12955(I): Prohibits discrimination through public or private land-use practices, decisions and authorizations.
Government Code section 12955.8 Government Code sections 11135, 65008, and 65580- 65589.8: Prohibits discrimination in programs funded by the State and in any land-use decision as follows:
Government Code section 11135 - 11139.7: Provides protection from discrimination of protected classes from any program or activity that is conducted, funded directly by, or receives any financial assistance from the State. Specifically, whenever a state agency that administers a program or activity has reasonable cause to believe a contractor, grantee, or local agency has violated the provisions of Section 11135 or has adopted any regulation to implement such section, the head of the state agency shall notify the contractor, grantee, or local agency of such violation. If it is determined that a contractor, grantee, or local agency has violated the provisions of this article, the state agency that administers the program or activity involved shall take action to curtail state funding in whole or in part to such contractor, grantee, or local agency.
Welfare and Institutions Code sections 5115 and 5116 (The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act): Declares that mentally and physically disabled persons are entitled to live in normal residential surroundings and grants to each person in the State with a developmental disability a right to services and support in the “least restrictive environment.” In addition, this act provides that the use of the property for the care of six or fewer mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons is required by State law. Specifically, this act states: a State authorized or certified family care home, foster home, or group home serving six or fewer persons with disabilities or dependent and neglected children on a 24-hour-a-day basis is considered a residential use to be permitted in all residential zones.
Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5): Prohibits a jurisdiction from disapproving a housing development project, including housing for farmworkers and for very low, low, or moderate-income households, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders the project infeasible for development for the use of very low, low, or moderate-income households, including through the use of design review standards, unless it makes at least one of five specific written findings based on substantial evidence in the record (Government Code Section 65589.5). Pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act, a local government is prohibited from making the finding regarding zoning and general plan inconsistency (Section 65589.5(d)(5)) to disapprove a development if the jurisdiction identified the site in its general plan (e.g., housing or land-use element) as appropriate for residential use at the density Packet Page 664 of 846Attachment 5 Page 383 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 76 of 199 proposed or failed to identify adequate sites to accommodate its share of the regional housing need for all income groups.
Chapter 633, Statutes of 2007, extended these provisions to emergency shelters and transitional housing and prohibits the use of the zoning and general plan inconsistency finding to disapprove an emergency shelter if the jurisdictions have not identified a zone(s) where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use without a conditional use or other discretionary permit; not demonstrated the identified zone(s) include sufficient capacity to accommodate the need for emergency shelter; or not demonstrated the identified zone(s) can accommodate at least one emergency shelter. This provision applies to any site identified in any element of the general plan for industrial, commercial, or multifamily residential uses. In any court action, the burden of proof is on the local jurisdiction to demonstrate its housing element satisfies the above requirements.
HUD Office of General Counsel Guidance HUD Office of General Counsel Memorandum on Criminal History: In April 2016, HUD issued legal guidance from the Office of General Counsel (OGC) regarding the likely violation of the Fair Housing Act when housing providers employ blanket policies in refusing to rent or renew a lease based on an individual’s criminal history, because such policies may have a disparate impact on racial minorities. The guidance states, “[b]ecause of widespread racial and ethnic disparities in the U.S. criminal justice system, criminal history-based restrictions on access to housing are likely disproportionately to burden African-Americans and Hispanics.”
The guidance states that when a housing provider’s seemingly neutral policy or practice has a discriminatory effect, such as restricting access to housing on the basis of criminal history, and has a disparate impact on individuals of a particular race, national origin, or other protected class, the policy or practice is unlawful under the Fair Housing Act if it is not necessary to serve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest of the housing provider, or if the interest could be served by another practice that has a less discriminatory effect. The Guidance further states, “bald assertions based on generalization or stereotype that any individual with an arrest or conviction record poses a greater risk than those without such records are not sufficient.” Landlords and property managers must be able to prove through reliable evidence that blanket policies actually assist in protecting residents and property. The guidance also states that a housing provider with policies of excluding people because of a prior arrest without conviction cannot satisfy its burden of showing such a policy is necessary the policy must be applied on a case-by-case basis considering the nature and severity of the conviction, what the individual has done since the conviction, and how long ago the conviction took place.
Packet Page 665 of 846Attachment 5 Page 384 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 77 of 199 OGC Memorandum on Fair Housing Act Protections for Persons with Limited English Proficiency: In September 2016, HUD issued legal guidance discussing how the Fair Housing Act applies to a housing provider’s consideration of a person’s Limited English Proficiency (LEP), or the person’s limited ability to read, write, speak or understand English. The memorandum clarifies that while people with limited English proficiency are not a protected class under the Fair Housing Act, the Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination on seven protected bases, including national origin, which is closely linked to the ability to communicate proficiently in English. Housing providers are, therefore, prohibited from using limited English proficiency selectively or as an excuse for intentional housing discrimination. The law also prohibits landlords from using limited English proficiency in a way that causes an unjustified discriminatory effect.
The Guidance addresses how various legal approaches, such as discriminatory effects and disparate treatment, apply in Fair Housing Act cases in which a housing-related decision – such as a landlord’s refusal to rent or renew a lease – involves a person’s limited ability to speak, read, write, or understand English. Discriminatory practices, for example, could include applying a language-related requirement to people of certain races or nationalities, posting advertisements that contain blanket statements, such as “all tenants must speak English," or immediately turning away applicants who are not fluent in English. Targeting racial or national origin groups for scams related to housing also constitutes intentional discrimination. A housing provider also violates the Fair Housing Act when the provider’s policies or practices have an unjustified discriminatory effect, even when the provider had not intended to discriminate.
Determining whether a practice has a discriminatory effect involves a three-step legal evaluation of the statistical evidence of a discriminatory effect; whether the housing provider’s policy or practice is necessary to achieve a substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest; and, if so, whether there is a less discriminatory alternative policy or practice.
OGC Memorandum on Application of Fair Housing Act Standards to the Enforcement of Local Nuisance and Crime-Free Housing Ordinances Against Victims of Domestic Violence, Other Crime Victims, and Others Who Require Police or Emergency Services: In September 2016, HUD issued guidance to explain how the Fair Housing Act applies to ensure that the growing number of local nuisance ordinances and crime-free housing ordinances do not lead to discrimination in violation of the Act. This Memorandum’s guidance focuses primarily on the impact these ordinances may have on domestic violence victims, but the Act and the standards apply equally to victims of other crimes and to those in need of emergency services which may be subjected to discrimination prohibited by the Act, due to the operation of these ordinances.
The guidance further addresses the obligation of HUD-funded recipients to consider the Packet Page 666 of 846Attachment 5 Page 385 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 78 of 199 impacts of the ordinances in assessing how they will fulfill their affirmative obligation to further fair housing.
The Memorandum describes that a growing number of local governments are enacting a variety of nuisance ordinances that can affect housing in potentially discriminatory ways. These ordinances often label various types of conduct associated with the property—whether the conduct is by a resident, guest or other person—a “nuisance” and require the landlord or homeowner to abate the nuisance under the threat of a variety of penalties. The conduct defined as a nuisance varies by ordinance and has ranged from conduct affecting the appearance of the property to general prohibitions related to the conduct of a tenant or guest.
Nuisance ordinances have included what is characterized by the ordinance as an “excessive” number of calls for emergency police or ambulance services, typically defined as just a few calls within a specified period of time by a tenant, neighbor, or another third party, whether or no emergency police or ambulance services, typically defined as just a few calls within a specified period of time by a tenant, neighbor, or another third party, whether or not directly associated with the property. In some jurisdictions, an incident of domestic violence is defined as a nuisance without regard to whether the resident is the victim or the perpetrator of the domestic violence.
In other jurisdictions, incidents of domestic violence are not specifically defined as nuisances but may still be categorized as such because the ordinance broadly defines nuisance activity as the violation of any federal, state or local law, or includes conduct such as disturbing the peace, excessive noise, disorderly conduct, or calls for emergency services that exceed a specified number within a given timeframe. Even where ordinances expressly exclude victims of domestic violence or other crimes, victims are still frequently deemed to have committed nuisance conduct because police and other emergency service providers may not log the call as domestic violence, instead of categorizing it incorrectly as property damage, disturbing the peace or another type of nuisance conduct. The ordinances generally require housing providers either to abate the alleged nuisance or risk penalties, such as fines, loss of their rental permits, condemnation of their properties and, in some extreme instances, incarceration. Some ordinances may require the housing provider to evict the resident and their household after a specified number of alleged nuisance violations—often quite low—within a specific timeframe.
The Memorandum explains that the Fair Housing Act prohibits intentional housing discrimination and housing ordinances, policies or practices that have an unjustified discriminatory effect because of protected characteristics. While the Act does not prohibit local governments from appropriately considering nuisance or criminal conduct when enacting laws related to housing, governments should ensure that such ordinances and related policies or Packet Page 667 of 846Attachment 5 Page 386 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 79 of 199 practices do not discriminate in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Where the enforcement of a nuisance or crime-free ordinance penalizes individuals for the use of emergency services or for being a victim of domestic violence or other crime, a local government bears the burden of proving that any discriminatory effect caused by such policy or practice is supported by a legally sufficient justification. Such a determination cannot be based on generalizations or stereotypes.
Selective use of nuisance or criminal conduct as a pretext for unequal treatment of individuals based on protected characteristics violates the Act.
The memorandum advises that repealing ordinances that deny access to housing by requiring or encouraging evictions or that create disparities in access to emergency services because of a protected characteristic is one step local governments can take to avoid Fair Housing Act violations and as part of a strategy to affirmatively further fair housing.
PRIVATE SECTOR PRACTICES
This section discusses the efforts to determine and evaluate the practices of the private sector as they relate to fair housing choice, including the policies and practices of real estate agents, property managers, and mortgage lenders. Requirements in terms of the documentation of mortgage lending patterns were discussed in the preceding Section.
Real Estate Sales Practices in the State of California
To engage in the business of real estate sales, a broker or salesperson must be licensed by the Department of Real Estate (DRE). The DRE also enforces violations of California real estate law.
The real estate industry in California is highly professionalized. Almost all real estate brokers and salespersons are affiliated with a real estate trade association. The two largest are the California Association of Realtors (CAR), associated with the National Association of Realtors (NAR), and the California Association of Real Estate Brokers (CAREB), associated with the National Association of Real Estate Brokers (NAREB). Members of NAREB are licensed to use the professional designation “Realtist.” The use of the term “Realtor” is restricted by NAR as a registered trademark. NAR has a professional code of conduct that specifically prohibits unequal treatment in professional services or employment practices on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin” (Article 10, NAR Code of Ethics).
Both prohibit members from promulgating deed restrictions or covenants based on race.
Article 10 of the NAR Code of Ethics provides that “Realtors shall not deny equal professional services to any person for reasons of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin. Realtors shall not be a party to any plan or agreement to 93 discriminate Packet Page 668 of 846Attachment 5 Page 387 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 80 of 199 against any person or persons on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.” A Realtor pledges to conduct business in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Code of Ethics. Article 10 imposes obligations upon Realtors and is also a firm statement of support for equal opportunity in housing. A Realtor who suspects discrimination is instructed to call the local Board of Realtors. Local Boards of Realtors will accept complaints alleging violations of the Code of Ethics filed by a home seeker who alleges discriminatory treatment in the availability, purchase, or rental of housing. Local Boards of Realtors have a responsibility to enforce the Code of Ethics through professional standards procedures and corrective action in cases where a violation of the Code of Ethics is proven to have occurred.
The California Association of Realtors (CAR) has many local associations. Solano County is served by the Solano Association of Realtors and the Northern Solano County Association of Realtors. CAR offers continuous online courses for realtors dealing with fair housing requirements and issues. According to the course description, the course will provide an overview of the federal fair housing laws and an in-depth discussion of the individual laws and their application to the practice of real estate. The course also provides CAR members with a study of the State of California's fair housing laws and regulations. The course emphasizes anti- discriminatory conduct, which all licensees should practice and concludes by discussing the voluntary affirmative action marketing program and why promoting fair housing laws is a positive force at work in California and throughout the nation.
Rental and Property Management
The California Apartment Association (CAA) is the country’s largest statewide trade association for rental property owners and managers. CAA was incorporated in 1941 to serve rental property owners and managers throughout California. CAA represents rental housing owners and professionals who together manage more than 1.5 million rental units. CAA supports the spirit and intent of all local, state, and federal fair housing laws for all residents without regard to color, race, religion, sex, marital status, mental or physical disability, age, familial status, sexual orientation, or national origin. Members of the California Apartment Association agree to abide by the following provisions of their Code for Equal Housing Opportunity:
• We agree that in the rental, lease, sale, purchase, or exchange of real property, owners and their employees have the responsibility to offer housing accommodations to all persons on an equal basis;
• We agree to set and implement fair and reasonable rental housing rules and guidelines and will provide equal and consistent services throughout our resident’s tenancy; • We agree that we have no right or responsibility to volunteer information regarding the racial, creed, or ethnic composition of any neighborhood, and we do not engage in Packet Page 669 of 846Attachment 5 Page 388 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 81 of 199 any behavior or action that would result in steering; and • We agree not to print, display, or circulate any statement or advertisement that indicates any preference, limitations, or discrimination in the rental or sale of housing.
Solano CAA serves Solano County, and the same agency serves the Sacramento Valley. Its office is in Sacramento.
Rental and Property Management: The CAA has been working to professionalize the property management field. It developed and offers a California Certified Residential Manager (CCRM) program which includes a course on fair housing law. In addition, the CAA website provides links to the Fair Housing Institute and Fair Housing Network.
Packet Page 670 of 846Attachment 5 Page 389 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 82 of 199
8. GOVERNMENT BARRIERS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE
The Association of
Bay Area
Governments
(ABAG) compiles
information about
policies critical to
the development of
affordable housing.
The list that follows
identifies
governmental
barriers (TABLE 42).
The role of local government is critical to the assurance of fair housing choice in its ability to advocate for fair housing, to assure the enforcement of fair housing law, and to remove barriers to fair housing. Local government can also create obstacles to fair housing choice by adopting laws, codes, procedures, or practices that limit fair housing choice, have an undue impact on the provision of one or more housing types, or have an undue impact on the ability of certain classes of persons to access housing. There are also certain factors affecting fair housing choice over which local government has limited or no control. These factors include market forces, the availability of land, environmental concerns, and the policies of higher jurisdictions. To TABLE 44 – ABAG Housing Policy Database 2.0
Housing Policies and Programs Fairfield
Acquisition/Rehabilitation/Conversion YES*
By-Right Strategies
Commercial Development Impact Fee NO*
Condominium Conversion Ordinance YES*
Flexible Parking Requirements YES*
Form-Based Codes Yes, in some areas
General Fund Allocation YES
Graduated Density Bonus YES
Homeowner Repair or Rehabilitation YES
Home Sharing Programs NO*
Housing Development Impact Fee NO*
Housing Overlay Zones NO*
Implementation of SB743 YES
Local Inclusionary Housing Ordinance YES*
In-Lieu Fees (Inclusionary Zoning) YES in limited cases Just Cause Eviction NO*
Locally-Funded Homebuyer Assistance YES*
Mobile Home Conversion Ordinance NO
One-to-One Replacement YES
Preservation of Mobile Homes (Rent
Stabilization Ordinance) NO*
Reduced Fees or Permit Waivers YES*
Rent Stabilization NO*
SRO Preservation Ordinance YES*
Streamlined Permitting Process YES*
Surplus Public Lands Act
Tenant-Based Assistance YES*
Compiled by the Association of Bay Area Governments, February 2017
Packet Page 671 of 846Attachment 5 Page 390 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 83 of 199 ameliorate some of these factors, the local government will have programs to provide incentives that facilitate housing choice. This section reviews the land use policies and practices of the City of Fairfield as they relate to fair housing choice. A particular emphasis is placed on the City’s efforts to remove barriers to the provision of affordable housing, emergency shelter, and transitional housing. This section also analyzes constraints on the provision of a variety of housing types and the ability of the City to provide low-cost housing.
LAND USE POLICIES AND PRACTICES
Fairfield General Plan
The City of Fairfield General Plan establishes the broad vision for the future development of the City, including land use, housing, circulation, health and safety, public facilities and services, economic development, and open space and conservation. All of these elements impact the development of healthy residential neighborhoods.
The Land Use vision established in the General Plan defines areas suitable for residential (and mixed-use) development in the City, with specific areas designated for different densities and types of housing.
The Housing Element contains an analysis of the vacant housing sites identified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. According to the City’s adopted Housing Element (Certified as meeting State law in 2015), the City of Fairfield has adequate vacant land with a General Plan designation (and/or zoning) appropriate to permit the development of housing needed to meet the needs of all income groups. No particular pattern of vacant land use designations was found to correspond to areas of poverty or racial concentration.
In Fairfield, the General Plan Land Use Elements establishes the following density ranges for housing:
• Very High Density (22-32 dwelling units per acre (du/a)) • High Density (15-22 du/a)
• Medium Density (8-15 du/a)
• Low Medium Density (508 du/a)
• Low Density (below 5 du/a)
In general, the higher density land use designations are intended for multifamily development (apartments and condominiums), with medium density permitting both single-family and multifamily development, and the lower densities more suitable for single-family homes. The Packet Page 672 of 846Attachment 5 Page 391 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 84 of 199 Housing Element assumes that “affordable” housing will primarily be provided at the higher densities and through multifamily housing, although City policy also supports low- and moderate-income homeownership of single-family homes.
In conclusion, the City of Fairfield General Plan recognizes the need for a variety of housing types, establishes a framework for the growth and redevelopment of the City that facilitates diverse housing development, and does not in itself constitute a barrier to housing production.
Specific Plans
Supplementing and complementing the General Plan, the City has adopted two specific plans which provide for unique, flexible residential and mixed-use development. While not explicitly aimed at increasing the supply of affordable housing, the Train Station Specific Plan and the Heart of Fairfield Plan both envision diverse housing types in mixed-use, walkable communities which offer unique opportunities in the Fairfield Market. Together, these Specific Plans envision over 7,000 potential housing units.
The Train Station Specific Plan is located in northeastern Fairfield, immediately north of Travis AFB and east of Peabody Road. The Plan envisions a completely new residential, recreation, educational, commercial, and employment community centered on the recently opened Tom Hannigan Station of the Capitol Corridor railroad line. The Capitol Corridor system provides direct access to employment centers in the Bay Area and Sacramento. Affordable housing will be one component of the community, with the City currently undertaking preliminary discussions with regional affordable housing providers.
The Heart of Fairfield Plan addresses redevelopment and intensification of development in the original Downtown Fairfield as well as the West Texas Street corridor. The Plan calls for high- density housing near the Suisun City-Fairfield Train Station in downtown Suisun City as well as infill development on “catalyst sites” located throughout the Plan area. The City is currently studying the reconfiguration of West Texas Street into a true urban boulevard, a framework for long-term intensification through mixed-use development of the corridor. Affordable housing is an element of the Specific Plan, with several sites in the Plan area under study for development with affordable or mixed-income housing.
Packet Page 673 of 846Attachment 5 Page 392 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 85 of 199 Zoning Ordinance
The City of Fairfield Zoning Ordinance implements the overall land use and development vision in the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance permits a variety of housing types that provide a full range of housing choices. Housing types permitted in the Fairfield Zoning Ordinance include single-family dwellings, duplexes, multi-family apartments, accessory dwelling units, and mobile homes. The Zoning Ordinance also permits or conditionally permits a range of specialized housing types, including residential care homes, nursing homes, assisted living communities, and emergency shelters. The City also permits or encourages mixed-use development in which housing office, commercial, and institutional land uses are combined on a single property.
Given the broad range of housing types permitted in the City, the Zoning Ordinances themselves do not constitute a significant barrier to housing production.
The Fairfield Zoning Ordinance also establishes standards for residential development in the City. These include density, height, lot coverage, setbacks, parking, landscaping, and architectural quality. Zoning standards can determine the feasibility of housing development in the City. However, through various provisions in the Zoning Ordinance, including the Density Bonus Ordinance, variances, and conditional use permits, the City of Fairfield has substantial flexibility in working with project advocates to adjust standards to facilitate projects.
Fairfield Density Bonus Options
The City provides incentives to encourage the production of quality housing for lower-income and senior citizen segments of the community in compliance with the General Plan Housing Element and state density bonus law (California Government Code Section 65915). In order to be eligible for a density bonus and other incentives as provided by this Government Code section, a proposed residential development project must consist of five or more units and meet one or more of the following criteria:
• Very Low-Income Rental Housing. 5% of the units are affordable to households whose total household income is less than 50 percent of the county median income (very low- income households).
• Low-Income Rental Housing. 10% of the units are affordable to households whose total household income is less than 80 percent of the county median income (low-income households).
• Senior Housing. 50% of the units are set aside for persons age 62 and older or persons age 55 and older in a residential development consisting of at least 35 dwelling units that are developed for, or substantially rehabilitated or renovated for, senior citizens.
Packet Page 674 of 846Attachment 5 Page 393 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 86 of 199 Condominiums and Planned Developments (Moderate-Income Households). 10% of the dwelling units in a condominium project or planned development as defined in the California Civil Code for persons and families with less than 120% of the county median income (moderate-income households).
Developers seeking the incentives are required to submit a written proposal and project plans for Conceptual Review to the Department of Community Development prior to making a formal development application. Incentives include increased density and reductions in development standards.
Finally, the Zoning Ordinance establishes the basic framework for entitling housing projects, including reviewing and approving said projects. The Ordinance permits smaller housing projects to be approved through an Administrative Hearing process that speeds review and approval. Larger projects that do not require a General Plan Amendment or Zone Change can be approved by the Fairfield Planning Commission.
The City is committed to being fully in compliance with recent California State legislation designed to speed and provide additional certainty for project supporters in the review and approval of housing projects. The City continues to review and modify its policies and procedures in light of the California housing crisis.
SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING
Based on community needs, there are certain housing types that warrant further analysis.
Community Care Facilities
Permitting residential care facilities, transitional housing, and housing that serves the homeless is essential to fair housing choice. The City permits residential community care facilities with a State license in all residential zoning districts.
No public hearing or administrative action other than ministerial approval is required for the use of existing housing units as a community care facility. Construction of new single-family homes that may be used for a community care facility is treated like all other single-family homes and requires a “Minor Discretionary Approval,” which requires public notice but no hearing.
Emergency Shelters
Packet Page 675 of 846Attachment 5 Page 394 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 87 of 199 The City allows emergency shelters in the CS, CC, CT, IL and CM zoning districts with a conditional use permit. In addition, the City has established a special overlay district, the ES Emergency Overlay District, that covers several parcels along Beck Avenue. The overlay district includes the City’s existing SHELTER Solano, Inc. homeless shelter as well as several vacant or partially vacant parcels that could support additional housing and services. Note that these sites on Beck Avenue have access to public transportation and are adjacent to the Solano County Health and Social Services Department, making access to County social services convenient to those using the shelter.
Transitional Housing
According to the Zoning Ordinance, transitional housing is: a service providing intermediate 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 include facilities licensed for residential care by the State of California or homeless shelters.
The City does not define “Transitional Housing” as land use. Instead, these services are defined as follows:
Transitional and supportive housing is not regulated as separate land use. Rather, it is a means of occupying a residential land use (e.g., single-family detached housing, duplex, multifamily), and such occupancy must meet all existing standard requirements for the underlying residential land use and the residential unit. Determinations regarding the permissiveness of transitional housing will depend on the number of independent arrangements between tenants and the operator of the service. For example, more than two independent arrangements within a single housing unit will be regulated as a boarding house.
BUILDING CODES, ACCESSIBILITY, AND ADA COMPLIANCE
Improvements to residences to bring them into compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations typically require only a building permit and ministerial review by Planning staff. For the few improvements that require adjustments to zoning standards, the Zoning Ordinance includes an established process that complies with state planning law. Rehabilitation of multi-family housing will typically require only administrative-level approvals if exterior changes to the building are necessary.
Packet Page 676 of 846Attachment 5 Page 395 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 88 of 199 The City of Fairfield implements the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), which incorporates by reference the Uniform Building Code (UBC). The CBSC contains specific but flexible guidance regarding improvements necessary for accessibility to persons with physical disabilities. More recently, the CBC has been updated to incorporate the 2010 changes to the ADA Title II for government-sponsored residential properties in Chapter 11B. Chapter 11A contains those items that are covered under the Fair Housing Act.
The City of Fairfield’s building codes has not been found to limit the ability to provide or improve accessibility to residential structures. Fairfield is, for the most part, a newer community, and few constraints have arisen with the implementation of the CBC. Building Division staff is familiar with the code and can provide advice to homeowners and contractors interested in meeting accessibility requirements. For example, while no permit is typically required for a ramp, staff can assist interested persons in designing a ramp to meet their needs.
There are two approaches to housing design for mobility impairment: 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-impaired individuals with only minor modifications. An accessible unit has the actual special features (e.g., grab bars and special cabinetry) installed in the unit.
To address the need for the adaptability and accessibility of housing by mobility-impaired individuals, the California Department of Housing & Community Development has adopted a series of requirements for new rental housing. These regulations implement most of the requirements of federal law for federally financed housing projects, plus several additional requirements. California law requires that 5% of the dwelling units in a newly constructed apartment building, hotel, motel, lodge, or other rental project include design features for adaptable use by mobility-impaired individuals.
The Fairfield Building Division is charged with implementing state requirements for accessibility, as well as the City’s adopted CBSC requirements. The state requirements address exterior and interior design features, such as walkways leading to a dwelling unit, the gradient of the access way to the main entrance, changes in level, entry width, threshold height, ramp and landing design, corridor widths, types of door locks and latch es, electrical outlet and switch heights, bathroom configuration and clear space, ability to install grab bars in bathrooms, knee space under lavatories and sinks, the height of countertops, the configuration of a kitchen, and other aspects of housing design.
Packet Page 677 of 846Attachment 5 Page 396 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 89 of 199
RESOURCES AND INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Efforts by the City to assist in the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable housing would utilize organizational and financial types of resources. Local, state and federal housing programs are valuable resources in assisting in the development of affordable housing, preservation of at-risk housing, and housing rehabilitation.
Assisted Housing Projects
The City of Fairfield has a significant number of assisted rental housing units totaling 1,671 units, of which 1,261 units are for families, 381 are for seniors, and 29 are for special needs groups. The inventory includes units assisted under federal, state, and local programs.
Packet Page 678 of 846Attachment 5 Page 397 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 81 of 199
9. FAIRFIELD’S HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES & PROGRAMS
The Fairfield Housing Element addresses housing development, rehabilitation, and conservation. It sets forth actions the City will undertake to assist residents in maintaining their homes and in helping ensure that there is an adequate supply of safe, affordable housing for existing and future residents. The element also addresses the special housing needs of individuals requiring assistance, such as elderly residents, single mothers with children, low- income and large families, military personnel, the homeless, and mobility-impaired residents.
The policies and programs for housing 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 between 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 overall goal for the City of Fairfield Housing Element is to encourage a high-quality residential environment with a wide range of housing opportunities throughout the city affordable to a diverse population of renters, owners, and people with special needs. The City will promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability.
The City will continue to focus on preserving and improving existing housing and neighborhoods by directing resources to physical rehabilitation, neighborhood revitalization, and upgrading property management to improve living conditions for residents. To implement the goal, the Housing Element contains seven Objectives for meeting the City’s defined housing needs. These are summarized as follows:
1. HO1: Provide for varied housing opportunities, in terms of type, price, amenities, neighborhood design, and location, for all income groups and family types.
2. HO2: Encourage infill housing in developed areas of the City.
3. HO3: Meet the housing needs of extremely low-, very low-, low- and moderate-income households identified in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
4. HO4: Provide relocation assistance and, where appropriate, replacement of affordable housing removed in the City.
5. HO5: Improve and conserve the existing supply of housing and the City’s Packet Page 679 of 846Attachment 5 Page 398 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 82 of 199 neighborhoods.
6. HO6: Create housing opportunities for people with special needs.
7. HO7: Promote energy conservation.
These Objectives go beyond “Fair Housing” per se and focus on developing and protecting an attractive, safe, affordable, and stable housing market in the City of Fairfield.
Under each objective are policies and programs developed to implement the objective. These include implementation of or changes to City policies related to housing, specific funding mechanisms that might be useful in making feasible a housing project for a special needs population, and changes to the Zoning Ordinance or development requirements for the City.
The City’s Housing Element Policy Document for 2014 – 2022 can be found in its entirety at:
https://www.fairfield.ca.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=14421
The City has to undertake multiple efforts to implement the recommendations and requirements of the Housing Element. Key accomplishments in recent years include:
• Administration of the HUD Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV); • HOME Tenant-Based Rental Assistance (TBRA) Program;
• Heart of Fairfield Plan and Zoning Ordinance for Downtown Fairfield; • Amending the Zoning Ordinance to encourage accessory dwelling units; • Entitlement of two infill housing projects in the Heart of Fairfield Plan; • Entitlement of a major new development area in the Train Station Specific Plan; and • Amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to permit emergency shelters near county social services.
The City prepares an annual report for the State of California on the implementation of the Housing Element. The 2020 Housing narrative from the report is attached as Appendix 6.
Packet Page 680 of 846Attachment 5 Page 399 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 83 of 199 10 . FAIR HOUSING ACTIVITIES
FAIR HOUSING ADVOCATES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA (FHANC)
In 2017, the City executed a contract with FHANC to provide fair housing services to:
• Respond to Inquiries;
• Conduct Fair Housing testing;
• Conduct complaint investigations; offer mediation/intervention services if the complainant desires, and refer complaints to HUD or DFEH as appropriate; and • Provide community education, outreach and engagement.
Approximately once a quarter, FHANC conducts a workshop or conference on a topic of importance. The Spring conference in 2019 focused on “Understanding Housing Segregation – Tools to Advance Access and Opportunity" and gathered community members, nonprofits, advocates, real estate professionals and municipal leaders from the counties of Solano, Marin, Sonoma, and the greater Bay Area.
A review of quarterly reports from the calendar year 2017 to the presently listed complaints about discrimination against people with disabilities as the reason why over 70% of tenants/clients sought fair housing assistance. All were issues of property management staff not agreeing to make reasonable accommodations for tenants in various circumstances. Many times property management staff appeared to be unaware of fair housing requirements.
FHANC’s interventions resulted in tenants obtaining the reasonable accommodations needed.
Fair Housing Audits of City of Fairfield/Solano County
Since 2013, there have been four audits conducted by FHANC:
1. Race and Source of Income Discrimination in Rental Housing in Solano, Marin and Sonoma Counties. Results:
• In Solano County, 60% of the African American testers encountered some differential treatment either on the basis of race or source of income.
2. Discrimination against Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Persons in Rental Housing in Solano County. Results:
• In Fairfield, 59% of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing testers encountered differential treatment.
Packet Page 681 of 846Attachment 5 Page 400 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 84 of 199
3. National Origin Discrimination in Rental Housing in Solano County Based on Latino Voice Identification. Results:
• In Fairfield, 58% of properties tested showed Latinos encountered some differential treatment in the leasing process.
4. Criminal Background Checks as a Screening Tool for Race/National Origin Discrimination in Rental Housing in Solano, Marin and Sonoma Counties. Results:
• In Fairfield,46% of testers encountered at least some discrepancies or disadvantaged in treatment for the African-American and Latino/a testers.
2010 ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS
The 2010 City of Fairfield Analysis of Impediments identified the following impediments:
Impediment 1: Residential segregation by race, ethnicity, or income Action 1.1: Annually monitor residential segregation by race or ethnicity, using the U.S.
Census as part of the annual CAPER.
What Happened - City initially used GIS mapping to locate Section 8 Voucher units and such demographics as family size through 2016. In 2017, the responsible staff members retired or took medical leave and this action. Unfortunately, when the Housing Authority Manager was out on medical leave, this task was not assigned to anyone else; thus, the Fairfield Housing Authority was short-staffed.
Action 1.2: Provide resources to educate real estate stakeholders (e.g., tenants, homebuyers, real estate agents, brokers) about local, state, and federal fair housing laws and regulations on the Fairfield Housing Authority website and in the lobby of the Housing Authority.
What Happened - City contracted with Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California to do training for staff, landlords, lenders and members of the public (Section 8 Voucher holders were encouraged to attend).
Action 1.3: Encourage and facilitate landlord workshops for owners or property managers in low- and moderate-income areas of the city. Subject to availability, the City of Fairfield will set aside $500 per year from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) to facilitate landlord workshops.
What Happened - City contracted with Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California to conduct training for staff, landlords, lenders and members of the public. The City also set aside and committed $40,000 per year for fair housing services.
Packet Page 682 of 846Attachment 5 Page 401 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 85 of 199 Impediment 2: Concentration of subsidized housing
Action 2.1: Annually monitor the location of those receiving Section 8 rental assistance to see if any negative housing patterns emerge related to race or ethnicity.
What Happened- This is part of SEMAP (the annual report card for Section 8) and takes place annually.
Action 2.2: Participate in the local California Apartment Association chapter meetings or other local owner and property manager training, meetings, or seminars to encourage landlord participation in the Housing Choice Voucher program.
What Happened - CITY/FHA is a member, and staff attends meetings and trainings.
Impediment 3: High number of foreclosures negatively affecting the quality of residential neighborhoods
Action 3.1: Provide appropriate legal and financial referrals to Fairfield homeowners facing foreclosure.
What Happened - Staff did this as long as there was a foreclosure crisis. The City also created a Vacant Properties Program within the Police Department’s Code Enforcement Division that requires property owners, including banks, to register their vacant property with the City and regularly maintain the property.
Action 3.2: Provide appropriate legal and financial referrals to educate and protect tenants who are renting homes that go into foreclosure.
What Happened - Staff did this as long as there was a foreclosure crisis. The city partnered with (CDBG resource center in Vacaville for foreclosure assistance)
Action 3.3: Maintain annual membership with the California Apartment Association as a resource for current laws regarding real estate law and practices.
What Happened - City continues annual membership
Action 3.4: Encourage neighbors to form a neighborhood watch program to watch for and prevent criminal behavior in vacant homes.
What Happened - The Police Department and Code Enforcement implemented this. The Police Department’s Crime Prevention Unit now oversees over 100 area Neighborhood Watch programs throughout the city.
Action 3.5: Respond to recurring neighborhood problems by developing comprehensive neighborhood-based programming that involves the Fairfield Police Department, Fairfield Packet Page 683 of 846Attachment 5 Page 402 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 86 of 199 Code Enforcement, Fairfield Housing Authority, Fairfield Community Development Department, and Fairfield Community Resources Department.
What Happened - In response to concerns, the City task force developed a crime-free multifamily housing program which is overseen by the Fairfield Police Department.
However, the belief among Section 8 Voucher holders is that no one with a criminal background can obtain housing in buildings in the program. The police have recently been made aware of this perception and will be working with FHA staff to provide information that a person with a criminal background needs to sign an agreement that they will not engage in criminal activities while living on the property.
Action 3.6: Promote various community partnerships that include property owners, nonprofits, and business associations.
What Happened - The City created a formal Quality of Life Task Force in 2015 to strengthen relationships with community stakeholders, property owners and managers, and residents. The Task Force is comprised of representatives from all City Departments, including police, housing, economic development, planning, code enforcement and crime prevention, and the FHA in order to best work with area agencies. The City’s Task Force has created long-standing partnerships with the local Chamber of Commerce, the Business Improvement District, faith-based organizations, and local service providers to efficiently and effectively respond to community needs and improve quality of life.
Impediment 4: Reduce administrative barriers to affordable housing Action 4.1: Provide incentives and financial assistance in exchange for affordability covenants.
What Happened - The City has addressed this in multiple ways through the acquisition and rehab of properties in partnership with housing developers. In addition to utilizing two NSP grants between 2010 and 2012 to acquire foreclosed properties, conduct substantial rehab, and sell the properties to income-eligible buyers on a scattered-site basis throughout the city, the following are additional noteworthy projects:
Signature at Fairfield - The City conducted an assembly and acquisition of three adjacent properties to consolidate ownership, do substantial rehab, and convert to affordable housing. This property is within the Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative area.
Steve Hanley- Gardenstone - As part of the conditions of the Use Permit approved by the Planning Commission, April 27, 2016, for the Gardenstone Development by Steve Hanley, he is required to set aside one unit out of the ten that are being developed, at an affordable price for a household at or below 120% AMI.
Packet Page 684 of 846Attachment 5 Page 403 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 87 of 199 1700 Santa Monica, MidPen – On December 20, 2018, MidPen received a predevelopment loan for $1.3M for predevelopment activities on a proposed 72-unit affordable development at 1700 Santa Monica. The Fairfield Housing Authority is currently working with MidPen Housing on finalizing the terms of a DDLA that will incorporate the full amount of the Fairfield Housing Authority’s and City’s assistance to this project. This assistance will include a $2M loan from the Low-Mod Funds, a Housing Authority-owned land donation worth $2,278,000, and City Fee Credits up to $1M, and City Fee Deferrals up to approximately $600K. 1700 Santa Monica is the new construction of a 72-unit affordable rental community for low, very low, and extremely low-income individuals, families, and chronically homeless and homeless households with mental illness. Up to 36 units will be set aside for extremely low and very low-income chronically homeless households. The balance of the units will be restricted to 50% and 60% AMI households.
Sunset Creek Apts., MidPen - In FY 2017/2018, the City provided a loan using Fairfield Housing Authority funds to the Sunset Creek Apartments in the amount of $1,275,000 for the purpose of completing a major rehabilitation of this affordable housing development. As a requisite to providing the loan, an Amendment to the original Affordable Housing Covenant was executed, previously executed in 1993, which amends, extends and restates the Affordable Housing Covenant, further restricting additional units from the original 38 units to 75 units and extending the affordable covenants on all units for 55 years after completion of the renovation improvements. Fifteen (15 or 20%) of the Affordable Units shall be available and restricted to Eligible Households whose income does not exceed 50% of the Area Median Income, adjusted for household size appropriate to the unit, at an Affordable Rent. 52 (or 69.33%) of the Affordable Units shall be available and restricted to Eligible Households whose income does not exceed 60% of the Area Median Income, adjusted for household size appropriate to the unit, at an Affordable Rent. 8 (or 10.67%) of the Affordable Units shall be available and restricted to Eligible Households whose income does not exceed thirty percent (30%) of the Area Median Income, adjusted for household size appropriate to the unit, at an Affordable Rent.
The Vines at Tabor, 200 East Tabor Avenue - In FY 2017/2018, the City, through the Housing Authority, made a loan to The Vines at Tabor in the amount of $400,000 for the purpose of completing the acquisition and major rehabilitation of this 23 unit affordable housing development. The Regulatory Agreement will maintain the affordable covenants on all units for 55 years after completion of the renovation improvements and requires; 15 (or 65%) of the Affordable Units that are one-bedroom units shall be available and restricted to Eligible Households whose income does not exceed 80% of the Area Median Income, adjusted for household size appropriate to the unit, at an Affordable Rent. Three (or 13%) of the Affordable Units that are two-bedroom units shall be available Packet Page 685 of 846Attachment 5 Page 404 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 88 of 199 and restricted to Eligible Households whose income does not exceed 80% of the Area Median Income, adjusted for household size appropriate to the unit, at an Affordable Rent.
Five (or 22%) of the Affordable Units that are one-bedroom units shall be available and restricted to Eligible Households whose income does not exceed 30% of the Area Median Income, adjusted for household size appropriate to the unit, at an Affordable Rent. 212 East Tabor, EAH Housing - EAH Housing is planning to build 67 all affordable units at 212 East Tabor. The City will provide assistance via a Low-Mod Fund loan, Fee Credits, HOME loan, and Fee Deferrals in the range of $2-$3M.
Action 4.2: Improve infrastructure in targeted neighborhoods using CDBG funding when available.
What Happened - Public Works and other City departments have utilized CDBG funding for infrastructure and parks in low-income neighborhoods.
Action 4.3: Provide staff support in targeted neighborhoods to offer or assist with resident meetings, tenant services, and neighborhood improvements as funding allows.
What Happened - Staff support for resident meetings and tenant services has been minimal because of major staff turnover in the last three years. However, as stated in 3.6 above, the City actively utilizes the Quality of Life Task Force to assess and implement neighborhood improvements throughout the year. This includes neighborhood cleanups, community outreach, community events in targeted neighborhoods to continuously solicit feedback from residents on community needs.
Additionally, for the past eight years, the City has held a Senior Home Assistance and Repair Event (SHARE) to provide housing rehab for seniors and people with disabilities within the City’s Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative Areas. Additionally, the City provides emergency access grants using CDBG and HOME funds for qualifying residents needing emergency improvements, such as roof repairs, heating and air, wheelchair ramps, etc. The ADA improvements to rental housing is a much more difficult program than expected because the landlord has to give permission for the work to be done, and few agree.
Action 4.4: Apply for state or federal funding to acquire, rehabilitate, and re-sell foreclosed property to low-income homebuyers.
What Happened - The City was awarded a Neighborhood Stabilization Program grant through the state and worked with the Resource Center in Vacaville to assist Fairfield residents.
The City continues to seek funding through regional agencies the state and federal government.
Packet Page 686 of 846Attachment 5 Page 405 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 89 of 199 Impediment 5: Negative financial and social influences on fair housing activity Action 5.1: Provide the HUD-903 Housing Discrimination Complaint Form in the Fairfield Housing Authority lobby in English and Spanish, and also on the City website.
What Happened - The HUD-903 is on the City’s website and the FHA lobby in English and Spanish. The form now needs to be translated into Tagalog since the Language Access Plan found that Spanish and Tagalog were the two languages most spoken by limited English speakers.
Action 5.2: Provide a copy of the fair housing brochure, Fair Housing—It’s Your Right, to all Section 8 tenants at voucher briefings or to the general public, as requested.
What Happened - These are provided to clients and are in the FHA lobby, and translation is underway in both Spanish and Tagalog.
Action 5.3: Annually monitor fair housing activity to track current trends as part of the annual CAPER.
What Happened - The CAPER mentions fair housing activity based on reports from Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California. The City receives these reports quarterly in order to track trends and assess community needs.
Impediment 6: Discriminatory lending practices
Action 6.1: Annually monitor the HMDA [Home Mortgage Disclosure Act] data for discriminatory lending practices as part of the annual CAPER.
What Happened – Not accomplished due to staff leave and turnover.
Action 6.2: Leverage multiple financing sources, to expand homeownership opportunities when funding is available.
What Happened - The focus right now is on providing assistance to affordable multi- family rental developments. City staff from the City Manager’s Office, Planning, Housing, and the FHA responsible for housing production and maintenance meet bi-weekly to track project progress, prioritize funding, and assess new opportunities.
Action 6.3: Offer other asset and financial sources for affordable homeownership programs, including HOME funds, Below Market Rate (BMR) homes, and Mortgage Credit Certificates (MCC) if available.
Packet Page 687 of 846Attachment 5 Page 406 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 90 of 199 What Happened - 2014-2016 City staff offered to layer with available HOME funds and offered MCCs. Since then, the affordable homeownership program has been mostly inactive due to limited staff levels.
OTHER ACTIONS TO AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING
In addition to the above-stated actions in compliance with the Analysis of Impediments, this section describes other City efforts to affirmatively further fair housing.
Annual Action Plans
The City of Fairfield’s Annual Action Plans describe ways the City will address fair housing issues by promoting fair housing opportunities and equal access to housing. These include having a City contractor offer annual landlord workshops to address fair housing and to promote the Housing Choice Voucher program. The City’s Citizen Participation Plan section highlights the process by which reasonable accommodations are available to persons with disabilities at public meetings. For non-English speaking residents that attend public meetings, the City will provide translation services upon request.
Annual Performance Reports (CAPERs)
The City’s Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER) documents accomplishments in affirmatively further fair housing that have been undertaken in a given year. In order to remedy discrimination in housing, the City undertook the following:
• Contracted with the Northern California Fair Housing Advocates to operate the City’s fair housing programs.
• Monitored fair housing activities and provided annual updates to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Records of fair housing activities were maintained at the Housing Authority office.
• Provided the HUD-903 Housing Discrimination Complaint Form at the Fairfield Housing Authority lobby in English and Spanish and also on the City website. • Provided a copy of the fair housing brochure Fair Housing - “It’s Your Right” to all Section 8 tenants at voucher briefings and to the general public on request. • Increased the number of Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers available to residents of Fairfield and the number of available units.
• Responded to recurring neighborhood problems by developing a comprehensive Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative and Quality of Life Task Force program that involves all City departments, particularly the City Manager’s Office, Public Works, Packet Page 688 of 846Attachment 5 Page 407 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 91 of 199 Police Department Homeless Intervention Team, Code Enforcement, and Housing Division.
• Attended the local California Apartment Association chapter meetings to encourage landlord participation in the Housing Choice Voucher program. • Continued membership in the California Apartment Association (CAA). The CAA has monthly meetings and provides an excellent resource for current laws regarding real estate practices.
• Secured consultant support to assist in specialized compliance with Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity and other Civil Rights laws, including access to programs and services by persons who are disabled and those with limited English proficiency. • Released a Request for Proposals in November 2019 to secure extended fair housing services to include but are not limited to: city staff training on fair housing laws and indicators; landlord/tenant rights, identification of fair housing discrimination and remedies, expansion of public outreach and education about fair housing laws, tenant rights, and identification of discrimination. Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California were chosen as the Fair Housing Provider.
One of the most important steps toward fair housing and affordable housing taken by the City was to develop the objectives, policies, and programs in Fairfield’s updated Housing Element.
These are listed in Chapter 8 and, as implemented, will make a significant improvement for low-income households in protected classes.
Packet Page 689 of 846Attachment 5 Page 408 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 92 of 199 11 . IMPEDIMENTS AND ACTIONS TO OVERCOME FOR FY 2022-27 To affirmatively further fair housing, a community must work to remove impediments to fair housing choice. As defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Fair Housing Planning Guide (1996), impediments to fair housing choice are:
• Any actions, omissions, or decisions taken because of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, or any other arbitrary factor which restrict housing choices or availability of housing choices; or • Any actions, omissions, or decisions which have the effect of restricting housing choices or the availability of housing choices on the basis of race, color, ancestry, national origin, religion, sex, disability, marital status, familial status, or any other arbitrary factor.
This analysis has identified the following impediments and actions to address those impediments.
IMPEDIMENT #1. RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION
ISSUES: HUD’s CPD Maps shows 19 assisted multifamily projects in Fairfield, of which four serve low-income, elderly and special needs households. Seventeen are located in or adjacent to areas of minority concentration in the downtown Redevelopment Area. All of the subsidized housing projects funded by the City, the City’s Redevelopment Agency and/or City’s Housing Authority were constructed between 10 and 20 years ago.
At that time, the Redevelopment Agency was responsible for working with developers of affordable housing projects. One of the most utilized revitalization strategies was to locate new multifamily developments in the Redevelopment Area. As a result of the AI process, the City understands the problems posed by such a strategy and will seek to not perpetuate residential segregation.
GOAL 1: INCREASE CITY AND DEVELOPER AWARENESS OF AREAS OF RESIDENTIAL
SEGREGATION
Action 1.1. Annual Review. Utilize tools such as HUD’s Low Income Census Tracts list, as well as CPD and AFFH maps on an annual basis to determine areas of residential segregation.
Action 1.2. Inform Planning & Housing. Provide the Planning and Housing Departments, and any other people likely to talk with developers, with information about residential Packet Page 690 of 846Attachment 5 Page 409 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 93 of 199 segregation patterns so that they do not inadvertently support developments that concentrate and segregate protected classes. If the proposed development is in an area of minority concentration, carefully consider the impact and benefits of that project to balance the need for affordable housing with the potential for increased residential segregation.
Incorporate this awareness and language in the development of the upcoming Housing Element and reporting goals.
Actions Responsibility Metrics/Milestones Timeframe
1.1 Annual Review Housing
Department/ CDBG
Manager
• Download HUD low/mod areas
(census tracts & block groups.
• Determine areas of residential
segregation
Annually
Annually
1.2 Inform Planning
& Housing
Housing
Department/ CDBG
Manager
• Provide Planning & Housing with
info on residential segregation
• Incorporate into the
development of new Housing
Element
Annually
FY 2022-23
IMPEDIMENT #2. INSUFFICIENT A FFORDABLE H OUSING
ISSUES: Housing Affordability. Throughout the Bay Area, there is an insufficient number of affordable housing units to meet the needs of lower-income residents, and this is also the case in the City of Fairfield. Demand continues to be high for housing in Fairfield due to the City’s proximity to both San Francisco and Sacramento, as well as all the cities in-between. The high cost of ownership housing and rents continue to climb and create a barrier to fair housing choice. Tenants, in particular, have high housing costs. Low vacancies and a lack of affordable options contribute to these problems.
The State’s Housing Element law requires that a suitable number of acres be zoned high density in order to accommodate the number of lower-income households projected to live in Fairfield over the next ten years. Most areas zoned for high-density housing are in or adjacent to the areas of minority concentration and the downtown area. The Fairfield Downtown Specific Plan envisions a mix of uses, including multifamily rental housing. Housing fanning out from the downtown area is a primarily single-family, owner-occupied house with some apartments on the major streets. Rezoning single-family or medium density residential to high density for affordable housing or affordable building housing on parcels zoned high density can be difficult if there is neighborhood opposition due to perceptions of increased traffic and crime.
Packet Page 691 of 846Attachment 5 Page 410 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 94 of 199 There are also approximately 3,000 acres recently annexed to the City and covered by the Fairfield Train Station Specific Plan (FTSSP). The FTSSP community is envisioned to be a multi- use, transit-oriented new community. It is proposed as a blend between a Transit-Oriented Development (higher densities and mixed-use) and a traditional neighborhood community (low- to mid-density with a focus on schools and parks.) Three hundred acres are set aside for employment uses. There are 1,690 acres set aside for community facilities, parks/recreation/passive open space/conservation. Approximately 91 acres (2535 dwelling units) are zoned for high-density housing, and 161 acres are zoned for medium density (2258 dwelling units).
Although the land zoned for multifamily housing is adjacent to planned transit, at this point in time, the available transit is the Amtrak, Capitol Corridor train that runs between Sacramento and San Jose. Currently, there are few neighborhood services and other community and transit facilities. This presents an almost insurmountable problem for developing affordable housing in the FTSSP area, even though there is high-density zoned land available. Low Income Housing Tax Credits (used to finance affordable housing) require that there be existing neighborhood services within three miles of the project site. Tax credit applications are very competitive.
Developers need the maximum number of points to be awarded an allocation of tax credits.
Available neighborhood services are awarded points. The scoring drives projects to be in areas that contain a grocery store, a pharmacy or drug store, a convenience store, a bank or credit union, and a hospital or doctor's office. The competition is so intense that otherwise excellent projects don’t meet the scoring threshold if there are no or few neighborhood services.
The lack of neighborhood services, local transportation, and schools can be problematic for low-income households living in affordable housing. An automobile would most likely be required, and someone in the household would have to drive to obtain neighborhood services, go to work and take children to school. However, over the next 5-10 years, neighborhood commercial properties and government services will be established, and the city bus system may expand to serve the area. That doesn’t solve the lack of affordable housing now but, in the future, there will be locations for affordable housing outside areas of minority concentration.
GOAL 2: DEVELOP STRATEGIES TO INCREASE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Action 2.1. Sites. Review areas of minority and low-income concentration. Identify potential sites for affordable housing and market to the public and affordable housing stakeholders.
Staff should consider these sites and whether to modify zoning of single-family or medium density residential to high density for affordable housing in order to fully develop throughout the city to not further contribute to residential segregation.
Packet Page 692 of 846Attachment 5 Page 411 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 95 of 199 Action 2.2. Identify Incentives. Identify and analyze potential financial and non-financial incentives to help make tax credit applications competitive. Seek affordable housing financing sources for which the City can apply. Identify other local funds such as tax increments that might be utilized for affordable housing and Section 8 project-based vouchers. Solicit feedback from developers. Discuss incentives with City Manager and obtain City Council approval as appropriate.
Action 2.3 Marketing Plan. Create a plan that identifies available sites for development and any available City incentives (e.g., fee credits, loans, grants, etc.). Develop handouts regarding incentives available and under what circumstances. Market the City’s plan to specifically develop affordable housing with equal opportunity for all.
Action 2.4 Rent Survey. If/when rents are above the Fair Market Rate (FMR), consider conducting a survey of the rental market and request an increase in Section 8 Voucher standard as a result.
Action 2.5 Mortgage Bond Financing. Investigate the feasibility of offering multifamily mortgage bond financing (which is repaid by the project) to developers for projects of the appropriate size. Mortgage bond project financing is generally a little less expensive than private-sector financing, and the projects are automatically provided with an allocation of 4% tax credits.
Action 2.6 Mortgage Credit Certificates. Work with lenders to determine whether a Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) or other types of homeownership loan program is feasible given the housing market and incomes that would be served. If feasible, develop and implement the program.
Actions Responsibility Metrics/Milestones Timeframe
2.1 Sites Housing
Manager
• Review areas of minority and poverty
concentration
• Identify potential affordable housing sites
• Consider rezoning sites as needed
Review
annually
2.2 Identify
Incentives
Housing
Manager
• Identify and analyze potential financial and
non-financial incentives to help make tax
credit applications competitive.
• Seek affordable housing financing sources
for which the City can apply.
• Identify other local funds such as tax
increments that might be utilized for
affordable housing and Section 8 project-
based vouchers.
• Solicit feedback from developers.
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
As needed
Packet Page 693 of 846Attachment 5 Page 412 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 96 of 199 • Discuss incentives with City Manager and
obtain City Council approval as appropriate.
2.3 Marketing
Plan
Housing
Manager
• Create a plan that identifies available sites
for development and any available City
incentives
• Develop handouts regarding incentives
available and under what circumstances.
• Market the City’s plan to specifically
develop affordable housing with equal
opportunity for all.
FY 2022
FY 2022
Annually
2.4 Rent
Survey
Housing
Authority
Manager
Housing
Manager
• Annually review rent rate and FMR
• If rents are high enough, conduct a survey
• Request increase in payment standard from
HUD with survey info
Annually
As needed
As needed
2.5 Mortgage
Bond
Financing
Housing
Director, City
Manager, City
Attorney,
Financial
Advisor, City
Council
• Review requirements for developing a
multifamily mortgage bond program
• If feasible, develop a program
• Provide financing as needed
FY 2022
FY 2023
Ongoing
2.6 Mortgage
Credit
Certificates.
Housing
Director, City
Attorney, City
Manager
• Review MCC program requirements.
• Determine whether Housing Department
has sufficient staff to conduct program
• If yes, meet with lenders, explain the
program, and gauge interest
• Based on lender engagement, advertising
programs to households
• Issue MCCs
FY 2022
FY 2022
FY 2023
FY 2024
IMPEDIMENT #3. INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS
ISSUES: 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
Packet Page 694 of 846Attachment 5 Page 413 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 97 of 199 • Effective processes to address neighborhood concerns about the real and perceived impacts affordable housing
If developers find it is difficult to do business with a municipality, if it is time-consuming or more expensive, if NIMBYism is entrenched within the community, they are more inclined to pass over opportunities to construct housing in that jurisdiction. Developers may do one deal, but they won’t do a second project, and they will share their experiences with others.
GOAL 3: REDUCE INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT
Action 3.1. Effective Neighborhood Engagement. Document an effective process that affordable housing developers can use to address the concerns of neighborhood residents in Fairfield. Continue to stress respectful listening and flexibility in responding to neighborhood concerns, as well as cultural competency.
Action 3.2. Preapplication Meetings. Continue to conduct pre-application meetings with multi-family housing developers to review the development process, answer any questions, and discuss how they plan to work with neighbors in adjoining single-family neighborhoods.
Action 3.3. Review Development Fees. Annually review development fees with surrounding jurisdictions to keep costs competitive and inviting for affordable housing developers.
Action 3.4. Outline of Development Process. Outline Fairfield’s development process in writing with a general timeline for each step. Provide developers with a list of all fees and contact persons for questions so that they can accurately estimate costs. Update fee schedule and other details annually.
Actions Responsibility Metrics/Milestones Timeframe
3.1 Effective
Neighborhood
Engagement
• Create a document that outlines an
effective process to address the
concerns of neighborhood residents in
Fairfield. Continue to stress respectful
listening and flexibility in responding to
neighborhood concerns, as well as
cultural competency.
• Provide documents to affordable
housing developers interested in FF
FY 2022
Annually as
needed
3.2 Pre-
application
Meetings
Housing Manager
• Continue to conduct pre-application
meetings with multi-family housing
developers to review the development
Annually
Packet Page 695 of 846Attachment 5 Page 414 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 98 of 199 process, answer questions, and discuss
neighborhood outreach strategies
3.3. Review
Development
Fees
Housing Manager
• Review development fees with
surrounding jurisdictions and make
fees competitive and inviting
Annually
3.4 Outline
Development
Process
Housing
Department
Housing Manager
• Create a flyer outlining the city’s
development process and a general
timeline for each step.
• Include a list of all fees and contact
persons for questions
• Update fee schedule and other details
annually
FY 2022-23
and forward
as needed
I MPEDIMENT #4 . PANDEMIC INCREASED HOUSING INSTABILITY ISSUES: 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. Households earning 50% and less of the area median income are vulnerable, and female-headed households earning 30% or less of the area median income, predominantly women of color, are especially vulnerable to homelessness resulting from eviction and adverse health effects of the virus.
GOAL 4: PREVENT EVICTIONS AND STABILIZE HOUSING
Action 4.1. Prevent Evictions. Ensure that the most vulnerable lowest-income Fairfield residents have access to services that help resolve landlords' issues and prevent evictions.
Action 4.2. Provide Rental Assistance. Provide emergency assistance and rapid rehousing for households earning 50% or less than area median income to help prevent homelessness from helping disparate address impacts that COVID-related job/income losses have had on extremely low-income renter households, which are predominantly women of color with children.
Actions Responsibility Metrics/Milestones Timeframe
4.1 Prevent
Evictions
Housing
Department/ CDBG
Manager
• Annually fund Fair Housing
services
• Receive and review quarterly
reporting to identify
FY 2022-23
and forward
as needed
4.2 Provide Rental
Assistance
Housing
Department/ CDBG
Manager
• Provide emergency rental
assistance with CV funding
until funds are exhausted
FY 2022-23
and forward
as needed
and until
Packet Page 696 of 846Attachment 5 Page 415 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 99 of 199 • Consider additional funding as
needed
funds
exhausted
FY 2023-24
Reassess
IMPEDIMENT #5. LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT FAIR HOUSING RIGHTS ISSUES: Fair Housing meeting revealed public perceptions/stereotypes of and discrimination towards lower-income households and minority groups, including persons with disabilities.
Reducing NIMBYism aids in the ease of developing affordable housing. People with disabilities have a difficult time finding housing to meet their needs. Managers of rental housing development often do not understand or approve requests for reasonable accommodations, resulting in discrimination against people with disabilities.
GOAL 5: FAIR HOUSING FUNDING, REPORTING, MONITORING, AUDITING AND PUBLIC
EDUCATION
Action 5.1. Fund and Understand. Continue to fund and work with Fair Housing contractors to understand the prevalence and types of housing discrimination in the City of Fairfield. Ensure that Fair Housing contractor conducts at least one multifamily rental housing audit each year to learn the extent of discrimination in Fairfield multifamily housing. Publicize information from the audits. Discuss discrimination findings at California Apartment Association (CAA) meetings and ask for their help in addressing discrimination.
Action 5.2. Fair Housing & Disability Resource Development. Work with Fair Housing contractor to develop civil rights and fair housing materials and specifically highlight discrimination on the basis of disability. Work with Independent Living Resources of Solano/Contra Costa (ILR) and Lion’s Center for the Visually Impaired and other disability advocates to understand what information would be beneficial to their clients. Integrate all information into a resource sheet and training.
Action 5.3. Training & Public Awareness. Work with the CAA, ILR, Lions and other disability groups, landlords and the public to publicize the materials and training opportunities. Conduct training courses for City Staff, property owners, multifamily projects, CAA. Create a public awareness campaign/plan to educate Fairfield residents of their fair housing choice and rights associated with fair housing and where to contact if they suspect they have experienced discrimination in housing.
Action 5.4. Landlord Outreach & Education. Develop a database of existing multi-family (duplex and larger) properties with names and addresses of owners, work to identify email Packet Page 697 of 846Attachment 5 Page 416 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 100 of 199 addresses. Create an outreach strategy that will help to foster ongoing relationships and opportunities to educate about fair housing laws, including accommodations for those with disabilities. Work with property owners and landlords to increase awareness and enforcement of fair housing laws and tenant rights.
Action 5.5. Stakeholder Resources. Provide resources to educate real estate stakeholders (e.g., tenants, homebuyers, real estate agents/brokers, property owners) about local, state, and federal fair housing laws and regulations, and provide a list of these resources on the City’s website (easily identifiable and accessible).
Action 5.6. Public Education on Affordable Housing. Work with affordable housing developers to create flyers/brochures about the benefits of affordable housing, dispelling some of the stereotypes and myths. Create and find opportunities to dispel myths and present facts, especially when marketing for potential new affordable housing.
Actions Responsibility Metrics/Milestones Timeframe
5.1. Fund and
understand
Housing
Department CDBG
Manager
• Annually fund Fair Housing
services
• Receive and review quarterly
reporting to identify patterns
of discriminatory actions
• Fund contractor to conduct at
least one multifamily rental
housing audit annually.
• Work with Fair Housing
Contractor to address
patterns of discrimination
• Publicize housing audit results
• Present housing audit results
at CAA meeting and enlists
help to combat discrimination.
Annually
Report
actions in
CAPER
Quarterly
Annually
Annually
Annually
Annually
5.2. Fair Housing &
Disability Resource
Development
Housing
Department
CDBG Manager
• Work with Fair Housing
contractor to develop civil
rights and fair housing
materials and specifically
highlight discrimination on the
basis of disability.
• Work with Independent Living
Resources of Solano/Contra
Costa (ILR) and Lion’s Center
for the Visually Impaired &
other disability advocates to
FY 2022
FY 2022
Packet Page 698 of 846Attachment 5 Page 417 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 101 of 199 understand what info would
be beneficial to their clients.
• Integrate all information into
a resource sheet and training.
• Translate materials into
Spanish and Tagalog
• Make available in large type,
screen readable and audio
formats, Braille upon demand.
FY 2022
FY 2022
FY 2022
5.3. Training & Public
Awareness
Housing
Department
CDBG Manager
• Work with the CAA, ILR, Lions
and other disability groups,
landlords and the public to
publicize the materials and
training opportunities.
• Conduct training courses for
City Staff, property owners,
multifamily projects. CAA
• Create a public awareness
campaign/plan to educate
Fairfield residents of their fair
housing choice and rights
associated with fair housing
and where to contact if they
suspect they have
experienced discrimination in
housing.
• Distribute info to AI contacts
list, nonprofits, CAA and
others as broadly as possible.
FY 2022
FY 2022
FY 2022
FY 2023
FY 2023
5.3. Landlord
Outreach and
Education
Housing
Department
CDBG Manager
• Develop a database of existing
multi-family (duplex and
larger) properties with names
and addresses of owners,
work to identify email
addresses
• Create outreach strategy to
foster ongoing relationships
and opportunities to educate
about fair housing laws,
including accommodations for
those with disabilities.
• Conduct outreach to
multifamily landlords to
FY 2023-24
FY 2023-24
At least
annually
beginning
FY 2023-24
Packet Page 699 of 846Attachment 5 Page 418 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 102 of 199 increase awareness and
enforcement of fair housing
laws& tenant rights.
5.4. Stakeholder
Resources
Housing
Department
CDBG Manager
• Provide resources to educate
real estate stakeholders (e.g.,
tenants, homebuyers, real
estate agents/brokers,
property owners) about local,
state, and federal fair housing
laws and regulations, and
provide a list of these
resources on the City’s
website (easily identifiable
and accessible).
At least
annually
beginning
FY 2023-24
5.5. Public Education
• Solicit ideas and research
from affordable housing
developers about the
benefits/myths of affordable
housing.
• Create flyer/brochure
• Create/find opportunities to
dispel myths and present
facts, especially when
marketing for potential new
affordable housing.
FY 2023
FY 2023
Ongoing
Packet Page 700 of 846Attachment 5 Page 419 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 103 of 199
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Housing Choice Survey
Appendix 2. Quality of Life Survey
Appendix 3. Outreach list for Public Meetings
Appendix 4. Outreach and Advertisements for Public Meetings Appendix 5. Public Meeting Participants and Comments
Appendix 6. Housing Element Programs
Packet Page 701 of 846Attachment 5 Page 420 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 104 of 199 Appendix 1. Housing Choice Survey
Packet Page 702 of 846Attachment 5 Page 421 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 105 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 703 of 846Attachment 5 Page 422 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 106 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 704 of 846Attachment 5 Page 423 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 107 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 705 of 846Attachment 5 Page 424 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 108 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 706 of 846Attachment 5 Page 425 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 109 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 707 of 846Attachment 5 Page 426 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 110 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 708 of 846Attachment 5 Page 427 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 111 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 709 of 846Attachment 5 Page 428 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 112 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 710 of 846Attachment 5 Page 429 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 113 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
The survey was translated into Spanish and distributed in both languages. Below is page 1 only.
Packet Page 711 of 846Attachment 5 Page 430 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 114 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Fairfield Housing Choice Survey Results
Packet Page 712 of 846Attachment 5 Page 431 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 115 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 713 of 846Attachment 5 Page 432 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 116 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 714 of 846Attachment 5 Page 433 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 117 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 715 of 846Attachment 5 Page 434 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 118 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 716 of 846Attachment 5 Page 435 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 119 of 199
Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 717 of 846Attachment 5 Page 436 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 120 of 199
Packet Page 718 of 846Attachment 5 Page 437 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 121 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 719 of 846Attachment 5 Page 438 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 122 of 199
Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 720 of 846Attachment 5 Page 439 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 123 of 199
Packet Page 721 of 846Attachment 5 Page 440 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 124 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 722 of 846Attachment 5 Page 441 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 125 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 723 of 846Attachment 5 Page 442 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 126 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 724 of 846Attachment 5 Page 443 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 127 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 725 of 846Attachment 5 Page 444 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 128 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 726 of 846Attachment 5 Page 445 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 129 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 727 of 846Attachment 5 Page 446 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 130 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 728 of 846Attachment 5 Page 447 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 131 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 729 of 846Attachment 5 Page 448 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 132 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 730 of 846Attachment 5 Page 449 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 133 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 731 of 846Attachment 5 Page 450 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 134 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 732 of 846Attachment 5 Page 451 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 135 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 733 of 846Attachment 5 Page 452 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 136 of 199
Packet Page 734 of 846Attachment 5 Page 453 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 137 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 735 of 846Attachment 5 Page 454 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 138 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 736 of 846Attachment 5 Page 455 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 139 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 737 of 846Attachment 5 Page 456 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 140 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 738 of 846Attachment 5 Page 457 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 141 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 739 of 846Attachment 5 Page 458 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 142 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 740 of 846Attachment 5 Page 459 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 143 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 741 of 846Attachment 5 Page 460 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 144 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 742 of 846Attachment 5 Page 461 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 145 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 743 of 846Attachment 5 Page 462 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 146 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 744 of 846Attachment 5 Page 463 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 147 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 745 of 846Attachment 5 Page 464 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 148 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 746 of 846Attachment 5 Page 465 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 149 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 747 of 846Attachment 5 Page 466 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 150 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 748 of 846Attachment 5 Page 467 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 151 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 749 of 846Attachment 5 Page 468 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 152 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 750 of 846Attachment 5 Page 469 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 153 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 751 of 846Attachment 5 Page 470 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 154 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 752 of 846Attachment 5 Page 471 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 155 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 753 of 846Attachment 5 Page 472 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 156 of 199 Appendix 1 continued
Packet Page 754 of 846Attachment 5 Page 473 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 157 of 199 Appendix 2. Quality of Life Survey
Packet Page 755 of 846Attachment 5 Page 474 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 158 of 199
Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 756 of 846Attachment 5 Page 475 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 159 of 199
Appendix 2
continued
Packet Page 757 of 846Attachment 5 Page 476 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 160 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 758 of 846Attachment 5 Page 477 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 161 of 199
Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 759 of 846Attachment 5 Page 478 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 162 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 760 of 846Attachment 5 Page 479 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 163 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 761 of 846Attachment 5 Page 480 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 164 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 762 of 846Attachment 5 Page 481 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 165 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 763 of 846Attachment 5 Page 482 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 166 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 764 of 846Attachment 5 Page 483 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 167 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 765 of 846Attachment 5 Page 484 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 168 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 766 of 846Attachment 5 Page 485 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 169 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 767 of 846Attachment 5 Page 486 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 170 of 199
Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 768 of 846Attachment 5 Page 487 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 171 of 199
Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 769 of 846Attachment 5 Page 488 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 172 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 770 of 846Attachment 5 Page 489 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 173 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 771 of 846Attachment 5 Page 490 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 174 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 772 of 846Attachment 5 Page 491 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 175 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 773 of 846Attachment 5 Page 492 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 176 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 774 of 846Attachment 5 Page 493 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 177 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 775 of 846Attachment 5 Page 494 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 178 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 776 of 846Attachment 5 Page 495 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 179 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 777 of 846Attachment 5 Page 496 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 180 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 778 of 846Attachment 5 Page 497 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 181 of 199
Packet Page 779 of 846Attachment 5 Page 498 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 182 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 780 of 846Attachment 5 Page 499 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 183 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 781 of 846Attachment 5 Page 500 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 184 of 199 Appendix 2 continued
Appendix 2 continued
Packet Page 782 of 846Attachment 5 Page 501 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 185 of 199
Packet Page 783 of 846Attachment 5 Page 502 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 186 of 199 Appendix 3. Outreach List for Public Meetings
Packet Page 784 of 846Attachment 5 Page 503 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 187 of 199 Appendix 3 continued
Packet Page 785 of 846Attachment 5 Page 504 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 188 of 199 Appendix 3 continued
Packet Page 786 of 846Attachment 5 Page 505 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 189 of 199 Appendix 4. Outreach and Advertisements for Public Meetings Insert Proof of Publication for the ad for adoption of the AI here.
Packet Page 787 of 846Attachment 5 Page 506 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 190 of 199 Appendix 4 continued
Packet Page 788 of 846Attachment 5 Page 507 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 191 of 199 Appendix 4 continued
Packet Page 789 of 846Attachment 5 Page 508 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 192 of 199 Appendix 4 continued
Packet Page 790 of 846Attachment 5 Page 509 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 193 of 199 Appendix 4 continued
Packet Page 791 of 846Attachment 5 Page 510 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 194 of 199 Appendix 5. Public Meeting Participants and Comments
Fair Housing Community Meeting
Packet Page 792 of 846Attachment 5 Page 511 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 195 of 199 Appendix 5 continued
Public Comments from Council Meeting to Adopt AI
Date , 2021 ……
Packet Page 793 of 846Attachment 5 Page 512 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 196 of 199 Appendix 5 continued
Public Comments from Fair Housing Meeting 11/20/2019
Packet Page 794 of 846Attachment 5 Page 513 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 197 of 199 Appendix 5 continued
Packet Page 795 of 846Attachment 5 Page 514 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 198 of 199 Appendix 5 continued
Packet Page 796 of 846Attachment 5 Page 515 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 199 of 199
Packet Page 797 of 846Attachment 5 Page 516 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 200 of 199
Packet Page 798 of 846Attachment 5 Page 517 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 201 of 199 Appendix 6. Housing Element Programs
Packet Page 799 of 846Attachment 5 Page 518 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 202 of 199 Appendix 6 continued
Packet Page 800 of 846Attachment 5 Page 519 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 203 of 199 Appendix 6 continued
Packet Page 801 of 846Attachment 5 Page 520 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 204 of 199 Appendix 6 continued
Packet Page 802 of 846Attachment 5 Page 521 of 565
FY 2022-27 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice – Page 205 of 199 Appendix 6 continued
Packet Page 803 of 846Attachment 5 Page 522 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
217
This page intentionally blank
Packet Page 804 of 846Attachment 5 Page 523 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
218
Appendix C. Sites Inventory
C.1 Sites Inventory Context
This appendix presents an inventory of sites projected residential capacity to meet Fairfield’s Re- gional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) by income level for the 2023-2031 planning period. It further provides a detailed explanation of credits towards the RHNA, the selection of vacant and underutilized non-vacant sites, and the determination of realistic capacity for those sites.
The RHNA is a key component of State housing law that mandates all California jurisdictions ad- equately plan for their “fair share” of existing and future housing needs. The State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), in collaboration with the Association of Bay Area Governments, is responsible for quantifying this fair share based on regional growth projections by income. The eight-year planning period for all jurisdictions within the ABAG region runs from January 31, 2023 to January 31, 2031. In accordance with Government Code Section 65584, the final RHNA plan was adopted by ABAG’s executive board on December 16, 2021, approved by HCD on January 27, 2022, and updated March 17, 2022. The RHNA plan distributes regional hous- ing need across jurisdictions by the following income categories:
• Extremely low-income: 30 percent of area median income and below • Very-low-income: less than 50 percent of the county median income. • Low-income: between 51 and 80 percent of the county median income. • Moderate-income: between 81 and 120 percent of the county median income. • Above-moderate-income: greater than 120 percent of the county median income.
Jurisdictions in Solano County formed a subregion to complete a separate RHNA process on behalf of all jurisdictions in the county. The Solano Subregion adopted its final RHNA allocations on No- vember 18, 2021. Solano County’s final RHNA plan identifies an overall construction need of 3,069 units in Fairfield, a slight decrease from the prior cycle’s allocation of 3,100 new units. Table C-1 shows the income breakdown of these units. As provided by State law, the housing needs of ex- tremely-low-income households, or those making less than 30 percent of area median income (AMI), is estimated as 50 percent of the very-low-income housing need, or about 396 units during the planning period.
Packet Page 805 of 846Attachment 5 Page 524 of 565
Appendix C
219
Table C-1: Fairfield Regional Housing Needs Allocation 2023-2031 Income Level1 Needed Units Percent of Needed Units
Very-Low-Income (0-50% AMI) 792 25.8%
Extremely-Low-Income ( 120% AMI) 1,274 41.5%
Total 3,069 100.0%
3. Income levels were determined by county median household income based on 2014-2018 American Community Survey data (Table B19013). The median income in Solano County during this period was $77,609.
4. Development needs of extremely-low-income units are assumed to be 50 percent of very-low-income housing needs.
Source: ABAG, Final RHNA Plan, March 2022; Solano County, 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Plan – Public Review Draft, September 2021
C.2 Sites Inventory Overview
The City of Fairfield’s 2023-2031 Housing Sites Inventory identifies sufficiently zoned land to ac- commodate the RHNA at all income levels, as well as to affirmatively further fair housing and pro- mote a more even distribution of lower and moderate-income sites across the City. Sites included in the inventory reflect those that are most likely to develop during the planning period. This in- cludes pipeline sites, as well as vacant and underutilized sites that can accommodate housing over the next eight years.
In addition to specific sites identified in the inventory, a portion of Fairfield’s housing needs will be met through accessory dwelling units (ADUs), discussed further below, for which specific sites are not identified. In addition to providing adequate capacity to meet the RHNA, a buffer of at least 15 percent was identified in each income category to ensure that the City can meet the no net loss requirement pursuant to State law. See Table C-1 for a summary of Fairfield’s residential capacity and ability to accommodate the 2023-2031 RHNA. The complete 2023-2031 Inventory is provided in Table C-17 at the end of the appendix and in Figure C-1 below. Figure C-2 shows distribution of housing sites by category (including Pipeline Projects, Specific Plan Sites, Other Opportunity Sites, and Other Opportunity Sites that affirmatively further fair housing.)
Packet Page 806 of 846Attachment 5 Page 525 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
220
Table C-2: Summary of Residential Capacity to Accommodate the 2023-2031 RHNA Source: ABAG, Final RHNA Plan, December 2021; City of Fairfield, 2022
Residential Units
Very Low (VLI)/Low-
Income (LI)
Moderate-In-
come
Above-Moder-
ate-Income Total
Total Credits 3,393
Pipeline Projects 500 (91 ELI; 77 VLI;
332 LI) 413 2,434 3,347
Projected ADUs 28 14 4 46
Specific Plan Sites - 634
Vacant 386 129 - 515
Non-Vacant 119 - - 119
Other Opportunity
Sites 976
Vacant 514 361 - 875
Non-Vacant 101 - - 101
Total Capacity 1,648 917 2,438 5,003
6th Cycle RHNA 1,256 539 1,274 3,069
RHNA + 15% Buffer 1,444 620 1,465 3,683
Overall RHNA Capacity 131% 170% 191% 163%
1. Low- and very-low-income capacity on opportunity sites is consolidated per default density assumptions as described in Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3). Extremely-low income RHNA need is calculated at 50% of Very Low Income, or 396 units.
Packet Page 807 of 846Attachment 5 Page 526 of 565
%&p(
!"c$
AÝ
AÝ
Travis
Air
Force
Base
C e m e n t
H i l l
S u i s u n M a r s h P r o t e c t i o n
M a n a g e m e n t A r e a ( S M P M A )
Air Base Pkwy
Travis Blvd Peabody RdDover AveHi lbo r n R d
Walters RdAbernathy RdMankas Corner Rd
Cement Hill Rd
Travis Av
Waterman Blvd
Gr
een
V
a
l
l
ey
RdNorth Texas StTexas St Burgan BlUnion AveNorth Gate Rd2nd StMeridian RdRa ilro ad Av eR o c k v i l l e R d McCrory Rd
Oli
v
e
r
R
d
Pi
ttman RdSunset AveOhio St
East Tabor Ave
Main StBeck AveCement Hill Rd Peabody RdSuisun Pkw yDickson H illRd Cord el i a R d PennsylvaniaAveOlive AveR
ed
Top Rd
Lop
e
s
RdB u sin e ssC enterD r SuisunValleyRdTrain Station
Specific Plan
Heart of
Fairfield
Specific Plan
C-1: Housing Sites Inventory by Income Category
0 1 2½
Miles
Income Level Category
Low and Very Low Income
Moderate Income
Above Moderate Income
Moderate/Above Moderate Income
Specific Plans
Highway
Ramp
Major
Local
Local (other)
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Water
Park
Golf Course
Figure
Packet Page 808 of 846Attachment 5 Page 527 of 565
%&p(
!"c$
AÝ
AÝ
Travis
Air
Force
Base
C e m e n t
H i l l
S u i s u n M a r s h P r o t e c t i o n
M a n a g e m e n t A r e a ( S M P M A )
Air Base Pkwy
Travis Blvd Peabody RdDover AveHi lbo r n R d
Walters RdAbernathy RdMankas Corner Rd
Cement Hill Rd
Travis Av
Waterman Blvd
Gr
een
V
a
l
l
ey
RdNorth Texas StTexas St Burgan BlUnion AveNorth Gate Rd2nd StMeridian RdRa ilro ad Av eR o c k v i l l e R d McCrory Rd
Oli
v
e
r
R
d
Pi
ttman RdSunset AveOhio St
East Tabor Ave
Main StBeck AveCement Hill Rd Peabody RdSuisun Pkw yDickson H illRd Cord el i a R d PennsylvaniaAveOlive AveR
ed
Top Rd
Lop
e
s
RdB u sin e ssC enterD r SuisunValleyRdTrain Station
Specific Plan
Heart of
Fairfield
Specific Plan
C-2: Housing Sites Inventory by Site Type Category
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
Figure
Packet Page 809 of 846Attachment 5 Page 528 of 565
Appendix C
223
C.3 Credit Towards the RHNA
Projects that are approved, under review, permitted, under construction, or otherwise likely to be completed during the planning period may be credited towards the RHNA, in addition to any pro- ject issued a certificate of occupancy after the start of the projection period. It should be noted that while the planning period runs from January 15, 2023 through January 15, 2031, the projection pe- riod spans the longer timeframe of June 30, 2022 through January 15, 2031. Therefore, any residen- tial project completed starting June 30, 2022 or likely to be completed by January 15, 2031 may be credited towards the RHNA.
Where there are “pipeline projects” located on sites in the Inventory, actual proposed densities are reflected. Further, projects currently under review by the City may also be credited towards RHNA.
The State also allows anticipated accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to be credited. The City is cur- rently updating its Planning and Zoning Code, including ADU incentives, and expects continued ADU development.
Table C-3 summarizes the quantity of units in Fairfield that may be credited towards RHNA. This includes pipeline projects, including those approved, under construction and under review, as well as projected ADUs. The City has adequate capacity to accommodate 3,192 units which can be cred- ited towards RHNA. While the City has sufficient capacity to meet the moderate and above-mod- erate income categories, the City must accommodate a shortfall of units in all low- and very-lower income categories with vacant and underutilized non-vacant sites. The following section discusses specific projects that may be credited towards RHNA.
Table C-3: Progress Toward the 2023-2031RHNA
Income Category1
Under
Construction Approved
Under
Review
Projected
ADUs2 Total
Credits
Number
of Units
Needed
Remaining
Need
Very-Low-Income
(0-50% AMI)
Low-Income
(51-80% AMI)
265 67 168 28 528 1,256 728
Moderate-Income
(81-120% AMI)
307 24 0 14 345 539 194
Above-Moderate-
Income
(>120% AMI)
1,687 628 0 4 2,319 1,274 -
Total 2,259 719 168 46 3,192 3,069 -
1. Income levels were determined by county median household income based on 2014-2018 American Community Survey data (Table B19013). The median income in Solano County during this period was $77,609.
2. ADU – accessory dwelling unit.
Source: ABAG, Final RHNA Plan, March 2022; Solano County, 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Plan – Public Review Draft, September 202, City of Fairfield, 2022
Packet Page 810 of 846Attachment 5 Page 529 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
224
PIPELINE PROJECTS
Pipeline projects in the Inventory include those that have been recently approved by the City, those that are currently under construction, and those that are under review and nearing approval. The pipeline projects included in the Inventory are likely to finish construction during the planning period. There are several projects in the City’s pipeline, as detailed in Table C-4 below. Above- moderate need will be met by pipeline projects alone.
The affordability of units must be based on actual or projected rents, as well as any other afforda- bility mechanisms, in the project approval. If a project is still in the early stages of development and has not yet received entitlement, this is not credited towards the RHNA and considered an “oppor- tunity site” – discussed below. If the actual rent of a project is not known, projected rents for the project type are used to gauge affordability. Average residential rent and sales prices in Fairfield were determined as part of Existing Conditions, Trends, and Opportunities Analysis prepared by BAE Urban Economics in support of the General Plan Update. The affordability of these prices can be determined in comparison to the maximum affordable prices derived in Table 1-38, located in Chapter 1: Housing Needs Assessment. See Table C-5 below for a summary of projected rent and sales price affordability in Fairfield. Unit estimates and affordability are derived from project ap- provals and proposed rents, where available. See Figure C-3 for the locations of all pipeline projects by income.
Packet Page 811 of 846Attachment 5 Page 530 of 565
Appendix C
225
TABLE C-4: Pipeline Units by Affordability Level
Units
Project Name APN(s)
Project
Type
Project
Status Affordability Mechanism
Low- and
Very-Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above-
Moderate-
Income Total
Cordelia
Eastridge Multiple SF Approved None - sales/rent data not available, likely above-moderate-income
0 0 4 4
Green Valley Lake
(Custom Home
Lots)
0027471050, 0027472010 SF Final Map
Approved
None - sales/rent data not available,
likely above-moderate-income
0 0 2 2
Oakwood Estates 0027410090, 027110010,
0027410100, 027410110,
0027410120, 0027390140
SF Final Map
Approved
None - sales/rent data not available,
likely above-moderate-income
0 0 6 6
Gold Hill Village II Multiple SF Under
Construction
None - sales/rent data not available,
likely above-moderate-income
0 0 1 1
Enclave at Red Top 0180160180, 0180070080 SF Under
Construction
None - sales/rent data not available,
likely above-moderate-income
0 0 143 143
Villas at Havenhill 0180070080 MF Approved None - sales/rent data not available, likely above-moderate-income
0 0 378 378
Estaire1 0044140080, 0044140070 MF Under
Construction
Average condo market prices 0 25 0 25
Green Valley
Apartments
0148540300, 0148540270 MF Under
Construction
None - sales/rent data not available,
likely above-moderate-income
0 0 281 281
Central Fairfield
Dickson Heights
Remnant Lot
0168041080 SF Final Map
Approved
None - sales/rent data not available,
likely above-moderate-income
0 0 1 1
EAH Housing (212
East Tabor)
0034150100 MF Approved Affordable housing developer,
project subject to an affordability
covenant (minimum 55 years)
67 (40 ELI,
18 VLI, 9
LI)
0 0 67
Rancho Solano
Kingsmill and
0151351010, 0151723110 SF Final Map
Approved
None - sales/rent data not available,
likely above-moderate-income
0 0 1 1
Packet Page 812 of 846Attachment 5 Page 531 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
226
Eagles Custom
Sites
1700 Santa Monica
Street Affordable
Housing
0037053560, 0037053700,
0037340010, 0037340190
MF Under
Construction
Affordable housing developer,
project subject to a regulatory
agreement to maintain affordability
72 (51 ELI,
21 VLI)
0 0 72
Waterman Blvd
Custom Home
Sites
0156011160, 0152031220 SF Final Map
Approved
None - sales/rent data not available,
likely above-moderate-income
0 0 2 2
Midway Meadows 0028172480, 0028172490 SF Approved None - sales/rent data not available, likely above-moderate-income
0 0 14 14
Habitat for
Humanity homes
0028280300 and
0028280210
SF Under
Construction
Affordable housing developer,
Qualified homeowners will
contribute sweat equity hours
toward the construction of their
future home, and will pay an
affordable mortgage
3 (LI) 0 0 3
Northeast Area
Monte Verde 174040200 SF Under
Construction
None - sales/rent data not available,
likely above-moderate-income
0 0 124 124
Paradise Valley
Assisted Living
(Apartments)
0167090110 MF Under
Construction
None - sales/rent data not available,
likely above-moderate-income
0 0 60 60
Paradise Valley
Infill Estate Lots
167540020, 167540030,
167540040, 167540050
SF Final Map
Approved
None - sales/rent data not available,
likely above-moderate-income
0 0 3 3
Villages at Fairfield
– Village I
Multiple SF Under
Construction
None - sales/rent data not available,
likely above-moderate-income
0 0 317 317
Villages at Fairfield
– Village II
Multiple SF Under
Construction
None - sales/rent data not available,
likely above-moderate-income
0 0 337 337
Villages at Fairfield
– Village III2
Multiple SF/MF Under
Construction
Average multifamily market prices 0 282 424 706
Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan
Packet Page 813 of 846Attachment 5 Page 532 of 565
Appendix C
227
Great Jones
Multifamily
Housing
0030173100, 0030173090,
0030173080
MF Approved None - sales/rent data not available,
likely above-moderate-income
0 0 28 28
Parkside Flats 0031201030 MF Approved Affordable housing developer, project subject to an affordability
period of 55 years per the
Development Agreement
168 (likely
38 VLI,
130 LI)
0 0 168
West Texas Mixed
Use1
0031125350 MF Approved Average multifamily market prices 0 24 35 59 Train Station Specific Plan
Biggs Property 0166070100, 0166070110,
0166090090, 0174010080,
0174010120
SF Approved None - sales/rent data not available,
likely above-moderate-income
0 0 75 75
Rice Property
(Travis Crossing)2
0174010140, 0174010160 SF Tentative
Map
Approved
None - sales/rent data not available,
likely above-moderate-income
0 0 79 79
One Lake Family
Apartments
166420170 MF Under
Construction
Affordable housing developer,
project subject to an affordability
covenant (minimum 30 years)
190 (LI) 0 0 190
Total 500 331 2,311 3,14
3 Notes:
1. The average condo/townhome is affordable to the moderate-income household in Fairfield. Live/work units also typically provide a more affordable housing option.
2. The average multifamily rental unit is affordable to the moderate-income household. To account for increased costs associated with new construction, assuming a breakdown of 60 percent above-moderate-income and 40 percent moderate-income units.
Source: City of Fairfield, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022
Packet Page 814 of 846Attachment 5 Page 533 of 565
%&p(
!"c$
AÝ
AÝ
Travis
Air
Force
Base
C e m e n t
H i l l
S u i s u n M a r s h P r o t e c t i o n
M a n a g e m e n t A r e a ( S M P M A )
Air Base Pkwy
Travis Blvd Peabody RdDover AveHi lbo r n R d
Walters RdAbernathy RdMankas Corner Rd
Cement Hill Rd
Travis Av
Waterman Blvd
Gr
een
V
a
l
l
ey
RdNorth Texas StTexas St Burgan BlUnion AveNorth Gate Rd2nd StMeridian RdRa ilro ad Av eR o c k v i l l e R d McCrory Rd
Oli
v
e
r
R
d
Pi
ttman RdSunset AveOhio St
East Tabor Ave
Main StBeck AveCement Hill Rd Peabody RdSuisun Pkw yDickson H illRd Cord el i a R d PennsylvaniaAveOlive AveR
ed
Top Rd
Lop
e
s
RdB u sin e ssC enterD r SuisunValleyRdTrain Station
Specific Plan
Heart of
Fairfield
Specific Plan
C-3: Pipeline Projects by Income Category
0 1 2½
Miles
Income Level Category
Low and Very Low Income
Moderate Income
Above Moderate Income
Moderate/Above Moderate Income
Specific Plans
Highway
Ramp
Major
Local
Local (other)
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Water
Park
Golf Course
Figure
Packet Page 815 of 846Attachment 5 Page 534 of 565
Chapter 5: Sites Inventory
229
Table C-5: Projected Rent and Sales Price Affordability Type Total Average Rent/Sales Price1 Affordability Level Multifamily Rental $1,694 Moderate-Income
Single-Family Residence for Sale $539,615 Above-Moderate-Income Townhome/Condominium for Sale $291,431 Moderate-Income
1. Total average rents are per month, while sales prices are the total cost of the unit.
Source: CoStar 2020; ListSource, 2020; BAE, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022 There are four affordable projects in the pipeline expected to be completed within the projection period.
One is the EAH Housing project located at 212 East Tabor, also known as Tabor Commons. The Planning Commission received and approved a formal time extension request from EAH Housing for the entitled housing project. According to EAH Housing’s website ( https://www.eahhousing.org/future/) this project is estimated to be completed in 2023. The 1700 Santa Monica project, also known as Fair Haven Commons, is another affordable development that contains 72 rental units. Per the project website ( https://1700santamonica-midpen.weebly.com/) the project is expected to be completed in spring 2023.
Habitat for Humanity is initiating construction of three single-family homes available to lower income fam- ilies within the next few months; All three homes will have three bedrooms, two baths, a one-car garage and contain 1,289 square feet of living space. Qualified homeowners will contribute sweat equity hours toward the construction of their future home, and will pay an affordable mortgage. It is estimated all three homes will be completed within 24 months after the close of escrow.
The other two projects, Parkside Flats and One Lake Family Apartments, are contained within the Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan (HoF) and Train Station Specific Plan (TSSP), respectively. The proposed Parkside Flats project, is located on Catalytic Site 1 of the HoF, will add 168 units of affordable housing (per the project’s development agreement). The project is estimated to be completed in spring of 2024 ( https://www.integrityhousing.org/portfolio/parkside-flats/) . One Lake Family Apartments will provide 190 units of affordable housing and is currently under construction. According to the project’s website ( https://www.onelakefamilyapts.com/) ), the expected completion date is late 2022 and thus could be cred- ited towards the RHNA. Both the EAH Project, One Lake Family Apartments, and the Fair Haven Project demonstrate affordable projects that will develop below the default density of 30 du/ac. The details and densities of these affordable projects are shown in Table C-6.
Packet Page 816 of 846Attachment 5 Page 535 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
230
Table C-6: Approved Affordable Housing Projects
Project Land Use
Designation
Zoning Allowable
Density Range
(du/ac)
Site
Acreage
Units Density
(du/ac)
Est.
Completion
EAH Project High Density
Residential
RH 11-22 2.3 67 29 2024/2025
Fair Haven
Project
Medium Density
Residential
RH 11-22 3.5 72 20 2023
Parkside Flats
(Heart of
Fairfield Specific
Plan)
Public Facilities HR 8-35 4.6 168 37 2024
One Lake Family
Apartments
(Train Station
Specific Plan)
Master
Plan/Special
Study
TS 20-50 6.9 190 28 Nov 2022
Habitat for
Humanity Homes
Low-Medium
Residential
RLM 4.5-8 0.4 3 8 2024/2025
Source: City of Fairfield, 2021
ADU PROJECTIONS
Cities may also credit projected accessory dwelling units (ADUs) towards their RHNA. According to HCD’s Annual Progress Report (APR) database, an average of 5.75 ADUs have been permitted annually in Fairfield between 2018 and 2021 ,see Table C-7. This represents a total of 46 projected ADUs during the eight-year planning period.
Table C-7: Approved ADU Building Permits per Year in Fairfield Year Permits Issued
2018 1
2019 4
2020 5
2021 13
Total Permits 23
Annual Average 5.75
Eight-Year Projection 46
Source: HCD, Annual Progress Reports Table A2, 2018-2021 To assist jurisdictions in assessing the affordability of potential ADUs, ABAG has prepared regional tech- nical assistance. Their estimates of affordability apply broadly to the nine-county Bay Area; as Fairfield has not prepared an affordability survey of existing ADUs, these estimates may be used in lieu of a jurisdiction- specific analysis. See Table C-8 for an estimate of projected ADUs by affordability level. As described in Program 5 of the Housing Action Plan, the City will focus on ADU incentives, tools, and subsidies for ADUs, with an emphasis on ADUs for low- and very-low income families and individuals.
Table C-8: Affordability Breakdown of Projected ADUs in Fairfield Packet Page 817 of 846Attachment 5 Page 536 of 565
Chapter 5: Sites Inventory
231
Income Category Regional Affordability Assumption Projected ADUs Very-Low-Income 30% 14
Low-Income 30% 14
Moderate-Income 30% 14
Above-Moderate-Income 10% 4
Total 100% 46
Source: ABAG, Using ADUs to Satisfy RHNA Technical Memo, March 2022
C.4 Availability of Land
This section provides an overview of the Inventory’s residential capacity beyond the RHNA credits de- scribed above, as well as a discussion of the methodology behind realistic capacity assumptions and oppor- tunity site selection. Three types of opportunity sites are identified: sites within specific plan areas, sites outside of specific plan areas, called “other opportunity sites”, and sites selected in moderate TCAC resource areas California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) Composite opportunity areas that affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). Table C-9 below summarizes the residential capacity available on opportunity sites.
Table C-9: Other Opportunity Sites
SITE SELECTION AND CAPACITY METHODOLOGY
To identify adequate sites and determine realistic capacity for the 2023-2031 Inventory, a parcel-based anal- ysis of properties within city limits was conducted using Solano County Assessor data supplemented with information from the City. This analysis was carried out in accordance with the framework provided by the 2020 HCD Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook. The general steps are as follows:
Residential Units
Very Low/Low-Income
Moderate-In-
come
Above-Moderate-
Income Total
RHNA 1,256 539 1,274 3,069
Total Credits 525 427 2,434 3,386
Surplus (+)/ Shortfall (-) -731 -112 +1160 +317
Specific Plan Sites - 634
Vacant 386 129 - 515
Non-Vacant 184 - - 184
Other Opportunity Sites 1,084
Vacant 622 361 - 983
Non-Vacant 101 - - 101
Total Capacity, Other Op-
portunity Sites 1,293 490 - 1,718
Packet Page 818 of 846Attachment 5 Page 537 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
232
1. Identify current development projects, including permitted projects approved, under construction, or under review. Use density as identified in permit.
2. Identify vacant sites with zoning that currently allows residential development. For lower income sites, ensure parcels are between 0.5 and 10 acres, and accommodate a density of at least 30 du/ac.
Use realistic capacity density.
3. Identify underutilized sites (those with assessed value ratio less than 1 and floor area ratio less than 03). For lower income sites, ensure parcels are between 0.5 and 10 acres, and accommodate a den- sity of at least 30 du/ac. Use realistic capacity density and capacity modifier.
4. Identify other potential sites that help affirmatively further fair housing with rezoning.
First, the locations of current development projects were identified, including permitted projects that are approved or under construction and those under review (pipeline) as discussed above. Sites located on va- cant and non-vacant land used to meet the RHNA shortfall were selected based on zoning designations.
This Housing Element cycle coincides with the 2050 General Plan update and subsequent update to the City Planning and Zoning Code, which must comply with the General Plan per State law. This includes the following designations: Medium Density Residential (RM), High Density Residential (RH), Very High Den- sity Residential (RVH); Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan Designations, including HD, HWT, HO, HTD, and HR); and Train Station Specific Plan zones (MR), (HR). Various commercially-zoned sites permit housing conditionally, including Commercial Office (CO), Community Commercial (CC), and Thoroughfare Com- mercial, (CT). Program 6, Action 6.1 in the Housing Action Plan removes residential conditionality on sites in moderate-resource areas. Mixed Commercial (CM) allows 32 du/ac by right, and Neighborhood Com- mercial (CN) allows 20 du/ac by right. With the exception of sites in higher resource areas and two sites used in prior housing elements, only low-income sites located in zones that currently permit residential development above 30 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) are included. Sites used in prior housing elements will be rezoned to accommodate the default density of 30 du/ac, per Action 6.3 in the Housing Action Plan.
Non-residential pipeline projects, completed projects, and those under construction but nearing comple- tion prior to the 2023-2031 planning period are excluded from consideration, as these sites are unlikely to develop with additional housing. Sites that are very small and not viable for lot consolidation (i.e., less than
0.1 acres with no common ownership across adjacent parcels) are also excluded. The remaining vacant and non-vacant opportunity sites are included in the inventory. Non-vacant opportunity sites include those with an existing use that is likely to discontinue during the planning period, those with expressed developer interest, and those generally underutilized or developed with low intensity, such as underperforming strip commercial uses, warehouses, sites with mixed-use potential, and sites adjacent to pipeline projects.
Sites are considered underutilized based on their assessed value (AV) ratio and Floor Area Ratio (FAR).
The AV ratio considers the relationship between the value of the land and the improvements constructed on it. Where the value of the land is worth substantially more than the value of the structures on it, there is an incentive for the owner to redevelop with new uses that command higher rents or sales prices. Similarly, a low FAR means that the total building area is small compared to the overall size of the site, indicating the potential for redevelopment at higher intensities. Sites are considered underutilized if the AV ratio is less than 1.0, or if they have an FAR of 0.3 or less. Parcels with existing FARs greater than 0.3 are considered with exceptional circumstances, including those with mixed-use potential where high densities are allowed, recent high-density development has occurred and the compatibility of existing use with residential uses given the proposed land use designation. To account for the challenges of infill development on underuti- lized sites, an additional capacity modifier was applied based on a parcel’s FAR and AV ratio. The existing uses and location of sites in relationship to current development patterns are also considered prior to in- clusion within the Inventory.
Packet Page 819 of 846Attachment 5 Page 538 of 565
Chapter 5: Sites Inventory
233
Following site selection, realistic capacity was determined by identifying expected densities for each pro- posed land use designation. Density is defined as du/ac. As most recent projects (especially mixed-use pro- jects) have developed at or near permitted maximum densities, the expected density was initially assumed to be at least 80 percent of the maximum allowed density in each zoning designation. This preliminary baseline density was compared and validated against a review of the actual densities of recent projects (See “Existing Average” in Table C-10).
Following this review, the realistic density for each designation was determined. Capacity is based on the permitted density of the existing zone that a site is located in. Most lower-income sites are assumed to develop at a capacity of 25 du/ac, with the exception of zones that do not permit such densities. The lower 25 du/ac, instead of the default 30 du/ac, is used to provide a conservative baseline estimate of capacity in zones that apply to mixed use designations. As noted in Table C-6, three affordable projects have developed below a density of 30 du/ac. Higher densities are allowed in the HoF and TSSP specific plan areas; the real- istic capacity for these zones is established at approximately 80 percent.
The capacity of vacant sites is determined by applying the assumed density to the existing acreage, while the capacity of non-vacant sites is determined by applying the assumed density to the difference between the site acreage and the existing building square footage. As noted above, a capacity modifier is also applied to underutilized sites.
See Table C-10 for estimated densities and example projects, which are currently applied to all sites regard- less of income level. Table C-11 describes the realistic capacity modifiers for underutilized sites.
TABLE C-10: GENERAL PLAN ZONE/SPECIFIC PLAN DENSITY RANGES Zone Permitted (du/ac) Calculated (du/ac)
Min Max Existing Average Capacity Density
General Plan – Residential
RM 8 15 13 (taken from
completed project)
17 (taken from
pipeline,
moderate/above-
moderate project)
15 RH 11 22 18 (taken from
pipeline,
moderate/above
moderate project)
25 (approved, very
low-/low-income
projects)
18 RVH 22 32 28 (taken from
pipeline,
moderate/above
moderate project)
25 General Plan – Mixed Use1
CO 32 * 25
Packet Page 820 of 846Attachment 5 Page 539 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
234
CC 32 16.5 (taken from
pipeline,
moderate/above
moderate project)
25 CM 32 * 25
CT 32 * 25
CN 20 * 16
Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan
HD/HDC 15 48 * 39
HWT 15 48 33 (taken from
pipeline,
moderate/above
moderate project)
33 HO 8 35 34 (taken from
pipeline,
moderate/above
moderate project)
25 HTD 20 80 * 64
HR 8 35 36 (taken from
pipeline, very low-
/low-income project)
28 Train Station Specific Plan
MR 10 20 * 16
HR 20 50 34 (taken from
pipeline, very low-
/low-income project)
28 1. Program 6.1 in the Housing Action Plan changes zoning to allow housing by-right instead of conditionally.
Note: * indicates no comparable project available. Except for non-residential projects, capacity density is estimated at 80% of max capacity where there are no comparable projects.
Source: Solano County Assessors Office, 2021; City of Fairfield, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022 TABLE C-10: Underutilized Site Capacity Modifier
Categories Capacity Modifier
Low AV (0-0.50) and Low FAR (0-0.15) 85%
Low AV (0-0.50) and Medium FAR (0-0.30) 65%
Low AV (0-0.50) or Low FAR (0-0.15) 45%
Medium AV (0.51-0.99) or Medium FAR (0.1C-0.3) 25%
Source: Solano County Assessors Office, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022 Packet Page 821 of 846Attachment 5 Page 540 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
235
Specific Plans
Much of the sites inventory is contained in two of Fairfield’s specific plan areas, the Heart of Fair- field Specific Plan, approved in 2017, and the Train Station Specific Plan, approved in 2014.
Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan
The HoF Specific Plan, which seeks to revitalize areas in downtown Fairfield and in the West Texas Street Area, will provide about 1,600 new units and seven replacement single-family residences by 2040. Not all this development will fall inside of the planning period, and thus only a fraction of the total can be realistically counted towards the RHNA. The plan also identifies nine catalytic sites that emphasize underutilized areas and set specific residential targets. The City has also identified addi- tional residential sites for upzoning via an SB2 Planning Grant, though these are not included in the inventory at this time. The plan provides a suite of affordable housing and anti-displacement strategies, which makes it a viable area for lower-income sites to meet the RHNA. All specific zones that permit residential development (described above in Table C-10) meet the default density re- quirements and may be suitable for lower-income development. Table C-11 describes capacity by income level and the number of corresponding parcels.
TABLE C-11: HoF ESTIMATED SITE CAPACITY
Income Level Capacity (Units) APN Count
Lower-Income1 154 14
Moderate-Income 88 10
Train Station Specific Plan
The TSSP proposes a maximum of 6,800 residential units across nine planning areas. The plan will create a transit-oriented neighborhood with a variety of densities, including high-density projects near the train station that may be suitable for affordable projects.
According to City projections, no other planning areas than those identified previously are ex- pected to develop with housing during the projection period. The remaining opportunity sites are designated TS, as a base zoning is assigned during the Planned Unit Development Permit process.
However, there are several sites that have been identified as opportunity sites and are in areas that permit residential development. Some of these permit densities that can accommodate lower-in- come units. Table C-12 below summarizes TSSP residential capacity by income level. It should be noted that the target density of the HR designation is 28 du/ac, which is below the default density for lower-income units. Development above the target density, per the plan, must be below 50 du/ac and needs to be the result of a density transfer from a different portion of the Planning Area. How- ever, the One Lake Family Apartments project demonstrates affordable housing has developed at 34 units per acre to justify the use of these sites.
TABLE C-12: TSSP ESTIMATED SITE CAPACITY
Income Level Capacity (Units) APN Count
Lower-Income1 351 3
Moderate-Income 41 1
Packet Page 822 of 846Attachment 5 Page 541 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
236
OTHER OPPORTUNITY SITES
Outside of specific plan areas, other opportunity sites are distributed across the City, predominantly on vacant parcels. The underutilized opportunity site that is not one intended to affirmatively fur- ther fair housing is located on North Texas Street. This corridor has been identified by the Fairfield City Council and community members as an area where major mixed use transformation is desired, including multifamily housing. While the current realistic capacity estimate on this site includes capacity modifiers, a development prototype was explored as part of the alternatives phase of the General Plan process. The large site could be redeveloped with a mix of housing types, and for various incomes, as shown in Figure C-4. The rendering visualizes a density of a modest 15 du/ac, which includes 9 single family units, 12 townhomes, and 79 multifamily units.
Figure C-4: Future Development Rendering Example, 252 North Texas Street
As part of the General Plan Update process, City Council has also given direction to explore trans- forming land around the Fairfield Transportation Center into an opportunity for higher density housing. This would likely include a rezoning of property between West Texas Street and Ca- denasso Drive from CC to HTD.
Other areas for potential rezoning and exploration of additional mixed-use opportunity include the Winery Square Shopping Center, and the Home Depot/Target south of the Transportation Center, though these areas are not included in the inventory at this time.
More information on sites selected that affirmatively further fair housing is described in Section 5.4 of this chapter. A summary of zoning and existing land use by opportunity site category is shown in Table C-13.
Packet Page 823 of 846Attachment 5 Page 542 of 565
Chapter 5: Sites Inventory
237
Table C-13: Other Opportunity Sites, Land Use and Existing Zoning Category Very Low/Low-Income
Units
Moderate-Income Units
Specific Plan
Underutilized
HO 11 -
HD 14 -
HTD 14 -
HWT 80 -
Subtotal 119 -
Vacant
HO - 17
HTD - 61
HWT 35 10
TS 351 41
Subtotal 386 129
Other Opportunity Sites
Underutilized -
CC 101 -
Subtotal 101 -
Vacant
CC 20 -
CM 91 140
RH 146 99
RM - 122
CO1 180
IL2 77
Subtotal 514 361
TOTAL 1,120 490
1. CO rezoned to CC, per Action 6.1 of the Housing Action Plan.
2. IL rezoned to RVH, per Action 6.1 in the Housing Action Plan Source: Solano County Assessors, 2021; City of Fairfield, 2022; Dyett and Bhatia, 2022
Packet Page 824 of 846Attachment 5 Page 543 of 565
City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element Update
238
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Site Size
HCD has established parameters for the size of sites for lower income RHNA in view of feasibility considerations. Parcels that are less than 0.5 acres in size are generally not considered suitable for lower income housing development as smaller parcels may not allow development of a sufficient number of units for proposed affordable housing projects to compete effectively for limited funding resources. Parcels larger than 10.0 acres in size are also not typically considered suitable by HCD as development of very large projects may lead to an over concentration of affordable housing in one location or may render proposed affordable housing projects ineligible for funding. None of the lower-income opportunity sites are less than 0.5 acres or greater than 10 acres.
Inclusion on Prior Inventories
There are no non-vacant sites intended for lower-income RHNA included on the Inventory that were included in a prior planning period. There are two vacant parcels intended for lower-income RHNA included in the Inventory that was included in two or more prior consecutive planning periods. This requirement does not apply to moderate- or above moderate-income RHNA sites.
The two vacant parcels included in both the 4th and 5th cycle Housing Elements are adjacent par- cels known as the East Tabor Townhomes project (APNs 0038221010 and 0037010120); details are shown in Table C-13. During the prior two cycles, these parcels were designated as High Density Residential and an RH zone, which permits 15-22 du/ac. Program 6.3 in the Housing Action Plan will increase the base zoning to the RVH designation, which will increase the allowable density range to 22-32 du/ac, not including other density bonuses or community benefits. As the site will be rezoned to allow for higher densities deemed suitable for lower-income housing, it may be car- ried forward.
TABLE C-13: Sites in Two or More Prior Housing Elements APN Project Name Acreage
0038221010 East Tabor Townhomes 1.5
0037010120 East Tabor Townhomes 5.0
Reliance on Non-Vacant Sites
State law requires that if non-vacant sites constitute more than 50 percent of RHNA for lower- income households, then a Housing Element must provide findings based on substantial evidence that existing use does not constitute an impediment to development and that it will likely be dis- continued during the planning period. Per HCD guidance, the sum of lower-income RHNA capac- ity on vacant sites and other alternatives not related to capacity on non-vacant sites (including pro- jected ADUs or units permitted, built, entitled or pending) should be used to determine this per- centage. For all opportunity sites (including sites within specific plans and other opportunity sites, but excluding pipeline sites), only 17 percent of low-income sites constitute non-vacant sites. The breakdown of vacant and nonvacant opportunity area sites by zoning is shown in table C-14.
Packet Page 825 of 846Attachment 5 Page 544 of 565
Chapter 5: Sites Inventory
239
Table C-14: Vacant and Non-Vacant Opportunity Sites
Zoning Very Low/Low Income Units Moderate Income Units
Vacant
CC 20
CM 91 140
CO 180
HO 17
HTD 61
HWT 35 10
RH 146 99
RM 122
TS 351 41
Subtotal 900 490
Underutilized
CC 101 -
HO 11 -
HDT 14 -
HWT 80 -
HD 14 -
Subtotal 197 0
TOTAL 1,120 490
Source: Solano County Assessors, 2021; City of Fairfield, 2022; Dyett and Bhatia, 2022 Nonvacant sites are included in Table C-15a. All nonvacant site capacity is for lower income sites.
Many of the sites, which have low to medium AV ratios or low to medium FARs, are located in the HoF Specific Plan area along West Texas Street. The vision for this area is to create a new “urban mixed-use corridor” along both sides of West Texas Street that allows for higher density residential uses with supporting commercial uses. This mixed-use approach, which can be either vertical (e.g., same building) or horizontal (same or adjacent lot), will strengthen the neighborhood and provide additional residents with new housing options. The HoF Specific Plan includes a number of policies related to reduced impact fees, deferred development impact fees, reduced parking standards, ded- ication of EIFD tax increments, support of non-traditional housing models, and working with af- fordable housing developers to reduce costs. The Action Plan also includes a number of actions to incentivize housing in the HoF area, including actions 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.