Agenda — Fairfield City Council, April 11, 2023 (part 2 of 2)

N L
I
M
I
T

L
I
N

E
UR

I
M

I
T

I
N
E
Cement
Hill
Elkhorn
Peak
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
OkellHill
Suisun
Hill
Sulphur
Springs
Mountain
TwinSisters
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\HazardousMaterials.mxd Cleanup Program Site
")Open
"S Completed
LUST Program Site
")Open
"S Completed
Military Cleanup Site
")Open
"S Completed
Military UST Site
")Open
"S Completed
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 3/10/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
01 2½
Miles
Source: GeoTracker, 2021; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Figure 8-1: Hazardous Materials
#
AÝ "S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S "S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S "S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S "S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S"S"S
"S"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S"S
"S"S"S"S
"S"S"S"S"S"S"S"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S"S "S"S"S "S"S"S"S"S"S
"S"S"S
"S"S
"S"S"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S"S"S")")
")
")")")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")")")
")
")")")")")")")")")")")")")")
")
")
")")
")")")")
")
")
")
")")
")
RockvilleRd
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvMangelsBl MainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Wat erman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
BusinessCenterDr ClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
P
k
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
ParkSouthbrook
Park
Gary
Falati
Park

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

N L
I
M
I
T
L
I
N
E
UR

I
M

I
T

I
N
E
Cement
Hill
Elkhorn
Peak
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
OkellHill
Suisun
Hill
Sulphur
Springs
Mountain
Twin
Sisters
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\HazardousMaterials.mxd Cleanup Program Site
")Open
"S Completed
LUST Program Site
")Open
"S Completed
Military Cleanup Site
")Open
"S Completed
Military UST Site
")Open
"S Completed
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 3/10/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
012½
Miles
Source: GeoTracker, 2021; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Figure 8-1: Hazardous Materials
#
AÝ
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S "S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S "S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S "S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S"S"S
"S"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S"S
"S"S"S"S
"S"S"S"S"S"S"S"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S"S "S"S"S "S"S"S"S"S"S
"S"S"S
"S"S
"S"S"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S"S"S")")
")
")")")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")")")
")
")")")")")")")")")")")")")")
")
")
")")
")")")")
")
")
")
")")
")
R o c kv ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM angelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
ey
RdWaltersRdMankas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Re d TopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Wate rman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l CamposPkw
y
Travis Av
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park Southbrook
Park
Gary
Falati
Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

N L
I
M
I
T
L
I
N

E
UR

I
M

I
T

Photo credit: EPA
8-4
Cleanup Program Sites
The DTSC oversees the cleanup of over 90,000 proper-
ties throughout California that are believed to be con- taminated or are contaminated to some degree with
toxic substances. GeoTracker lists 26 locations within
the Planning Area outside of Travis AFB that have been
identified by the DTSC as Cleanup Program sites. There
are three sites undergoing remediation, three sites
undergoing assessment and interim remedial action,
one site being assessed, and two sites undergoing ver-
ification monitoring. One site is inactive while 16 have completed remediation efforts and are considered
closed.

On Travis AFB, GeoTracker lists 39 Military Cleanup
Program Sites. 18 sites are undergoing remediation,
two sites are undergoing assessment and interim
remedial action, three are undergoing verification mon- itoring, and one site is undergoing long-term manage-
ment. Fifteen sites on Travis AFB are considered closed.

TABLE 8-1: Open LUSTs within the Planning Area
Name Address Type of Case Cleanup Status
Bonser Towing Service 2390 Auto Mall Parkway LUST Cleanup Site Remediation Chevron 2026 Texas N Street LUST Cleanup Site Site Assessment Stan Motors 1907 Texas N Street LUST Cleanup Site
Assessment & Interim
Remedial Action
Travis AFB 170A-F Building 170 Travis Avenue Military UST Site Remediation Travis AFB 170G Building 170 Travis Avenue Military UST Site Remediation Travis AFB 1768 Building 1768 Area F Military UST Site Site Assessment Travis AFB 1779C Building 1779 Area H Military UST Site Remediation Travis AFB 1779D Building 1779 Area H Military UST Site Remediation Travis AFB 1791A-G Building 1791 Ramp 500 Military UST Site Remediation Travis AFB 1797 Building 1797 Area G Military UST Site Remediation Travis AFB POCO Site
SS014 Subsite 5 Ragsdale Street Military UST Site Verification Monitoring Travis AFB USTS 1792A-G Building 1791 Ramp 400 Military UST Site Remediation Source: California State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker, 2021 The cleanup sites on and off Travis AFB throughout the
Planning Area are listed in Table 8-2 on the next page.

Solid Waste Information
System
The Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) is a data-
base for solid waste facilities, operations, and disposal sites throughout California. The database provides
the location, owner, operator, facility type, regulatory and operational status, local enforcement agency, and
inspection and enforcement records for each facility
listed in the system. The type of facilities found in the database range anywhere from landfills to waste tire
sites. There are two facilities within the Planning Area, one open and one closed. These are listed in Table 8-3
below.

Cortese List
Government Code 65962.5 requires the California
Environmental Protection Agency to maintain an annu-
ally updated list of Hazardous Waste and Substances
Sites, or Cortese List. The Cortese list provides infor- mation regarding the location of hazardous materials
release sites. The list is compiled using information
from the California DTSC as well as state agencies, local agencies, and developers that are required to report
hazardous materials releases. Within the Planning
Area, no hazardous material release sites have been
identified on the most recent Cortese List.

TABLE 8-3: Solid Waste Facilities Within the Planning Area Name Address Activity
Operational
Status
Regulatory
Status
Strategic Materials Inc.299 Beck Avenue
Secondary Material
Processing Active Notification
Travis AFB Landfill 580 Hickam Ave Solid Waste Disposal Closed Unpermitted Source: CalRecycle 2021. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): Facility/Site Search, 2021.

Packet Page 176 of 390Attachment 18 Page 4 of 8

8-5
TABLE 8-2: Open Cleanup Program Sites within the Planning Area Name Address Type of Case Cleanup Status
Mission Solano (Former)740 Travis Boulevard Cleanup Program Site Assessment & Interim Remedial Action Owens-Illinois 2500 Huntington Drive Cleanup Program Site Assessment & Interim Remedial Action Garaventa Property 100 Suisun Valley Road Cleanup Program Site Assessment & Interim Remedial Action (Land Use Restrictions) Shell Cordelia I-680 Cleanup Program Site Inactive
Fairfield Cleaners 625 Jackson Street Cleanup Program Site Remediation Former One Hour Cleaners 710 Madison Street Cleanup Program Site Remediation Gillespie Cleaners 622-630 Jackson Street Cleanup Program Site Remediation Nike Battery 86 Cement Hill Road Cleanup Program Site Site Assessment 721-729 Texas Street 721-729 Texas Street Cleanup Program Site Verification Monitoring Former Solano County Records Building 701 Texas Street Cleanup Program Site Verification Monitoring Travis AFB PFAS Groundwater Plume Hickam Avenue Military Cleanup Site Assessment & Interim Remedial Action Travis AFB SD031 Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Assessment & Interim Remedial Action Travis AFB Old Skeet Range Travis Boulevard Military Cleanup Site Long-term Management Travis AFB LF044 Travis Boulevard Military Cleanup Site Remediation Travis AFB A Parent Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Remediation Travis AFB FT005 Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Remediation Travis AFB LF007 Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Remediation Travis AFB SS015 Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Remediation Travis AFB FT004 Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Remediation Travis AFB DP039 Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Remediation Travis AFB LF006 Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Remediation Travis AFB LF008 Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Remediation Travis AFB SD033 Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Remediation Travis AFB SD034 Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Remediation Travis AFB SD036 Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Remediation Travis AFB SD037 Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Remediation Travis AFB SD043 Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Remediation Travis AFB SS016 Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Remediation Travis AFB SS029 Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Remediation Travis AFB SS030 Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Remediation Travis AFB ST027 Area B Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Remediation Travis AFB SS035 Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Verification Monitoring Travis AFB SS041 Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Verification Monitoring Travis AFB SS046 Travis AFB Military Cleanup Site Verification Monitoring Source: California State Water Resources Control Board, GeoTracker, 2021 Packet Page 177 of 390Attachment 18 Page 5 of 8

8-6

8.2 Key Findings and Planning Considerations
1 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS POSE A THREAT IN CERTAIN

AREAS OF THE PLANNING AREA AND FAIRFIELD SHOULD

PLAN TO PROTECT COMMUNITY MEMBERS FROM THESE
MATERIALS.

Disposal or leakage of hazardous materials into soil or groundwater poses potential threats to the health and safety of Fairfield and TAFB residents. Reuse of former industrial or commercial sites may be com- plicated by hazardous materials impacts. Construction in an area with existing hazardous material sites may require special techniques or approaches to protect both construction workers and users of the fin- ished construction from exposure to these materials.

There are 12 open LUST sites, nine cleanup sites, and one SWIS site within the Planning Area. Construction near these sites must be informed by the results of the monitoring conducted in these areas. If monitoring indicates that the cleanup procedures have been successful, no additional procedures are required. There are no sites within the Planning Area that have been identified on the Cortese List.

Packet Page 178 of 390Attachment 18 Page 6 of 8

3L 21R3
R 21LSolano County
Napa County
Sacramento County
Yolo County
San Joaquin County
Sonoma County
Contra Costa County
Solano County
Vacaville
Dixon
Rio Vista
Vallejo
Suisun City
Fairfield
80 680
505
780
80 113
2937
37121
84 12
San Pablo Bay
Grizzly Bay
0 20,000
Feet
Travis AFB ALUCP Update . 130898SOURCE: Mead & Hunt, 2015; ESA Airports, 2015; ESRI Legend
Assault Landing Zone (ALZ)
Airport Influence Area
Solano County Boundary
Travis AFB Property
Travis AFB Easement
Noise Contours
CNEL 60
CNEL 65
CNEL 70
CNEL 75
Runways
Figure 9-2: Noise Contours
3L 21R3
R 21LSolano County
Napa County
Sacramento County
Yolo County
San Joaquin County
Sonoma County
Contra Costa County
Solano County
Vacaville
Dixon
Rio Vista
Vallejo
Suisun City
Fairfield
80 680
505
780
80 113
2937
37121
84 12
San Pablo Bay
Grizzly Bay
0 20,000
Feet
Travis AFB ALUCP Update . 130898SOURCE: Mead & Hunt, 2015; ESA Airports, 2015; ESRI Legend
Assault Landing Zone (ALZ)
Airport Influence Area
Solano County Boundary
Travis AFB Property
Travis AFB Easement
Noise Contours
CNEL 60
CNEL 65
CNEL 70
CNEL 75
Runways
Figure 9-2: Noise Contours
3L 21R3
R 21LSolano County
Napa County
Sacramento County
Yolo County
San Joaquin County
Sonoma County
Contra Costa County
Solano County
Vacaville
Dixon
Rio Vista
Vallejo
Suisun City
Fairfield
80 680
505
780
80 113
2937
37121
84 12
San Pablo Bay
Grizzly Bay
0 20,000
Feet
Travis AFB ALUCP Update . 130898SOURCE: Mead & Hunt, 2015; ESA Airports, 2015; ESRI Legend
Assault Landing Zone (ALZ)
Airport Influence Area
Solano County Boundary
Travis AFB Property
Travis AFB Easement
Noise Contours
CNEL 60
CNEL 65
CNEL 70
CNEL 75
Runways
Figure 9-2: Noise Contours
9-5
Figure 9-2: Noise Contours
Packet Page 179 of 390Attachment 18 Page 7 of 8

Photo credit: Sacramento Bee
9-6

9.2 Key Findings and Planning Considerations
AIRPORT IMPACTS AND LAND USE COMPATIBILITY.

Because of Travis AFB’s presence in the eastern portion of the Planning Area, much of the Planning Area is governed by development restric- tions laid out in the 2015 Travis AFB LUCP. The closer any proposed development is to the AFB’s runways and flight paths, the more strin- gent the restrictions are in order to safeguard protection from noise impacts and potential accidents. Most of the Planning Area is desig- nated as Zone D by the ALUC, which prohibits any land uses that are considered hazards to flight, including physical, visual, electronic, and wildlife interference, and requires that any proposed development over 200 feet undergoes ALUC review. Sections of the Travis Reserve area that are closer to the AFB are classified as Zone C, where building heights are limited to 35 feet and certain noise sensitive uses, including schools, day cares, libraries, hospitals, and nursing homes, are prohib- ited. As such, the future of on-Base uses that are unrelated to flight activity and any development to currently undeveloped or surplus Base land will need to be considered carefully.
1 The base is vitally important to Fairfield’s and Solano County’s overall economic health, and the City is committed to ensuring the continued operation of Travis AFB. As such, the General Plan will need to continue to protect the citizens of Fairfield from excessive noise and protect Travis Air Force Base from noise complaints and airport hazards by pre- venting incompatible land uses from encroaching upon the base. The General Plan update must review the Travis Reserve and existing poli- cies to ensure their current extent remains appropriate for the needs of Fairfield and Travis AFB, or if these policies may need to be expanded or reduced.

Packet Page 180 of 390Attachment 18 Page 8 of 8

Airport
Hazards
Chapter 9
This chapter describes hazards related to aircraft opera- tions at Travis Air Force Base (AFB or Travis), and limita- tions on surrounding land uses to minimize such hazards.

Packet Page 181 of 390Attachment 19 Page 1 of 4

9-2
The AFB provides the U.S. Air Force with a significant
air mobility system and all-jet fleet of C-5 Galaxy, C-17 Globemaster III cargo, and KC-10 extender aircraft. At
approximately 6,260 acres in size, Travis AFB handles
more cargo and passengers than any military air ter-
minal in the United States.1 The U.S. Department of
1 County of Solano, Travis Air Force Base Land Use Compatibili- ty Plan White Paper, 2015.

Defense has been using the site for military operations since the early 1940s. In 1995, the function of the base was expanded by the addition of air refueling assets. In 2013, the function of the base was further expanded
by the construction of an Assault Landing Zone (ALZ), a short runway used to train military pilots in low altitude maneuvers. Travis AFB now operates three runways,
including the ALZ. The two main runways are 11,000
feet long and 150 feet wide. The ALZ is 3,500 feet long and 90 feet wide.2
Travis AFB Land Use
Compatibility Plan
The Solano County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) most recently updated the Travis AFB Land
Use Compatibility Plan (LUCP) in 2015. The LUCP
addresses compatibility issues relating to noise, safety, aircraft protection, and overflight. All of Solano County is divided into six compatibility zones, each subject to specific development standards and conditions based
on the potential for compatibility issues. These zones
are Zone A: Runway Primary Surface and Clear Zone,
Zone B1: Inner Approach/Departure Zone, Zone B2:

Extended Approach/Departure Zone, Zone C: Traffic
Pattern, Zone D: Other Airport Environs, and Zone E:

Remainder of Airport Influence Area. Each of these
zones imposes different development conditions and
prohibits certain land uses based on the individual
zone’s proximity to the runways. The closer the zone
is to the runways, the stricter the development con-
ditions are due to the greater the risk of accident and increased noise impacts.
2 AirNav LLC, Travis Air Force Base, 2021.

As shown in Figure 9-1, most of the Planning Area is
in Zone D with a small portion in the northern Green
Valley area falling in Zone E. These are the two least
restrictive zones. In Zone D, the LUCP does not place
limits on densities or intensities, but does prohibit any uses considered “hazards to flight.” Zone E places no
limits on use. For both zones, ALUC review is required
for any objects greater than 200 feet in height above
ground level. Hazards to flight include physical, visual, electronic forms of interference with the safety of air- craft operations, and land uses that may attract birds
to increase in the area. Portions of the Planning Area
around the Rancho Solano and Cement Hill areas also
fall under the Height Review Overlay Zone. Within this
zone, ALUC review is required for objects greater than
35 feet in height above ground level.

Land within the currently designated Travis Reserve
area to the north and east of Travis AFB is classified
in Zones A, B1, B2, and C. Zones A, B1, and B2 are pri- marily within the bounds of Travis AFB property and
restrict development around runways and in AFB-
designated Accident Potential Zones located near the
runways. Zone C encompasses locations exposed to
potential noise in excess of approximately 60 decibels
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and prohib-
its development of schools, day care centers, libraries, hospitals, and nursing homes.

9.1 Travis Air Force Base
Packet Page 182 of 390Attachment 19 Page 2 of 4

3L 21R3
R 21LSolano County
Napa County
Sacramento County
Yolo County
San Joaquin County
Sonoma County
Contra Costa County
Solano County
Vacaville
Dixon
Rio Vista
Vallejo
Suisun City
Fairfield
80 680
505
780
80 113
2937
37121
84 12
San Pablo Bay
Grizzly Bay
0 20,000
Feet
Travis AFB ALUCP Update . 130898SOURCE: Mead & Hunt, 2015; ESA Airports, 2015; ESRI Legend
Assault Landing Zone (ALZ)
Airport Influence Area
Solano County Boundary
Travis AFB Property
Travis AFB Easement
Noise Contours
CNEL 60
CNEL 65
CNEL 70
CNEL 75
Runways
Figure 9-2: Noise Contours
9-3
Travis Air Force Base Land Use Compatibility Plan
8 | Summary Guide to Land Use Compatibility
Figure 9-1: Airport Land Use Compatibility
Travis Air Force Base Land Use Compatibility Plan
8 | Summary Guide to Land Use Compatibility
Figure 9-1: Airport Land Use Compatibility
Figure 9-1: Airport Compatibility Zones
Solano CountySolano County
The LUCP deems new residential development nor-
mally incompatible where the noise exposure exceeds
a potential future CNEL of 60 dB, unless interior noise levels are attenuated to 45 dB or less. Above CNEL 65
dB, new residential uses are prohibited. Other loca-
tions where aircraft fly at relatively low altitudes in the vicinity of Travis AFB also may experience individual
noise events that may be disruptive to residential land use activities. Compatibility Zone D (encompassing all
of the urbanized portion of the Planning Area) includes locations where concentrated numbers of flights at low
altitudes are often conducted, although not at a suffi- ciently high frequency on an annual basis to generate a CNEL of 60 dB or more. No areas of the Planning Area
outside of the Suisun Marsh and the northeast portion
of the Travis Reserve are affected by CNEL above 65
dB. An area of the city in the southern portion of the
Cordelia neighborhood is affected by CNEL above 60
dB. Noise contours are shown in Figure 9-2.

Travis Air Force Base
Protection Element
The existing Fairfield General Plan includes a Travis
Air Force Base Protection Element, which emphasizes
the City’s commitment to ensuring its continued oper-
ation. Many of the policies contained in the element
are included in other elements, including Land Use;
Circulation; Open Space, Conservation & Recreation;
Health and Safety; and Economic Development. Their
grouping into one cohesive element ensures that
pertinent General Plan policies related to the protec-
tion of Travis AFB can be easily recognized and used.

Objectives in the element seek to ensure that future
Packet Page 183 of 390Attachment 19 Page 3 of 4

The Travis AFB Protection Element also established
the Travis Reserve land use designation, which estab-
lished a reserve of land to be set aside for any poten- tial expansion of the Base or a change in its mission.

Land designated within the Travis Reserve extends out
from the Base to the north and to the east. The pur-
pose of the Travis Reserve land use designation is to
prevent any incompatible uses from being constructed
in areas that may be affected by excessive noise or
other hazards associated with Base operations, and
thus to ensure the viability of Base operations into the future. Additionally, the Health and Safety Element of
the General Plan specifies that new residential zoning
not be applied on land where outdoor noise levels
are greater than 60 dB CNEL maximum mission con-
tour, or within Compatibility Zones A, B1, B2, or C as
established in the LUCP and the 1995 Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone.

WILCOX RANCH
In 2002, the City of Fairfield and Solano County pur-
chased 1,858 acres of land (known as Wilcox Ranch)
around the base’s eastern runway with the express
purpose of use for any future expansion of air instal-
lation facilities at Travis AFB. Under a deed restriction with the Nature Conservancy, the City holds the land
jointly with the County in permanent grazing/agricul-
ture/natural condition, unless the land is required for expansion. Should Travis AFB choose to expand the
taxiway, it could require use of some of the Wilcox land.

Packet Page 184 of 390Attachment 19 Page 4 of 4

Wildfire
Chapter 10
Wildfires and the interface between wildland fires and urban development is becoming an increasing issue with climate change. This chapter describes hazards associated with wildfires in the Planning Area.

Packet Page 185 of 390Attachment 20 Page 1 of 4

10-2
Overview
In California, wildfire is a natural part of the ecosystem and many of the vegetation types have adapted over
time to frequent low-intensity fires. This is true of the oak woodlands in the hills, the grassy meadows inter-
spersed in hills and valleys, and the densely vegetated marshlands surrounding Fairfield. In prehistoric times, lightning was the primary driver of fire in this region, but in recent times humans have become a more im-
portant factor. Native American tribes employed fire
to manage the landscape patterns and functions. In
modern history, wildfire ignitions are typically associat- ed with human-caused accidental ignitions, especially
along road corridors and/or those produced by faulty
electrical facilities.

Modern Fires
In recent decades, many wildfires have occurred in the
surrounding region, including six in the last decade and several that have burned immediately adjacent to the
City and/or within the ULL since the 1970s (Figure 10-
1), although direct effects to the City have been minor.

The 2020 Hennessey Fire, one component of the
larger LNU Lightning Complex Fire, started on August
17, 2020 as part of a large complex affecting several
counties (CAL FIRE, 2020). The Hennessey Fire covered
305,920 acres overall, affecting Napa, Solano, Yolo,
Colusa and Lake counties, including areas along the
northeast fringe of Fairfield that were also affected by other historical wildfires (Table 10-1). Portions of the 2020 burned zone in Napa and Solano counties drain
through Fairfield to Suisun Bay, so post-fire changes in runoff, erosion and sedimentation and/or debris haz-
ards are of concern. Needs for post-fire resident haz-
ard education, storm monitoring and response, as well
as protection/re-establishment of flood conveyance
capacity include areas within the City and may persist
for a few years. Areas downstream of the southern
Hennessey Fire that have designated FEMA floodplains
such as along Ledgewood Creek, Wooden Valley Creek,
and Suisun Creek may be subject to increased poten-
tial for inundation (CAL FIRE, 2020). Drainage structures and facilities could be overwhelmed in post-fire flood
events and may require non-routine maintenance.

Photo Credit: Daily Republic

10.1 Wildfire History
Packet Page 186 of 390Attachment 20 Page 2 of 4

R o c k v ille R d
dR holihSAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
l
l
ey
RdWaltersRdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridianRdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
EastTaborAv
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson

H
i
l
l Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
Chadbourne RdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabody RdOli
v
e
r
R
d
WTexas

S
t
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory

R
d
Cordelia R d
BusinessC enterDrClayBank Rd
Cement Hill Rd
M a n u e l CamposPk
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

N
L
I

M
I

T
L
I

E
U

B
A

N
L

T
L

E
Rancho Solano
Municipal
Golf Course McCoyCreekDenverton CreekUnion
Cr
e
ek
U
n
i
o
n

C
r
e
e
k
Soda Springs
C
r
e
e
k
L
a
u
r
e
l

C
r
e
e
k
GreenValle
yCree
k
L:\Acad 2000 Files\30000\30235\GIS\ArcMap\30235Base11x17.aprx Map Date: 2/18/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
File Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\30000\30235\GIS\ArcMap\30235Base11x17.aprx City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
California Fire Perimeters 1878-2019
Hennessey Fire
Atlas Fire
Sources: California Fire and Resource Assessment Program, National Incident Feature Service, WRA, City of FairfieldSource: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Figure 10-1: Fire History
10-3
Figure 10-1: Fire History
Packet Page 187 of 390Attachment 20 Page 3 of 4

TABLE 10-1: Wildfires with Perimeters within Five Miles of Fairfield (1878-2020) Year Date Fire Name Total Acres Burned
2020 8/17/2020 Hennessey 305,920
2019 10/5/2019 American 527
2018 8/9/2018 Nelson 2,158
2017 10/7/2017 Atlas 57
2016 7/21/2016 Oak 2 48,228
2011 8/26/2011 Beacon 4,102
2008 6/20/2008 Wild 55
2006 7/3/2006 Fairfield 130
2005 10/1/2005 Gordon 1,100
2004 9/3/2004 Cement 1,222
1992 unknown Cement Fire 836
1988 unknown Miller 34,565
1985 9/16/1988 Jameson 873
1983 7/24/1985 Cleek 220
1973 8/6/1983 Signal Hill 4,393
1973 9/7/1973 Azevedo #2 616
1972 9/7/1973 Cement Hill 1,724
1964 7/13/1972 J. Bassford 634
1964 8/15/1964 Roadside #42 8,957
1963 7/26/1963 Roadside #45 1895
1961 9/1/1955 M. Watson 1832
1959 6/5/1959 M. Lynch 364
1955 9/1/1961 Gates Canyon 5,552
1954 6/5/1959 S. O’Kell 420
1954 9/1/1955 Corman Estate 931
1953 6/19/1954 R. Buckley 1,258
1953 7/9/1953 L. Anderson 419
Source: CAL FIRE
10-4
Fairfield has experienced an increase in relatively small grass fires, especially within the Wildland-Urban Inter- face (WUI) —where development and infrastructure
are interlaced with areas prone to wildfire. The 2013
Marigold fire was an example of a destructive grass-
fire in an area with light fuels combined with the wind conditions and housing patterns (Luckenbach, 2021).

The margins of Travis Airforce Base are primarily grass- lands with fine fuels.

Drainage pathways like the Suisun Creek could become over- whelmed in post-fire flood events.

Packet Page 188 of 390Attachment 20 Page 4 of 4

10-5
Driving Forces
Once a fire starts, warmer temperatures and drier con-
ditions can help fires spread and make them harder to
put out (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 2021).

There is a suite of conditions that contribute to the se- verity and duration of a wildfire. Although drought and high temperatures can exacerbate wildfire risk, other
factors such as slope, wind, and fuel loads influence
wildfire rate of spread, intensity, and size.

IGNITION SOURCES
More than 80 percent of U.S. wildfires are caused
by people. Highways and all roadways are a primary
source of ignition from accidental or arson sources,
and the corridors of I-80, I-680 and Highway 12 are
important zones around Fairfield. Homeless encamp-
ments are other sources of accidental potential igni-
tions, particularly in brush or creekside areas and the Linear Park Trail. The railroad through Suisun Marsh is an important potential ignition source that can affect
Fairfield, given the wind regime. Additionally, several overhead electrical transmission lines cross the region.

TOPOGRAPHY
Topography plays a key role in wildfire dynamics, al-
lowing fires to accelerate up steep terrain. Topography can also act as a wind funnel in canyon and gullies,
creating higher winds and erratic fire conditions. Much of the northern and western perimeter of Fairfield is
flanked by dynamic terrain and steep slopes. Develop-
ment has begun to spread into some of these more
dynamic areas, raising the possibility of wildfire (Fire- Safe Marin, 2021) and increased risk of damage to the
built environment.

VEGETATION AND FUEL LOADS
The plant species, their arrangement, the accumu-
lation dead vegetation, and other factors such as
moisture content and vegetation densities across the
landscape define fuel loads. Fairfield’s natural plant
communities are grassland and oak woodland type
landscapes, both of which have highly variable fuel
loads. Generally speaking, grasslands lend themselves
to less intense, quick-burning fires but have a high ig- nition potential. Oak woodlands have a lower ignition
potential because of heavier fuel, but will burn with a higher intensity and for a much longer duration. Condi- tions can occur between these two landscapes where
grasslands transition to oak woodlands through dense
woody scrub. This serves as an extremely effective fuel link from the high ignition grassland to the high inten- sity woodland.

Fairfield has seen development expand into both of
the above referenced landscape types in recent de-
cades—providing wildfire with the conditions to move
from vegetated open space to developed areas, espe-
cially where vegetation management practices are not
being implemented. The potential for wildfire increas-
es in locations on Fairfield’s perimeter where devel-
opment has crept into areas with steeper topography
and denser fuel loads (FireSafe Marin, 2021).

Finer fuels that experience seasonal drying in the
grassland margins of Suisun Marsh also create a veg-
etation fuel type affecting wildfire in the vicinity, given the dominant wind direction from the WSW.

CLIMATE CHANGE
Much research has been conducted in the field of cli-
mate change and its effect on wildfire. Research con-
ducted at the U.S. Departments of Energy’s Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory indicates that climate
change will increase the size and intensity of wildfires in Northern California (LLNL, 2014) (Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, 2021). These wildfires produce a
range of harmful air pollutants that can aggravate ex-
isting health problems.

Fire-prone vegetation, such and grassland and oak
woodlands found around Fairfield, under the effect of
future temperature and moisture conditions, will pose
greater hazards. Changes in drought duration and fre-
quency, and wind patterns, could increase hazards,
while sea level rise may beneficially expand areas of
high moisture around the marshlands.

Dry grassland margins.

10.2 Wildfire Hazards
Packet Page 189 of 390Attachment 21 Page 1 of 3

Designated Wildfire Hazard
Areas
Significant uplands in the Coast Range ridges north
and west of Fairfield, in the upper watersheds of Green Valley Creek, Suisun Creek, Ledgewood Creek, Laurel
Creek and Union Creek pose wildfire hazards, reflect-
ing a dangerous combination of factors. The popu-
lated areas of Fairfield are estimated to have greater
wildfire risk than 38% of the communities in California and greater than 78% of communities in the nation
(Headwater Economics, 2021). Wildfire poses risks of
personal injury and property damage, the danger fire
fighters face to combat fires, air quality and human
health risks, fire response and recovery costs, and the risks and costs of secondary flooding and sedimenta-
tion that can occur for several years post-fire. While
about 21% of homes in Fairfield are not exposed to
wildfire risk, about 16% have direct exposure to this
hazard and 64% have exposure to wildfire from indi-
rect sources, such as embers or home-to-home igni-
tion (Headwater Economics, 2021), which is approxi-
mately double the proportion of indirect exposure in
other California communities.

CAL FIRE FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES
Government Code 51175-89 advises the California De-
partment of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), to identify areas, or zones, of very high fire hazard severi- ty potential under the Fire and Resources Assessment
Program (FRAP). CAL FIRE maps statewide conditions
for wildfire called Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ)
that highlight the potential for wildfire and likelihood that an area will burn over a 30- to 50-year period. The FHSZs are a delineated based on factors such as fuel,
slope, fire history and fire weather and range from
moderate, high, and very high. The western and north-
ern margins around the City of Fairfield are dominated
by moderate and high FHSZ (CAL FIRE, 2021) (Figure
10-2), although wind-driven events from these areas
and locations further away also pose threats to the
City. CalFIRE is in the process of updating statewide fire risk maps by including wind and other factors, which
could lead to a change in some designations in the
Planning Area.

Extreme Wildfire Risk Areas are those lands where se-
vere burning conditions prevails (chaparral and heavy
woodland, steep slopes, poor access, winds). This in-
cludes hilly areas to the west and northwest of Fair-
field, the Cement Hill area, the hills above Green Valley and the hills above Interstate 80 and 680 just south of Cordelia.

High Wildfire Risk Areas are those lands where high
potential for burning prevails due to mixed wood-
land-grassland, grassland, steep slopes, poor access,
and winds. Areas of high fire risk are intermixed within areas of extreme fire risk.

Grasslands, especially during dry, hot weather be-
comes highly combustible and has the potential to
spread rapidly, especially when coupled with high
sustained winds that City of Fairfield often experi-
ences. Much of the City lies in areas that were natu-
ral grasslands, and grasslands remain in surrounding
undeveloped lands and vacant parcels. Because of its
volatile nature, grassland fire has the ability to easily spread into adjacent residential areas and oak wood-
lands where it meets ladder fuels—woody shrubs and
low-hanging tree branches—which can easily ignite
making it much more difficult to contain. Fairfield ex- periences several grass fires each year, most of which
are human-caused.

Residential development along the fringes of the City
and adjacent unincorporated lands in the wildland-ur-
ban interface (WUI) increases the fuel loads in terms of the actual structures and, if not well maintained, vege- tative materials.

CPUC FIRE-THREAT MAP
The CPUC statewide High Fire-Threat Map (CPUC ,
2017) delineates areas with elevated risks (Tier 2) and extreme risk (Tier 3) from utility associated wildfires, and assigns hierarchically stricter regulation and pre- vention measure requirements to the utilities. These
maps consider the likelihood of utility-associated fire ignition, growth and intensity, as well as possible im- pacts to people and property based on asset types,
locations, and density. Areas surrounding and to the
north of Fairfield, as well as some northern portions in the City are designated as having Tier 2, elevated risks (Figure 10-2).
10-10-6 Packet Page 190 of 390Attachment 21 Page 2 of 3

.... -
C]citylimit
[ I Sphere of Influence
D Planning Area
r_-_·_-_J Urban Limit Line ard Tier 2 . Elevated :1///'.i CPUC Wildfire Haz . • . d Severity Zone FRAP Fire Hazar
Very High
High
Moderate
/
I
- Packet Page 191 of 390Attachment 21 Page 3 of 3

10-8
Regulatory Framework
The regulatory framework regarding wildfire preven-
tion, preparedness, and response is rapidly changing
in California as there have been, and continue to be
important legislative efforts since the devastating and deadly wildfires throughout the State since 2017, in-
cluding recently approved bills (Office of Governor
Gavin Newsom, 2020) and several pending bills in 2021
(Romero, 2021).

The following section focuses on established regula-
tions as of 2020.

State Regulation and Responsi-
bility
State law (Public Resources Code 4291) requires that
homeowners in State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) cre-
ate and maintain defensible space buffers around
homes and that new homes be constructed with
fire-resistant materials. This affects some properties
around the margins of the City and in surrounding
unincorporated lands.

State law (Chapter 7 Fire Protection, Title 14 Natural
Resources) also sets fire prevention standards for
electric utilities, and subjects land use planning and
approvals for areas in SRA or a very high fire hazard
severity zones to state review and conditions to reduce hazards and provide adequate emergency response
and evacuation routes.

CAL FIRE has responsibility for fire prevention pro-
grams and enforcement, and fire response in the SRA .

CAL FIRE does not have any stations in Solano County,
but the Napa County battalion chief regularly coordi-
nates with the City (Luckenbach, 2021).

The States’ Public Utilities Code addresses fire-safety related to electric utilities and communications infra- structure.

Electric Utilities Responsibility
The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) ini-
tiated several public utilities code rules and decisions and updates to regulations in recent years to improve
fire safety associated with overhead power lines and
aerial communication facilities (CPUC, 2021). A multi-
step process prepared statewide fire-threat mapping,
combining information from the US Forest Service and
CAL FIRE regarding tree mortality with data reflect-
ing utility infrastructure and vulnerable people and
property. The maps indicate areas where utility
infrastructure and operations are subject to strict
regulations, and also rank fire-threats based on risks
that utility-associated wildfires pose to people and
property. Based on fire-safety regulations issued by
CPUC, electric utility companies are required to plan
and implement inspections and maintain minimum
vegetation fuel clearances.

Local Responsibility
The City of Fairfield Fire Department (Fairfield Fire) pro- vides fire prevention services and operations for fire
suppression and related emergency response.

There is no countywide fire department in Solano Coun-
ty, but Fairfield Fire closely coordinates with the vari- ous neighboring local fire protection districts, including the Travis AFB Fire Department, and the Sonoma-
Lake-Nap Unit (LNU) of CalFire.

Federal Responsibility
The federal government is responsible for fire preven-
tion and response at Travis Air Force Base (AFB), which forms the southeast portion of the present City limits.

Travis AFB could eventually have urban development
surrounding it as expansion into the SOI and ULL oc-
cur.

10.3 Regulatory Framework
Packet Page 192 of 390Attachment 22 Page 1 of 10

10-9

10.4 Key Findings and Planning Considerations
1 ADDRESS FIRE HAZARD ZONES.

The City is ringed by WUI and some lands owned, and/or not yet an- nexed (e.g., Rockville Hill Park) need sustainable funding and fuels man- agement implementation; legacy land use decisions in some areas that may annex (e.g., the Rancho Solano North Planning Area) are fire prone and have poor access and evacuation routes that may need retrofits. 2 NEED FOR COORDINATION.

Current City General Plan policy highlights a number of measures rel- evant to manage wildfire hazards and reduce the risks. Fairfield has adopted a suite of best management practices intended to mitigate wildfire hazards, based on State regulations. However, there are several fire response gaps between the jurisdictions of local and state depart- ments, volunteer FDs lack resources, and there isn’t a Countywide fire services entity to coordinate policies, programs or practices. 3 OPPORTUNITIES TO INCORPORATE FIRE PREVENTION
STRATEGIES.

To improve community resiliency in the face of the existing wildfire hazards and climate change trends while serving urban development needs, the GPU should address land use patterns, vegetation manage- ment, home hardening, alert and warning systems, evacuations and access routes, as well as local to regional scale coordination and com- munication regarding on fire prevention, preparedness and response.

Packet Page 193 of 390Attachment 22 Page 2 of 10

10-10 Packet Page 194 of 390Attachment 22 Page 3 of 10

RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson

H
il l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
ey
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l CamposPk
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise ValleyGolf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course DunnellNaturePark
MeadowGlenPark
Cordelia
Park
City Hall &
Civic Center Park
GaryFalatiParkRanchoSolanoPark
Green ValleyLake Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
AllenWittPark
Lee Bell Park
TolenasPark
FairfieldLinearPark
HillviewPark
RollingHillsPark
Laurel CreekPark
VintageGreenValleyPark
DoverPark
MankasPark
Rockville HillsRegional Park
WoodcreekPark
SunrisePark
MeadowPark
Rolling HillsPark
VeteransPark TaborPark
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
C e m e n t
H i l l
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\ParkWalkshed.mxd 10-minute Walk Distance Park
Golf Course
Water
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 13-x Park Walkshed
Map Date: 5/3/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u rageD r
Dickson

H
il l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
ey
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
BusinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l CamposPk
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise ValleyGolf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course DunnellNaturePark
MeadowGlenPark
Cordelia
Park
City Hall &
Civic Center Park
GaryFalatiParkRanchoSolanoPark
Green ValleyLake Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
AllenWittPark
Lee Bell Park
TolenasPark
FairfieldLinearPark
HillviewPark
RollingHillsPark
Laurel CreekPark
VintageGreenValleyPark
DoverPark
MankasPark
Rockville HillsRegional Park
WoodcreekPark
SunrisePark
MeadowPark
Rolling HillsPark
VeteransPark TaborPark
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
C e m e n t
H i l l
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\ParkWalkshed.mxd 10-minute Walk Distance Park
Golf Course
Water
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 13-x Park Walkshed
Map Date: 5/3/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
11-12
Figure 11-4: Park Walkshed
Packet Page 195 of 390Attachment 22 Page 4 of 10

Police
Police services in the City of Fairfield jurisdiction are provided by the Fairfield Police Department (FPD). The
FPD is headquartered at 1000 Webster Street, part of
the Fairfield Civic Center complex. FPD provides law
enforcement services within the City of Fairfield. The
Department is divided into two bureaus: Operations and
Support Services. Operations consists of Patrol, Traffic, Investigations, and the Special Operations Divisions,
while Support Services consists of Administrative staff, Community Services, Records, and Dispatch Divisions.

FPD divides the city into five Public Service Areas (PSA).

Currently, 62 percent of all calls for service occur in the Central and South Public Service Areas of Fairfield.

Officers are deployed throughout the 40 square miles
in order to maintain a reasonable response time to
calls for service, however, officers spend significant
time responding back to the South and Central PSA’s.

The existing General Plan establishes a performance
standard response time of under five minutes for emer-
gency calls and an average non-emergency response
time of under 20 minutes. Additionally, the General
Plan states that the ratio of sworn officers to the popu- lation should be in the range of 1.13-1.20 per one thou- sand residents, which equates to 132 to 140 officers. As seen in Table 11-3, in 2020 FPD had 125 sworn officers.

Based on Fairfield’s 2019 population of about 117,000,
FPD has approximately 1.07 officers per one thousand
residents, which is below the target range established
in the General Plan. In 2020, FPD had an average
response time of four minutes and eleven seconds,
which meets the performance standard established in
the current General Plan. Continued development may
impact this response time moving forward.

Fire
The City of Fairfield Fire Department (FFD) provides
fire protection and emergency medical services within
Fairfield’s jurisdictional boundary. The Department is
divided into two sections: Operations and Support.

And the sections are organized into six divisions,
which include Administration, Emergency Response,
Emergency Medical Services, Prevention, Emergency
Management, and Training. The city is divided into five districts each with a specific fire station responding to its service area. FFD serves areas within the city limits as well as 909 square miles of surrounding Solano
County.

11.4 Emergency Services TABLE 11-3: Fairfield Police Department Full-Time Staffing, 2020
Number of
Employees
Sworn Officers
Chief 1
Captain 2
Lieutenant 7
Sergeant 18
Officers 97
Subtotal 125
Civilian Employees
Code Enforcement Officer 4
Community Services Officer 10
Crime Analyst 1
Crime Prevention Specialist 2
Crime Scene Investigator 3
Dispatch Shift Supervisor 4
Dispatcher 17
Domestic Violence Program Manager 1
Homeless Intervention Case Manager 1
Lead Police Records Assistant 1
Management Analyst 1
Office Specialist 6
PAL Supervisor 1
Department Assistant 1
ID Technician 1
Property Specialist 2.48
Support Supervisor 3
Support Services Manager 3
Police Records Assistant 7.60
Records Supervisor 1
Program Specialist 2
Subtotal 73.08
TOTAL 198.08
Source: City of Fairfield FY20-21 Budget; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021.

Packet Page 196 of 390Attachment 22 Page 5 of 10

11-14
According to FFD’s Annual Report for 2020, the
Department maintains a minimum daily staffing of 18
firefighters across its five stations. On average, this equates to one on-duty firefighter for every 6,504 res- idents that FFD serves. Policy PF 15.1 of the existing
General Plan establishes the following standards for
fire service:

Provide enough staffing and fire stations to ensure that at least 80 percent of the residential dwelling units in any response area are located within five minutes maximum
travel time of a station. Where the number of dwelling
units within five minutes’ travel time of any response area falls below 80 percent, the City shall take the appropriate steps to ensure that the above standard is maintained. In addition, fire stations shall be located to ensure that all target hazards are within five minutes travel time from a fire station where feasible.

As of 2020, FFD had a response time of five minutes and 53 seconds on average, which does not meet the tar-
geted five minutes. However, the current General Plan
response standard is not an industry standard. FFD has
recommended a change to the National Fire Protection
Association’s (NFPA) standard, which is a national stan- dard for staffing career units. This standard calls for a minimum of 15 firefighters on a structure fire, with
the first due company reaching the scene within five
minutes of being dispatched and the entire first alarm
assignment on the fireground within nine minutes.

On emergency medical calls, the standard sets a five-
minute response time for the first responder unit and
“
”
calls for two paramedics and two EMTs on the scene of
an advanced life support incident.

In 2018, the City measured Station 35’s ability to meet the City’s required response times to new development
both inside and outside the city, including a proposed
annexation of Nelson Hill. Station 35 is located at 600 Lopes Road and serves the Cordelia and Green Valley
districts, to which Nelson Hill is adjacent. The analysis considered several developments of new, primarily
single-family homes that were proposed in Cordelia at
the time and are now underway, in addition to a pro-
posed development on Nelson Hill that has not been
approved as of 2020. These developments include
Fieldcrest, Enclave at Red Top, and Villages at Havenhill, among others. The analysis found that all of these three developments and most of the proposed Nelson Hill
development would be covered by a five-minute travel
time from Station 35. However, the analysis also found
that, despite the addition of these new units within the five-minute travel time area, the Cordelia neighbor-
hood will not achieve the 80 percent measure or better
stated in the General Plan policy without the addition of a second fire station due to the volume of older existing units at the upper and lower extends of the five-min-
ute travel coverage from Station 35. The analysis con-
cluded that Station 35’s district is too large for response times to meet the City’s residential coverage goal from only one fire station. The report suggested a potential second Cordelia station location around the intersec-
tion of Westamerica Drive and Mangels Boulevard.

FFD currently has an Insurance Services Office (ISO)
rating of 3. ISO is a third-party independent agency
that evaluates the fire department, water department,
and communications systems. It rates the results on
a national scale from one to ten (one being the best
and highest). According to ISO, its Public Protection
Classification Program (PPC) plays an important role in the underwriting process with insurance agencies.

Calls for service to FFD have increased 16 percent
over the past five years. As FFD projects for continued increases in call volumes and coverage gaps in the
Cordelia and Green Valley district, the Department’s
future goals include a number of capital improve-
ments. FFD currently has an additional station planned
in Cordelia, Station 36, which is anticipated for 2024.

They are also in the process of replacing Station 39 to address issues related to age and deterioration, which
is anticipated for 2026, and phasing in rehabilitations to Station 40. Additionally, the Department is planning to add a seventh company to address the growing
demand the physical and mental strain on firefighters.

Packet Page 197 of 390Attachment 22 Page 6 of 10

RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson

H
il l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
ey
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
BusinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l CamposPk
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park
Green Valley
Lake Park
Gary
Falati
Park
Rancho
Solano
Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

R
B

A
N
L
I

M
I

T L
I

N
E
U

R
B

E
C e m e n t
H i l l
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
T w i n
S i s t e r s
37 39
41 40
35 J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\EmergencyServices.mxd Police Station
Fire Station
(Station Number)
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 12-3 Emergency Services
#
Map Date: 4/30/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson

H
il l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMankas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
BusinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l CamposPk
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park
Green Valley
Lake Park
Gary
Falati
Park
Rancho
Solano
Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

R
B

A
N
L
I

M
I

T L
I

N
E
U

R
B

E
C e m e n t
H i l l
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
T w i n
S i s t e r s
37 39
41 40
35 J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\EmergencyServices.mxd Police Station
Fire Station
(Station Number)
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 12-3 Emergency Services
#
Map Date: 4/30/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
11-15
Figure 11-4: Emergency Services
Packet Page 198 of 390Attachment 22 Page 7 of 10

11-16

11.4 Key Findings and Planning Considerations
1 FAIRFIELD IS SHORT OF MEETING ITS PARK SERVICE
ACREAGE GOALS OF 1.5 ACRES PER 1,000 RESIDENTS
FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AND 2.0 ACRES PER 1,000
RESIDENTS FOR COMMUNITY PARKS. PORTIONS OF THE

CITY ARE OUTSIDE OF THE HALF-MILE AND TWO-MILE

SERVICE AREAS DESIGNATED FOR NEIGHBORHOOD AND
COMMUNITY PARKS, RESPECTIVELY. THE CITY SHOULD

CONSIDER ADJUSTING ITS MEASUREMENTS FOR PARK

SERVICE OR ADDING PARK SPACE THROUGH NEW
METHODS.

Though the City is short of reaching its park service goals, it does not plan to increase park acreage substantially. As Fairfield’s population con- tinues to grow, the City will continue to fall short of these goals without significant new park space. However, while standardized measures like acreage measure quantity, they do not indicate park quality. The City is currently prioritizing improvements at many of its existing parks, such as at Allan Witt Park or the Linear Park Trail. Furthermore, increasing infill development will place greater strain on current park spaces within Fairfield’s existing neighborhoods. The City should consider whether meeting the service ratio should continue to be a priority through the General Plan horizon year. Additionally, given the cost of constructing new parks on the scale of Fairfield’s traditional neighborhood and com- munity park standards, the City should consider emphasizing increased access to more smaller park spaces such as pocket parks and tot lots.

Planning for smaller parks can increase open space access and walkabil- ity in areas that are otherwise park poor. The current General Plan sets no standards for acreage or amenities to include in pocket parks or tot 2 PARKS, RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, AND COMMUNITY

FACILITIES SHOULD REFLECT THE NEEDS OF A GROWING
AND CHANGING POPULATION.

The City should continually assess whether existing parks, recreational facilities, and community facilities suit resident needs as demograph- ics and community priorities change over time. For instance, a large senior population would indicate a need for accessible facilities and pro- gramming that appeals to seniors. A predominance of young families may suggest a need for childcare facilities. Parks may also need to be retooled to meet the increasing need of increasing need of active rec- reation—walking, biking, jogging, and play spaces—that people increas- ingly desire. In addition, the City should engage with youth to make sure parks and recreational facilities contain sports fields and other spaces of lots. The General Plan Update should consider the future of such spaces and how they can best meet the needs of residents.

The current General Plan also emphasizes the importance of Fairfield’s trail system. However, these trails, including the Linear Park, do not count towards the city’s park service standards for neighborhood or community parks. Additionally, the City provides two public golf courses and four large open space areas, including Rockville Hills Regional Park. The General Plan update may incorporate these trails, as well as Fairfield’s other specialized park and open space formats, into its service standards to understand insufficiencies across the city.

Packet Page 199 of 390Attachment 22 Page 8 of 10

11-17
interest to young people. Programming should reflect Fairfield’s diversity and be engaging to youth from a variety of cultural backgrounds.

Furthermore, as the city grows, it will need to assess how to provide park space for new neighborhoods as well as in infill locations. The Heart of Fairfield, Downtown, and potentially North Texas Street or Solano Town Center Mall will likely see continued infill development and new demands for park space. Locations and types of parks will need to be planned for this growing infill population. As part of addressing this, the General Plan update should evaluate policies regarding open space requirements in new subdivisions and other developments. And while impact fees may pay for new parks in some areas, a challenge will be finding stable rev- enue to maintain and upkeep parks. Lastly, the City will need to work to improve linkages between new housing and existing parks to meet the needs of its changing population.3 THE LINEAR PARK IS AN ASSET FOR FAIRFIELD, BUT REMAINS UNDERUTILIZED.

Fairfield’s Linear Park Trail provides a vital bicycle and pedestrian con- nection between the Cordelia neighborhood and Central Fairfield, which are two distinct areas of town and are relatively disconnected. It also connects to Solano Community College, which could make it a commut- ing option for students. However, it is underutilized due to a number of factors. In community outreach, some residents reported avoiding the trail due to concerns about safety due to the presence of unhoused res- idents now living along the Linear Park. Safety concerns may also stem from the fact that most portions of the trail are somewhat isolated as they are lined by the backyard fences of housing facing away from the trail. The trail is also unfinished in the northeast portion of the city. The City will need to determine priorities for the future of the Linear Park Trail in order to best capitalize on this open space resource.

Packet Page 200 of 390Attachment 22 Page 9 of 10

11-18
4 5

SEVERAL SCHOOLS ARE AT OR CLOSE TO THEIR
ENROLLMENT CAPACITY.

In particular in the Cordelia neighborhood, FSUSD schools are seeing increasing enrollment numbers. Nelda Mundy and Cordelia Hills ele- mentary schools are at or near capacity while Green Valley Middle School continues to grow. In the future, schools within the Planning Area must have sufficient space to meet the demands of Fairfield’s pro- jected population growth. To do so, the City of Fairfield must maintain a close working relationship with the FSUSD and TUSD to monitor student population growth, which could occur as the result of increased local births; a significant increase in residential development; an increase in local wages, allowing more people employed in the area to live there; or a decrease in home values and prices.

NEW GROWTH IN FAIRFIELD MUST BE COORDINATED

WITH FIRE AND POLICE DEPARTMENTS TO ENSURE
ADEQUATE COVERAGE.

Both FPD and FFD are short of meeting their service standards as des- ignated 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 to meet the mark of 80 percent of residential dwelling units within a five-minute travel time. However, the General Plan update should also consider revi- sions to the service standards as coordinated with FFD and FPD, such as updating to national service standards like the NFPA standard for fire departments. And as development continues in previously undevel- oped areas of Fairfield, the City will need to coordinate closely with FPD and FFD to ensure that departments are able to meet updated safety standards. Additional stations or relocation of stations may be needed.

Furthermore, the City may consider changes to its service standards for fire or police. Service standards to reflect the changing needs of resi- dents with regard to city services. Lastly, encouraging in-fill development in Fairfield’s existing neighborhoods will decrease pressure on police and fire to provide services to increasingly distant locations.

Packet Page 201 of 390Attachment 22 Page 10 of 10

Public
Facilities
and Services
This chapter provides an overview of schools and educational facilities, community facilities, parks and recreation facilities, public safety services, and utilities. 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 public costs attached to each development project, including the acquisition of permanent open space, the provision of ade- quate school facilities, the provision of infrastructure needs, and to mitigate the effects of the development on the provi- sion of public services such as police and fire protection.

Chapter 11
Packet Page 202 of 390Attachment 23 Page 1 of 11

Solano Community College
Schools
There are two public school districts that cover the
Planning Area—the Fairfield-Suisun Unified School
District (FSUSD) and the Travis Unified School District (TUSD). FSUSD manages 27 schools in the Area – 17
elementary schools, four middle schools, three high
schools, two alternative schools, and one adult school.

TUSD manages seven in the boundaries expanding
into Vacaville, but three schools in the Planning Area— three elementary schools, one middle school, one high
school, and two alternative schools.

Two other public schools within the Planning Area are
overseen by the Solano County Office of Education.

These Juvenile Court and Community Schools provid-
ing alternative education options for those in grades
seven through 12. The area is also served by five private schools—one Kindergarten school, one Kindergarten
through eighth grade school, and three Kindergarten
through twelfth grade schools—for a total of 39 schools throughout the Planning Area. Schools and accom-
panying enrollment numbers are listed in Table 11-1.

Locations of schools throughout the Planning Area are
shown in Figure 11-1.

Based on its 2016 Facilities Master Plan, FSUSD enroll- ment is projected to decrease by 373 students from
the 2015-2016 school year enrollment to the 2025-
2026 school year. However, certain schools were pro-
jected to see moderate increases in enrollment. These
include Rolling Hills, Oakbrook, and Tolenas elementary schools; B. Gale Wilson and Matt Garcia middle schools; Armijo, Rodriguez, Fairfield, and Sem Yeto high schools; and the Public Safety Academy. In meeting with FSUSD
staff in February 2021, it was noted that many schools
in the Cordelia area are now reaching their maximum
capacity and a new school to serve the Cordelia area will be needed. However, currently neither FSUSD nor TUSD
is planning to build any new school sites.

FSUSD is in the process of implementing its 2016
Facilities Master Plan, which provides an assessment
of the conditions at each school facility. Subsequently, the plan provides proposed modernizations, recon-
figurations, and new construction to ensure schools
can meet their programming standards and require-
ments. Since 2016, FSUSD has completed modern-
ization or upgrade projects at 11 schools within the
Planning Area. The 2019 Facilities Master Plan Priorities identified 15 FSUSD schools in the Planning Area with
planned upgrades.

Solano Community College
There is one junior college located within the Planning Area, Solano Community College (SCC). SCC sits on a
192-acre campus just off of I-80 near Cordelia Junction.

The college was established in 1945 as Vallejo Junior
College as part of the Vallejo Unified School District. SCC became a countywide institution in 1967 and moved to
its current location in 1971, when it had an enrollment of 5,000 students. SCC also oversees three satellite
facilities across the county, one within the Planning
Area on the Travis Air Force Base, one in Vacaville, and one in Vallejo.

Prior to 2016 all SCC programs were two-year pro-
grams resulting in an Associate degree. In 2016 the col- lege began offering its first four-year bachelor’s degree in Biomanufacturing. Sacramento State University also
offers an upper-division program out of SCC’s Fairfield campus that leads to a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Child Development. Additionally, Sonoma State University
provides two baccalaureate degree programs out of
the SCC Vallejo Center, one leading to a Bachelor of
Arts in Liberal Studies and the other to a Bachelor of
Science in Business Administration.

In the Fall 2018 term, SCC enrolled 9,631 students
across all of its facilities, with 7,294 of those students at SCC’s Fairfield campus. This corresponded to a total of 96,028 weekly student contact hours (WSCH) across all
SCC sites with 68,198 of these occurring at the Fairfield campus. WSCH is a measured used for facility planning
as it describes how many hours each class meets mul-
tiplied by the number of students taking each class.

Additionally, in Fall 2019, the College employed 150 full- time faculty and 253 adjunct faculty. Overall, the total number of students attending SCC dropped by five per-
cent from Fall 2014 to Fall 2018. Despite this drop, SCC is planning for an enrollment increase that would result in a 28 percent increase in WSCH from 2018 to 2030
based on the California College Chancellor’s Office pro- jection Option #1. This projection puts SCC at a total
of 122,809 WSCH by 2030. According to SCC’s 2020
Facilities Master Plan, the Fairfield campus currently
has a surplus of space for its enrolled student popula- tion across all categories of spaces (lecture, lab, office, library, and instructional media).

11.1 Public Education
Packet Page 203 of 390Attachment 23 Page 2 of 11

11-3
Æc
ÆcÆcÆc
Æc
Red TopRd
Travis Bl
R o c kv ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r age D r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMankas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
Pk
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park
Rancho
Solano
Park
Gary
Falati
Park
Green Valley
Lake Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

N
L
I
M
I
T
L
I
N
E
UR

I
M

I
T

I
N
E
C e m e n t
H i l l
E l k h o r n
P e a k
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
O k e l l
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
S u l p h u r
S p r i n g s
M o u n t a i n
T w i n
S i s t e r s
1 6
35 4
2 7
4 26
12 14
721
2 22
24 25
19 31
17 18
33 11
3 13
37 5
8 32 36
2023
1 15
34 27
16 29
35 6
9 10
28 30
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\EducationalResources.mxd School
Academy High
Anna Kyle Elementary
Armijo High
B. Gale Wilson K-8 School
Calvary Baptist Christian School
Center Elementary School
Cleo Gordon Elementary
Community United Methodist Church School
Cordelia Hills Elementary
David Weir K-8 Prepatory Academy
Dover Academy For International Studies
Fairfield High
Fairfield-Suisun Adult School
Fairview Elementary
Golden Hills Education Center
Golden West Middle School
Grange Middle School
Green Valley Middle School
H. Glenn Richardson Elementary
Holy Spirit School
K.I. Jones Elementary
Laurel Creek Elementary
Matt Garcia Career And College Academy
Nelda Mundy Elementary
Oakbrook Elementary
Public Safety Academy
Rodgriguez High
Rolling Hills Elementary
Scandia Elementary School
Sem Yeto High School
Sheldon Academy Of Innovative Learning
Solano Christian Academy
Sullivan Middle School
Tc Mcdaniel/Me Too Special Education
Travis Elementary School
Trinity Lutheran School
Vanden High
College/University
Brandman University
Brandman University
Inter Coast Colleges
Northbay Nursing Institute
Solano Community
College District
Trinity Biblical University
University of California
Cooperative Extension
City and County Buildings
Æc Library
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 4/30/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 #
12-1 Educational and Institutional Resources
ÆcÆcÆc
Lee Bell
Park
Armijo HS
City Hall
& Civic
Center Park
Solano
County
Courthouse
Union AvOhio St
W Texas StPennsylvania Av14 3
23 3
5 Inset1Not to Scale
AÝ
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
37 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
Æc
Vintage Green
Valley Park
24 Gr
e
e
n
V
alle
y
R
d
BusinessC enterD rInset 2Not to Scale
!"c$
Æc
ÆcÆcÆc
Æc
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c kv ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
ey
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
BusinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
Pk
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park
Rancho
Solano
Park
Gary
Falati
Park
Green Valley
Lake Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

N L
I
M
I
T
L
I
N
E
UR

I
M

I
T

I
N
E
C e m e n t
H i l l
E l k h o r n
P e a k
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
O k e l l
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
S u l p h u r
S p r i n g s
M o u n t a i n
T w i n
S i s t e r s
1 6
35 4
2 7
4 26
12 14
721
2 22
24 25
19 31
17 18
33 11
3 13
37 5
8 32 36
2023
1 15
34 27
16 29
35 6
9 10
28 30
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\EducationalResources.mxd School
Academy High
Anna Kyle Elementary
Armijo High
B. Gale Wilson K-8 School
Calvary Baptist Christian School
Center Elementary School
Cleo Gordon Elementary
Community United Methodist Church School
Cordelia Hills Elementary
David Weir K-8 Prepatory Academy
Dover Academy For International Studies
Fairfield High
Fairfield-Suisun Adult School
Fairview Elementary
Golden Hills Education Center
Golden West Middle School
Grange Middle School
Green Valley Middle School
H. Glenn Richardson Elementary
Holy Spirit School
K.I. Jones Elementary
Laurel Creek Elementary
Matt Garcia Career And College Academy
Nelda Mundy Elementary
Oakbrook Elementary
Public Safety Academy
Rodgriguez High
Rolling Hills Elementary
Scandia Elementary School
Sem Yeto High School
Sheldon Academy Of Innovative Learning
Solano Christian Academy
Sullivan Middle School
Tc Mcdaniel/Me Too Special Education
Travis Elementary School
Trinity Lutheran School
Vanden High
College/University
Brandman University
Brandman University
Inter Coast Colleges
Northbay Nursing Institute
Solano Community
College District
Trinity Biblical University
University of California
Cooperative Extension
City and County Buildings
Æc Library
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 4/30/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 #
12-1 Educational and Institutional Resources
ÆcÆcÆc
Lee Bell
Park
Armijo HS
City Hall
& Civic
Center Park
Solano
County
Courthouse
Union AvOhio St
W Texas StPennsylvania Av14 3
23 3
5 Inset1Not to Scale
AÝ
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
37 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
Æc
Vintage Green
Valley Park
24 Gr
e
e
n
V
alle
y
R
d
BusinessC enterD rInset 2Not to Scale
!"c$
Figure 11-1: Schools and Educational Resources
Packet Page 204 of 390Attachment 23 Page 3 of 11

TABLE 11-1: SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
School Name
Grade
Level Address
2019-20
Enrollment
Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District
Oakbrook Elementary School Elementary 700 Oakbrook Dr.549 Cordelia Hills Elementary
School Elementary
4770 Canyon Hills
Dr.723
Rolling Hills Elementary
School Elementary 2025 Fieldcrest Ave.593
David A. Weir Preparatory
Academy Elementary
1975 Pennsylvania
Ave.751
Tolenas Academy of Music &
Media Elementary 4500 Tolenas Rd.513
Nelda Mundy Elementary
School Elementary
570 Vintage Valley
Dr.778
Cleo Gordon Elementary
School Elementary 1950 Dover Ave.592
Anna Kyle Elementary School Elementary 1600 Kidder Ave.660 Fairview Elementary School Elementary 830 First St.589
K. I. Jones Elementary School Elementary 2001 Winston Dr.724 E. Ruth Sheldon Elementary
School Elementary 1901 Woolner Ave.561
Laurel Creek Elementary
School Elementary 2900 Gulf Dr.611
Suisun Valley Elementary
School Elementary 4985 Lambert Rd.559
B. Gale Wilson School K-8 3301 Cherry Hills Ct.927
Dover Academy for
International Studies K-8 301 E. Alaska Ave.659
Green Valley Middle School Middle 1350 Gold Hill Rd.878 Matt Garcia Career & College
Academy Middle
1100 Civic Center
Dr.195
Grange Middle School Middle 1975 Blossom Ave.919
H. Glenn Richardson Special
Education K-12
1069 Meadowlark
Dr.30
Public Safety Academy 5-12 230 Atlantic Ave.740
Armijo High School High 824 Washington St.2,131
Angelo Rodriguez High
School High 5000 Red Top Rd.1,978
TABLE 11-1: SCHOOL ENROLLMENT
School Name
Grade
Level Address
2019-20
Enrollment
Fairfield High School High 205 E. Atlantic Ave.1,540
Sem Yeto Continuation High
School High 205 E. Atlantic Ave.377
Fairfield Suisun Adult School1 Adult 900 Travis Blvd.N/A Enrollment Subtotal 18,577
Travis Unified School District
Scandia Elementary School2 Elementary 100 Broadway 542
Travis Elementary School2 Elementary 100 Hickam Ave.473 Center Elementary2 Elementary 2900 Armstrong St.508
Golden West Middle School Middle 2651 Deronde Dr.845
Vanden High School High 2951 Markley Lane 1,700
Travis Education Center High
School High 2775 DeRonde Dr.70
Travis Community Day
School 7-12 2785 DeRonde Dr.14
Enrollment Subtotal 4,152
Solano County Office of Education
Solano County Juvenile De-
tention Facility High 740 Beck Ave.29
Golden Hills Education
Center 7-12 2460 Clay Bank Rd.48
Enrollment Subtotal 77
Private Schools
Tater Tots Christian
Kindergarten
Kindergar-
ten 2605 Clay Bank Rd.24
Holy Spirit School K-8 1050 No Texas St.240
Solano Christian Academy K-12 2200 Fairfield Ave.67
Edge Christian Academy K-12 4958 Peabody Rd.20
Fairfield Christian School K-12 2075 Dover Ave.100
Enrollment Subtotal 451
ENROLLMENT TOTAL 23,257
Notes:

1. Enrollment data not available.

2. Located on Travis Air Force Base property.

Source: California Department of Education, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021. 11-4 Packet Page 205 of 390Attachment 23 Page 4 of 11

Fairfield Cordelia Library
Fairfield Civic Center Library
11-5

11.2 Community Facilities
Fairfield is also home to the Downtown Theatre, owned
by the City, but run by the non-profit Downtown
Theatre Foundation for the Arts. It provides a 22,000
square foot facility for the performing arts, drawing a diverse range of acts to Fairfield. The Theatre opened
in 1990 and was operated by the Northern Solano
Theater Foundation as the Fairfield Center for Creative Arts until 2012.

There are also four libraries within the Planning
Area. The Solano County Library oversees three of
these locations: the Fairfield Civic Center Library, the Fairfield Cordelia Library, and the Law Library, which
is located within the Solano County Hall of Justice.

The fourth library, Mitchell Memorial Library, is on
Travis AFB and is overseen by Air Force Libraries.

Additionally, as part of the development of the Train
Station Specific Plan area, a new, 30-000 square foot
County-operated library is planned as part of the One
Lake master-planned community.

Community facilities in Fairfield include the Fairfield Community Center and the Fairfield Adult Recreation
Center (ARC) for ages 50 and over, both located at the
Fairfield Civic Center complex. The Community Center
provides a commercial-size kitchen and Assembly Hall
that accommodates 600 guests, as well as other meet-
ings rooms. The ARC provides many free or low-cost
clubs and social opportunities for Fairfield seniors, as well as services such as Meals on Wheels, tax prepa-
ration assistance, flu shots, and other educational pre- sentations. Two Neighborhood Centers expand the
reach of the Community Center, with a location adja-
cent to Laurel Creek Elementary School and Laurel
Creek Park, and another location at Mankas Park.

The Neighborhood Centers provide 1,200 square
feet of meeting space as well as a kitchenette. The B.

Gale Wilson Center is also owned by the City but cur-
rently operated exclusively by a third party, the Special Education Local Plan Area, to provide special education instruction within the FSUSD system.

The City of Fairfield also provides an after-school pro- gram for elementary-aged students with locations
across the city. Two programs are held at the City’s
Neighborhood Centers, with five other programs held
at the Cordelia Hills, Nelda Mundy, Oakbrook, Rollings
Hills, and Suisun Valley elementary schools. The City
also provides the Kids Corner elementary after school
program at the Anna Kyle, Cleo Gordon, David Weir,
Fairview, Sheldon, and Tolenas elementary schools.

Packet Page 206 of 390Attachment 23 Page 5 of 11

Rockville Regional Park
11-6
Existing and Planned Parks
Parks in and around the City of Fairfield are listed in Table 11-2 and shown in Figure 11-2. As of 2020, the
City of Fairfield maintains 16 neighborhood parks
(98.9 acres) and three community parks (131.6 acres)
for a total of 19 public parks. Common amenities and
facilities at these parks include playgrounds, walking
paths, picnic tables, sports fields or courts, and grassy areas. The City also oversee ten specialized or pocket
parks (46.5 acres), including Dunnell Nature Park and
Education Center, Octo Inn Soccer Complex, and two
public golf courses. Altogether, these facilities provide Fairfield residents with 277 acres of park land. There
are also certain private parks located throughout the
city, which are recreation areas that are Homeowner
Association-owned and/or private gated parks. Though
such private facilities are not maintained by the City and do not count towards the City’s park access standards.

As of April 2021, there is not a comprehensive list of
these private facilities and they are not included here.

Additionally, the City also oversees three large open
space areas and one regional park (Rockville Regional
Park), which amount to 1,361 acres of open space.

Each of these areas is partially located within the City of Fairfield city limits. Rockville Regional Park is the larg- est park in Solano County and offers amenities such
as ranger-led interpretive hikes and biking trails. Open space areas provide a transition from the urban city
and offer scenic views of the community from publicly
accessible hiking paths.

In addition to City owned parks, some public facilities in Fairfield are overseen by a joint use agreement
between the City of Fairfield and FSUSD. The two
agencies have held continuous joint use agreements
to promote recreation and educational programming
since 1989. The joint use agreement is re-approved
every five years with the current agreement covering
the period June 2018 through June 2023. The agree-
ment allows for City use of District recreational facilities when such use does not conflict with the District’s use, such as anytime when school is in session. The City may apply to use District facilities on an hourly basis when not in use by the District. The agreement allows for use of classrooms, playgrounds and soccer fields, multi-
ple purpose rooms, cafeterias, libraries, and outdoor
basketball courts at all FSUSD sites in Fairfield with the exception of the Mary Bird Childhood Education Center
and the Matt Garcia Academy.

The existing General Plan emphasizes local and
regional trails as vital elements of parks and recre-
ation. The Linear Park Trail is one of the city’s most
notable of such trails, currently running from Solano
Community College eastward across the city approxi-
mately six miles and ending at Dover Avenue in cen-
tral Fairfield. The 2002 General Plan calls for the Linear Park to continue to be developed eastward eventually
stretching into the Train Station Specific Plan area and into the open space separating Fairfield and Vacaville.

The existing Land Use Diagram preserves the planned
route of the Linear Park as Open Space Recreation. At
its full completion, the Linear Park would add an addi- tional nine miles to the existing six and provide a mul- timodal transportation corridor linking parks, schools, shopping, industry, residential, and other community
activity centers. Other important trail resources are the Laurel Creek Trail, which extends approximately seven
miles from north of the city limits near Paradise Valley Golf Course to south of the City limits in the Suisun
Marsh, and the Ledgewood Creek Trail, which extends
approximately one mile from Rockville Road north to
Portsmouth Court.

The City adopted a revised Parks Capital Projects Plan in 2002 in response to the 2002 General Plan Update and
covers the years 1995-2031. The Plan recognized that
many of the City’s existing recreational facilities were already booked to capacity and/or in need or renova-
tion or expansion. The Plan includes projects such as
the development of an additional Sports Center, Indoor
Pool Facility, Soccer Facility, and Softball Facility, the renovation of the Allan Witt Aquatics Complex and the

11.3 Parks and Recreation
Packet Page 207 of 390Attachment 23 Page 6 of 11

11-7
development of a full-scale Indoor Aquatics Complex.

The Plan also includes projects that expand recreational programming, such as the expansion of space and pro-
gramming at the Fairfield Center for Creative Arts, the development of a full-scale Teen Center, Boys and Girls Club, Neighborhood Centers, a Nature/Interpretive
Center, Community and Senior Center additions, and a
Performance Shell at the west end of Civic Center Park.

Since 2002, the City has built two of the parks pro-
posed in the Parks Capital Projects Plan: Gary Falati
Neighborhood Park and the Dunnell Nature Park.

Dunnell Nature Park incorporates a demonstration
garden and an Education Center with conserva-
tion-themed programming in addition to woodland
open space.

Additional park improvements since the adoption of
the existing General Plan include those outlined in the City’s Community Spaces Initiative (2016). This Initiative focused on Lee Bell Neighborhood Park, Allan Witt
Community Park, and the Linear Park Trail. Under the
Initiative, in 2017, Lee Bell Park saw ballfield improve- ments, the removal of vandal-prone buildings, utility
upgrades, and installation of new vandal-resistant mili- tary-themed playground equipment. The Initiative’s two
other projects are known as Renovate Allan Witt Park
and Revitalize Linear Park.

The Allan Witt Renovation Plan reflected the goals for
the park expressed through both the Heart of Fairfield
Specific Plan (2017) and the Community Spaces Initiative (2016). The priority of the Renovation Plan is to address the needs of the organized sports groups who primar-
ily make use of the facility, while also addressing safety concerns that have caused the park to be underutilized
by families. Renovations are split into eight phases, with construction on Phases One and Two having begun
in September 2020. The Revitalize Linear Park project
envisions a new recreation facility on what is currently an empty lot adjacent to the Linear Park at North Texas Street and East Tabor Avenue, known as Linear Park
Node 4A. As of January 2021, the City is in the process of applying for the grant to fund the Revitalization Plan’s construction. The plan for Node 4A is only the first of five phases identified in the Linear Park Concept Plan, with each phase eventually focusing on all of the trail’s existing nodes.

Significant new park space is also planned as part of
the Train Station Specific Plan. Lake Park is located
in the plan’s fourth Planning Area and is envisioned
as an approximately 22-acre area, 11 acres of which
is constituted by the lake itself with the surrounding
park space incorporating a walking path, seating areas, fishing outcropping, and grassy areas. As of January
2021, much of the construction of the lake and por-
tions of the park are completed, with certain facilities still under construction. The Train Station Specific Plan also envisions a 50-acre community park, known as
the Great Park, which is intended to be located within
the Fairfield-Vacaville Greenbelt area and to serve the large-scale sports field needs of the city. The Plan also identifies paths for the continuation of the City’s Linear Park, connecting to open space, residential, and com-
mercial uses in the Plan area. Pocket parks are also pro- posed for residential areas throughout the Plan area.

Park Standards and Access
The 2002 General Plan Open Space, Conservation,
and Recreation Element defines four broad categories
of parks and open space and their performance stan-
dards as follows:
•Neighborhood Parks: Up to approximately seven
acres in size at a ratio of 1.5 acres of parkland per
1,000 residents. Neighborhood parks are intended
Alan Witt Community Park
Packet Page 208 of 390Attachment 23 Page 7 of 11

RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
BusinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
Pk
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise ValleyGolf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course DunnellNaturePark
MeadowGlenPark
Cordelia
Park
City Hall &
Civic Center Park
GaryFalatiPark
RanchoSolanoPark
Green ValleyLake Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I

N
E
U

E
C e m e n t
H i l l
E l k h o r n
P e a k
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
O k e l l
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
S u l p h u r
S p r i n g s
M o u n t a i n
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\Parks.mxd Park
Golf Course
Water
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit LineMap Date: 4/30/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 12-2 Parks and Recreation
AÝ RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
ey
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
Pk
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise ValleyGolf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course DunnellNaturePark
MeadowGlenPark
Cordelia
Park
City Hall &
Civic Center Park
GaryFalatiPark
RanchoSolanoPark
Green ValleyLake Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

L
I
M
I
T
L
I

E
U

E
C e m e n t
H i l l
E l k h o r n
P e a k
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
O k e l l
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
S u l p h u r
S p r i n g s
M o u n t a i n
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\Parks.mxd Park
Golf Course
Water
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit LineMap Date: 4/30/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 12-2 Parks and Recreation
AÝ RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u rageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
ey
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
Pk
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise ValleyGolf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course DunnellNaturePark
MeadowGlenPark
Cordelia
Park
City Hall &
Civic Center Park
GaryFalatiPark
RanchoSolanoPark
Green ValleyLake Park

N A PA C O U N T YS O L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
AllenWittPark
Lee Bell Park
TolenasPark
FairfieldLinearPark
HillviewPark
RollingHillsPark
Laurel CreekPark
VintageGreenValleyPark
DoverPark
MankasPark
Rockville HillsRegional Park
WoodcreekPark
SunrisePark
MeadowPark
Rolling HillsPark
VeteransPark TaborPark
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Armijo
HS
Fairfield
HS
Solano
Community
College
Fairfield
City Hall
Kaiser
Permanente
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
U

N
L
I
M
I
T
L
I

N
E
U

TABLE 11-2: Existing and Planned Parks
Park Address Acres
Fairfield Existing Parks 277.0
Neighborhood Parks 98.9
Dover Park 800 East Travis Boulevard 8.5
Gary Falati Park 5100 Falati Lane 6.8
Hillview Park 300 Atlantic Avenue 5.4
Mankas Park 2800 Owens Street 5.7
Lee Bell Park 1401 Washington Street 6.7
Meadow Glen Park 2800 Parkview Terrace 2.0
Meadow Park 1520 Meadowlark Drive 4.0
Ridgeview Park 4910 Silver Creek Road 8.4
Rolling Hills Park 3520 Glenwood Drive 6.0
Sunrise Park 2920 Camrose Avenue 6.9
Tabor Park 1084 East Tabor Avenue 6.0
Tolenas Park 1700 Catlin Drive 8.2
Veterans Memorial Park 2050 Fairfield Avenue 5.0
Vintage Green Valley Park 600 Vintage Valley Drive 6.0
Woodcreek Park 1470 Astoria Drive 5.3
City Hall & Civic Center Park Civic Center Drive 8.0
Community Parks 131.6
Allan Witt Park 1741 West Texas Street 46.6
Cordelia Park 1300 Gold Hill Road 48.0
Laurel Creek Park 2986 Gulf Drive 37.0
Specialized Parks and Pocket Parks 46.5
Dunnell Nature Park and Education
Center 3351 Hillborn Road 6.6
Octo Inn Soccer Complex 1600 Capitola Way 37.7
Hayes & Utah Street Tot Lot 1101 Hayes Street 0.2
Kentucky Street Tot Lot 1740 Kentucky Street 0.2
Rose Garden at Linear Park Trail Travis Boulevard and Linear Trail 0.5 Linear Park Playground at 2nd Street 2nd Street and Linear Trail 0.5 Linear Park Playground at 5th Street 5th Street and Linear Trail 0.5 Julia Berger Park 5357 Julia Berger Circle 0.3
TABLE 11-2: Existing and Planned Parks
Park Address Acres
Rancho Solano Golf Course 3250 Rancho Solano Parkway -
Paradise Valley Golf Course 3950 Paradise Valley Drive - Fairfield Regional Parks and Open Space 1361
Rollings Hills Open Space Hillborn Road and Lyons Road 338 Serpas Ranch Open Space Sanctuary Circle 365
Spyglass Open Space
Nephi Drive or Waterman
Boulevard 25
Rockville Regional Park 2240 Rockville Road 633
Linear Park Trail
Solano College to Northeast
Fairfield -
Laurel Creek Trail
Paradise Valley Golf Course to
Matthew Drive -
Ledgewood Creek Trail
Rockville Road to Portsmouth
Court -
Fairfield Planned Parks 77
Southbrook Neighborhood Park
Canyon Hills Road and Gold Hill
Road 5
Lake Park1 Train Station Specific Plan Area 22
Great Park Train Station Specific Plan Area 50
Notes:

1. Under construction as of April 2021.

Source: City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021.
11-9Packet Page 210 of 390Attachment 23 Page 9 of 11

11-10
to serve a half-mile radius area and to provide
space and facilities for active, neighborhood-level
sports, as well as provide space for casual and pas-
sive recreation and leisure. Some neighborhood
parks are operated through a joint use agreement
with FSUSD.
•Community Parks: Approximately 40 acres or
more at a ratio of 2.0 acres of usable park lands per
1,000 residents. Community parks are intended
to serve a two-mile radius area and to provide a
broad range of fields, facilities, and spaces for
sports and other recreational activities.
•Regional Parks and Open Space: Large pre-
serves meant to meet passive and nature-oriented
open space and recreation needs. Regional parks
need not be owned and operated by the City of
Fairfield, but may be owner by Solano County,
a park district or other public entity, or a private
organization such as the Solano Land Trust.
•Specialized Parks and Pocket Parks: Typically
located in neighborhoods whose developers or
residents wish to provide unique or additional
recreational facilities for their communities.

Specialized and pocket parks may also be used in
small spaces to increase access to open space.

As discussed in the above section, Fairfield has 103.9
acres in neighborhood parks and 131.6 acres in com-
munity parks. This means that the City has 0.9 acres
of neighborhood parkland and 1.1 acres of community
park land per 1,000 residents, based on the City’s 2019 population of about 117,000. Both of these access
measures fall below the goals set out in the General
Plan of 1.5 and 2.0 acres per 1,000 residents, respec-
tively. In 2002, Fairfield’s population was approximately 100,000 residents, with the same amount of commu-
nity park acreage and 97.1 acres of neighborhood park
land. This means the City had 1.0 acres of neighbor-
hood park land and 1.3 acres of community park land
per 1,000 residents. Thus, the City was short of meeting its park service standards at the time they were estab- lished in the 2002 General Plan.

In its Parks Capital Projects Plan (2002), the City recog- nized that it would need to add park acreage in order
to meet these access measures as Fairfield’s popula-
tion grew. The Plan identified nine additional neighbor- hood parks totaling 63 acres and one additional com-
munity park, estimated to be 50 acres. The Gary Falati
Neighborhood Park and the Dunnell Nature Park were
the only two parks to be constructed from this Plan as
of January 2021.

The General Plan also identifies half-mile radius area
that neighborhood parks are intended to serve and
a two-mile radius area that community parks are
intended to serve. Figure 11-3 shows a half-mile ser-
vice area around Fairfield’s 18 neighborhood parks
(including private parks) and a two-mile service area
around Fairfield’s three community parks as well as
Rockville Hills Regional Park. According to these ser-
vice standards, most of Fairfield is well-served by both neighborhood and community park access. While the
residential portion of the Cordelia neighborhood is
well-served by Cordelia Park, a community park, the
southern portion of the neighborhood lacks access
to a neighborhood park. In comparison, Figure 11-4
shows areas of Fairfield within a 10-minute walking dis- tance of these same parks. This map reveals that while
significant portions of land may be within a two-mile
radius of Rockville Hills and Cordelia Parks, the acces- sibility of these parks to their surrounding Fairfield
neighborhoods is somewhat lower. In 2005, the City
assumed ownership of a 5-acre parcel at the corner
of Gold Hill Road and Canyon Hills Drive for a planned
neighborhood park (Southbrook Neighborhood Park)
to serve the southern area of Cordelia. However, a
funding source for the park was never established
and the park remains unbuilt. Other notable residen-
tials areas lacking park access include portions of the Rancho Solano neighborhood north of Waterman
Boulevard, which contains the Rancho Solano Golf
Course but is mostly outside the service areas for
neighborhood and community parks; the Paradise
Valley neighborhood north of Dickson Road, which
is similarly located around a City golf course but far
from other park amenities; the Central Fairfield neigh- borhood bounded by North Texas Street, Air Base
Parkway, East Tabor Avenue, and Laurel Creek Trail;
and Northeast Fairfield north of Travis AFB. As resi-
dential development continues in Northeast Fairfield
park space is planned to serve the new houses built
as part of the Train Station Specific Plan.

Packet Page 211 of 390Attachment 23 Page 10 of 11

RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMankas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
BusinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
Pk
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise ValleyGolf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course DunnellNaturePark
MeadowGlenPark
Cordelia
Park
City Hall &
Civic Center Park
GaryFalatiPark
RanchoSolanoPark
Green ValleyLake Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

L
I
M
I
T

L
I

E
U

E
C e m e n t
H i l l
E l k h o r n
P e a k
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
O k e l l
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
S u l p h u r
S p r i n g s
M o u n t a i n
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\ParkAccess.mxd Half-mile Service Area
2-mile Service Area
Park
Golf Course
Water
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit LineMap Date: 4/30/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 13-x Park Access
AÝ RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad
Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u rageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
Pk
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise ValleyGolf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course DunnellNaturePark
MeadowGlenPark
Cordelia
Park
City Hall &
Civic Center Park
GaryFalatiPark
RanchoSolanoPark
Green ValleyLake Park

N A PA C O U N T YS O L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
AllenWittPark
Lee Bell Park
TolenasPark
FairfieldLinearPark
HillviewPark
RollingHillsPark
Laurel CreekPark
VintageGreenValleyPark
DoverPark
MankasPark
Rockville HillsRegional Park
WoodcreekPark
SunrisePark
MeadowPark
Rolling HillsPark
VeteransPark TaborPark
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Armijo
HS
Fairfield
HS
Solano
Community
College
Fairfield
City Hall
Kaiser
Permanente
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
U

N
L
I
M
I
T
L
I

N
E
U

Photo credit: Daily Republic
Wet Utilities
Chapter 12
This chapter presents background information on the City of Fairfield’s wet utilities, including potable water supply, sewer and wastewater treatment, and stormwater and flood control.

Packet Page 213 of 390Attachment 24 Page 1 of 11

Photo credit: NEC America
12-2
Potable Water Supply
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 derived 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.

The contracts for the water are administered by the
Solano County Water Agency (SCWA), which acts as the
wholesaler of raw water for the Solano Project and the
SWP. The raw water from these sources is treated at the Waterman Water Treatment Plant (WTP), which treats
the Solano Project water, and the North Bay Regional
(NBR) WTP, which treats Solano Project and SWP water.

NBR is jointly operated with the City of Vacaville. Though settlement water is not technically SWP water, it comes from the SWP facilities and is treated at the NBR WTP.

The Solano Project is a federal project with the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). The SWP is a
State project with the California DWR.

Water supplies from the Solano Project are highly reli- able. The contract with USBR calls for the full contract delivery to be made unless it is physically impossible
to deliver water from the Solano Project storage res-
ervoir (Lake Berryessa). When Lake Berryessa storage
is low, the 1999 Solano Project Members’ Agreement
as to Drought Measures and Water Allocation (Drought
Measures Agreement) reduces supplies. The City holds
the following contractual entitlements totaling approxi- mately 27,218 AFY (8,868 mg/yr) for raw water from the
Solano Project:
•SCWA contractual entitlement: 9,200 AFY
•Solano Irrigation District (SID) Second Amendment
Agreement entitlement: 7,000 AFY
•SID Second Amendment Agreement Purchase
Option entitlement: 9,018 AFY
•SID 2009 Supplemental Purchase entitlement:
2,000 AFY
•SID 1987 JPA entitlement: Undefined additional
volume of raw water to serve SID demands on
lands within the common boundaries of the two
agencies not covered by the previous three City-
SID agreements
Water supplies from the SWP are variable. The actual
supply depends on each year’s hydrologic conditions,
and the State can curtail all categories of SWP supply

12.1 Water Supply
Packet Page 214 of 390Attachment 24 Page 2 of 11

TABLE 12-1: City of Fairfield Current and Projected Water Supplies, Demand, and Supply Surpluses, mg/yr
Component
Actual
(2015)
Projected
2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Surface Water Supplies (a,b)5,749 17,247 17,280 17,280 17,312 17,312 Demands (c)5,749 6,464 6,831 7,217 7,626 8,054
Surplus Supply -10,783 10,449 10,063 9,686 9,258
(a) Actual supplies from Table 6-8 in the City’s 2015 UWMP. (b) Projected total supplies from Table 6-9 in the City’s 2015 UWMP. Includes additional entitlements provided by the 1987 JPA of approximately 700 AFY in 2020, 800 AFY in 2025 and 2030, and 900 AFY in 2035 and 2040, which is not included in the expected supply total shown under “Potable Water Supply Sources”. Excludes projected recycled water supply. (c) Demands from Table 4-3 in the City’s 2015 UWMP.

Source: City of Fairfield, 2015; West Yost, 2021
10-12-3
due to hydrologic conditions, Delta Smelt populations,
Delta water quality, etc. As recent as the 2012-2016
drought, the City has seen SWP allocations as low as
35 percent, 5 percent, and 25 percent (in 2013, 2014,
and 2015, respectively). All SWP supply is delivered
through the SWP raw water pipelines and pumping
plants (called the North Bay Aqueduct). The City holds
the following contractual entitlements through SCWA
totaling a maximum annual supply of 26,478 AFY (8,627
mg/yr) for imported raw water from the SWP.
•Table A allocation entitlement: 14,678 AFY
•Settlement water entitlement: 11,800 AFY
Per the 2015 UWMP, the City plans to receive approxi-
mately 25,000 AFY (8,146 mg/yr) of its SWP entitlements during a normal year.

In total, the City has an annual total water supply of
53,696 AFY (approximately 17,500 mg/yr), plus any
additional supply provided by the 1987 JPA. However,
because the full supply is not always available, the typ- ical water supply is 52,218 AFY (approximately 17,000
mg/yr). On an average daily basis, this supply is approx- imately 46 mgd. In 2016, the City adopted the 2015
UWMP, which documented the past and projected
future water supplies through 2040, as shown in Table
12-1.

The 2015 UWMP also documented the past and pro-
jected future water demands through 2040. As shown
in Table 12-1, the annual demand in 2015 was 5,749 mg/
yr. The 2015 UWMP estimated that a population of over
102,800 people was served by the City’s water system
in 2015. The water service population is projected to
increase to over 135,350 people by 2040. This 25-year
projection represents an average annual growth rate
of between 1 and 2 percent per year and leads to the
estimated 2040 water demand of 8,054 mg/yr.

As shown in Table 12-1, the City’s current and future
supplies exceed the current and estimated future
demands. The difference between the supply and the
demand is the Surplus Supply shown in Table 12-1.

Even in 2040, the Surplus Supply is more than the
estimated demand. Considering available supplies, the
City expects to meet projected potable water demands
beyond 2040 during all hydrologic conditions. During a
single dry year, the City expects to have 11,646 mg/yr
(70 percent of its average supply at buildout). During a multiple dry year period of three years, the City expects to have 11,001 mg/yr each year (66 percent of average
supply). Under each of these drought scenarios, the
City expects to meet the water demands and even have
a surplus of supply for its customers.

Solano Irrigation District (SID) is an independent special district, a local government agency, and was formed
under the Water Code of the State of California as
an irrigation district in 1948. SID is the largest special district in Solano County. The original area proposed
for irrigation within the District included approximately 80,000 acres. The District currently encompasses
approximately 71,000 gross acres, of which approxi-
mately 47,000 acres were irrigated in 2017.

Packet Page 215 of 390Attachment 24 Page 3 of 11

12-4
Water Treatment And
Distribution System Facilities

POTABLE WATER
Raw water from the Solano Project and SWP is treated
at two water treatment plants operated by the City
before distribution to the City’s water system. NBR WTP treats a maximum of 40 mgd of raw water from the
Solano Project and SWP for distribution to the City of
Fairfield and the City of Vacaville. The treatment capac- ity of NBR WTP for distribution to the City is 26.7 mgd.

The treatment capacity of Waterman WTP is 30 mgd.

The City’s combined treatment capacity of the WTPs
is 56.7 mgd. Each treatment facility is discussed in the following paragraphs.

Raw water from the Solano Project is stored in Lake
Berryessa, which is located approximately 15 miles
north of the City and is delivered via Putah Creek to
the Putah South Canal, which delivers the water to the
Waterman WTP. After treatment at Waterman WTP,
the Waterman High Lift effluent pumps deliver water
either to the 10 MG Waterman Reservoir or directly to
the water distribution system. The distribution system
consists of the pipes (and pumps) located primarily
in the streets throughout the City, which conveys the
treated water to the residents and businesses in the
City. Waterman WTP has a maximum treatment capac-
ity of 30 mgd and primarily supplies the central to the southwest portions of the City.

Water from both the SWP and the Solano Project is
treated at NBR WTP. After treatment, the water is
pumped into the City’s 42-inch transmission main and
delivered directly to the distribution system. NBR WTP
is jointly owned by the Cities of Fairfield and Vacaville and has a maximum treatment capacity of 40 mgd, with
a maximum flow of 26.7 mgd distributed to the City of
Fairfield. Historically, NBR WTP has supplied water to
the northeast and central portions of the City but, as of late 2020, NBR WTP is also able to support demands in
the southwestern portion of the system with the com-
pletion of the City’s 36-inch East-West Transmission
Pipeline. The City’s water distribution system consists of approximately 387 miles of pipelines—approximately
230 miles of distribution pipelines (less than 12 inches in diameter) and approximately 157 miles of transmis-
sion pipelines (greater than or equal to 12 inches in
diameter)—serving 10 pressure zones. The City oper-
ates 15 pump stations and 12 storage reservoirs, with
a total storage capacity of 78.5 MG. The City’s water
distribution system facilities are shown on Figure 12-1.

Due to the available storage reservoirs and water treat- ment plant capacities, the City can provide continued
water service in the event of a temporary interruption to any single supply source. The City has installed approx- imately two days of treated water storage reservoirs.

The distribution system is pressurized almost entirely
gravity-fed water from the reservoirs. Additionally, in the event of a regional power outage or other supply
interruption, the City is prepared to deploy portable
generators to critical pumping facilities to provide
backup power to the water system pumps.

RECYCLED WATER
The City, in cooperation with the Fairfield-Suisun
Sewer District (FSSD), is now implementing a system of
delivering recycled, highly treated wastewater within the City’s water service area. The District’s plant produces up to 2.4 million gallons per day of recycled water,
which is approximately 15% of the flow coming into the
treatment plant. The Solano Irrigation District delivers a portion of this recycled water from FSSD’s treatment
plant to a limited number of customers for crop irriga- tion, and to the City of Fairfield for street landscape and commercial property landscape irrigation.

The benefits of using recycled water and developing
the necessary dual water systems will have many of the
same benefits as conservation, i.e. effectively increas- ing the basic water supply, providing flexibility in the non-potable water supply for irrigation and industrial
use, and reducing costs for water treatment and stor-
age expansions in proportion to the recycled water
used. Dual water lines for potable water from the City
and non-potable water for landscape irrigation from
SID are being installed as part of some new develop-
ments. Water recycling also benefits the wastewater
treatment operation by limiting unnecessary flows of
treated wastewater into the Suisun Marsh.

Packet Page 216 of 390Attachment 24 Page 4 of 11

Packet Page 217 of 390Attachment 24 Page 5 of 11

Photo credit: WM Wyles & Co.12-6
Planned Water System
Improvements
The City, in order to meet their growth demands and
maintain their water system, plans to upgrade, replace, and add water mains, pressure reducing valves, and
other necessary components to their water system.

As the water system expands to the periphery of the
City limits, pump station and reservoir additions and
replacements will be required to serve new demands
at higher elevations.

The City is currently planning to replace the existing
Red Top pump station, as well as construct a new pump
station and reservoir to serve the planned Canon
Station development located near the NBR WTP (at the
northeast corner of the City’s system).

Much of the potable water used in the homes and
businesses in the City becomes wastewater when it
goes down the drains and into the sewer system. This
wastewater ultimately flows to the FSSD Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The sewer system consists of both
City owned sewers and FSSD owned trunk sewers. The
FSSD provides wastewater conveyance and treatment
for customers in the cities of Fairfield and Suisun, Travis AFB, unincorporated areas of Cordelia, and parts of
Suisun Valley.

Packet Page 218 of 390Attachment 24 Page 6 of 11

12.2 Sewer and Wastewater Treatment
S ewer Systems
The Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District and the Cities of
Fairfield and Suisun City jointly operate and maintain
the wastewater collection system that serves both
cities. The District owns and operates the trunk sewer
system, which includes all 12-inch and larger sewers,
while the Cities own and operates their own sewer
system with gravity sewers smaller than 12 inches in
diameter that flow to the FSSD trunk sewer system. The
FSSD sewer system consists of 12-inch and larger trunk sewers. The FSSD trunk sewer system flows to the FSSD
WWTP for treatment and disposal. The sewer systems
are shown on Figure 12-2.

SEWER SYSTEM DESCRIPTION
Information about the wastewater collection system
that serves the City was taken primarily from the
Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District FSSD Wastewater
Collection System Master Plan Update (WCSMPU),
completed in February 2020 by Woodard & Curran.

Per the Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Act, amended
September 2002, the District consists “of the territory in Solano County now contained within the Cities
of Fairfield and Suisun City. Any territory hereafter
annexed to either city shall be a part of the district upon annexation.” In November 2004, the Solano County
Local Agency Formation (LAFCO) approved an out-of-
boundary service agreement allowing FSSD to provide
sewer service to two areas located outside the District’s jurisdictional boundary. The two areas are commonly
referred to as “Old Cordelia” and “Suisun Valley Road
/ Rockville Road Intersection.” In 2020, Solano County
LAFCO approved FSSD service to the Middle Green
Valley Specific Plan area, a 1,905-acre area located
along Green Valley Road, outside of the FSSD service
area.1
The FSSD sewer system consists of about 67 miles of
gravity sewers (12 to 48 inches in diameter), 14 waste- water pump stations, and 15 miles of force mains (4
to 48 inches in diameter). Force mains are pressurized
sewers located just downstream of pump stations.

The City’s wastewater collection system pipes are con-
structed of vitrified clay pipe, polyvinyl chloride pipe, and asbestos cement pipe. In 2016, the City had 54,000
sewer connections (Swale, 2018). The sewer system
is divided into four sewer basins, draining by gravity
to four major pump stations: Cordelia Pump Station,
Inlet Pump Station, Suisun Pump Station, and Central
Pump Station. The FSSD system also includes three
other trunk system pump stations, and seven other
smaller wastewater lift stations. Wastewater is pumped
through the four major pump stations to the FSSD
WWTP, located on Chadborne Road south of Cordelia
Road in Fairfield.

In addition, the proposed Northeast Fairfield Pump
Station has been designed but has not yet been con-
structed. It will serve future developments in the north- eastern portions of the FSSD service area and will allow the Cement Hill Lift Station to be eliminated.
1 The district has reported it has capacity to handle the new load.
12-7Packet Page 219 of 390Attachment 24 Page 7 of 11

Packet Page 220 of 390Attachment 24 Page 8 of 11

Sewer System Capacity
The FSSD prepared sewer system capacity studies and
master plans in 1986, 1994, 2002, and 2008. These
included interim updates to incorporate the results
of additional flow monitoring, modeling, and land use
revisions. In addition, a limited update was completed
in 2016 to reflect recent planning documents. The
WCSMPU completed in 2020 provides an update of the
FSSD collection system master plan to reflect the most
accurate information on projected growth, wastewater
flows, and collection system performance. The analysis
included development of a new hydraulic model of
the trunk sewer system. The model included all of the
FSSD gravity trunk sewers, seven of the pump stations
and lift stations and associated force mains, and a few segments of the City’s sewer pipes in areas with known
capacity deficiencies. The sewer model is a computer
program that calculates the wastewater flows enter-
ing the sewers from the houses and businesses (land
uses), the flow in the sewer pipes, and the water depth in the pipes. Consequently, the model can determine
how close the wastewater depth gets to the reaching
the ground level and possibly overflowing the sewer
system onto the ground surface. The model is used to
determine if the sewer pipes, pump stations, and force mains have enough capacity to convey the wastewater
flow that reaches them. Also, if there is not adequate
capacity, the model is used to determine how big the
sewer pipes, pump stations, and force mains should be
to have adequate capacity.

The flow in the sewer system consists of three different types of flow (below) and each of these types of flow are evaluated in the model. The peak flow rate of all three of these flows, when combined, is called the Peak Wet
Weather Flow (PWWF).
•Base Wastewater Flows (BWF): BWF is from the
potable water that is used by the FSSDs custom-
ers and flows down the drains from the houses,
apartments, businesses, schools, etc. The BWF
is the wastewater that is intended to go into the
sewer system. The two largest generators of BWF
to the FSSD trunk sewer system are Travis AFB
and Anheuser-Busch InBev (AB InBev).
•Groundwater Infiltration (GWI): GWI is groundwa-
ter that infiltrates into the sewer pipes and man-
holes, typically during the winter and spring, but
there can be some GWI even in the summer. It is
from rain that has infiltrated into the ground and
slowly seeps into the sewers.
•Rainfall-Dependent Infiltration and Inflow (RDI/I):

RDI/I is rainfall that quickly enters the sewer
system during rainstorms through cracks and
breaks in service laterals (the small pipes near
the ground level from houses to the sewers),
sewer maintenance holes, and the sewer pipes.

Additionally, sometimes there are direct con-
nections to the sewers, like roof gutters that are
incorrectly connected to the sewer rather than to
the street gutters or storm drains. RDI/I typically is
a short-term peak flow that recedes quickly after
the rainfall has ended. The peak flow rate of the
RDI/I is dependent on the size of the storm event.

The ADWF is the average flow during the dry weather
months and includes BWF and the summertime GWI.

The PDWF accounts for the variation BWF during the
day (which typically peaks in the morning when people
wake up and use their restrooms and showers) and
includes the summertime GWI. The PWWF includes
peak BWF, wintertime GWI, and RDI/I.

Various land use scenarios were modeled to represent
existing conditions and future development in 5-year
increments through 2035 and beyond. For each sce-
nario, the calculated BWF, PDWF, GWI, and RDI/I, and
combined PWWF were simulated in the model. The
model was used to identify sewer system capacity defi-
ciencies and to size sewer improvements for existing
and future land uses. The deficiencies are summarized
in Table 12-2 and shown on Figure 13-4. The improve-
ments are summarized in Table 12-3. The required
improvements, along with their costs define the City’s
and FSSD’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
12-9
Photo credit: FSSD
Packet Page 221 of 390Attachment 24 Page 9 of 11

Packet Page 222 of 390Attachment 24 Page 10 of 11

TABLE 12-2: Capacity Deficiencies
Deficiency Location(a)
Land Use
Scenario
Approximate
Length, feet
Existing
Diameter or
Firm Capacity(b)
Along West Texas and
Empire streets from 5th
St. north of West Texas
St. to Empire St. at 1st St.
(includes City and FSSD
sewers)Existing 2,500 10”, 12”
Texas St. at Taft St. to Clay
St. south of Texas St. (City
sewers only)Existing 2,300 10”
Peabody Rd. north of Hun-
tington Dr. to Huntington
Dr. at Stanford Ct.Future (d)2,800 12
Huntington Dr. at Stanford
Ct. to Walters Rd north of
E Tabor Ave(c)Future (d)6,200 24”
Lopes Road Lift Station(e)Existing -3.1 mgd(f)
Cordelia Pump Station(e)Existing -10.8 mgd(f)
Notes:
(a) Deficiency location is the location of throttled pipes or pump stations lacking firm capacity that result in upstream criteria violations under future PWWF conditions. (b) Under PWWF conditions.
(c) The existing 21- and 24-inch trunk sewers in Huntington Drive and Walters Road would become surcharged due to the increase in flows conveyed downstream once the upstream 12- inch sewer in Peabody Road and Huntington Drive is relieved. (d) Deficiencies on Peabody Road and Huntington Drive are driven by future PDWF. (e) The FSSD is conducting additional flow monitoring to confirm model-predicted results. (f) Firm capacity (capacity with the largest pump out of service). mgd = million gallons per day
Source: Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update, Table 4-4
TABLE 12-3: Recommended Capacity Improvement Projects
Project
ID
When
Needed Project Name
Approximate
Pipe Length, lf
Estimated
Capital
Improvement
Cost(a)
1(b)2020
West Texas
Street Sewer
Improvements 3,400 3,002,000
2 (c)2030
Peabody Road
Sewer Improve-
ments Phase 1 2,800 3,208,000
3 (c)
After
2035 (d)
Peabody Road
Sewer Improve-
ments Phase 2 6,200 6,448,000
4 (e)2020
Lopes Road
Lift Station and
Force Main Ca-
pacity Improve-
ments 2,000 1,686,000
5 (e)2020
Cordelia Pump
Station Capacity
Improvements -940,000
TOTAL ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST:$15,284,000
Notes:
(a) Costs are conceptual level estimates presented in late 2019 dollars. Construction costs include a 30% allowance for contingencies for unknown conditions, and total estimated capital costs includes 25% for engineering. Administration, and legal costs. (b) The FSSD is currently working with the City to plan and construct the West Texas Sewer Improvements. The City is managing the design and construction, with construction expected in 2022 and 2023.
(c) The need for capacity improvements to the trunk sewers along Peabody Road, Huntington Drive, and Walters Road serving the eastern portion of the Northeast Fairfield area is driven by future PDWF from proposed development.
(d) Actual need for project would be based on rate of development. Peabody Road Phase 1 improvements would be required before adding approximately 550 equivalent single-family units, and Phase 2 improvements before connection of about 3,700 units, based on 2018 baseline. (e) The FSSD is conducting flow monitoring and model calibration to confirm need for and tim- ing of project. Although the pump stations lack sufficient firm capacity, they both have adequate total capacity to convey design peak wet weather flows. lf = linear feet
Source: Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update, Table 5-1
12-11Packet Page 223 of 390Attachment 24 Page 11 of 11

The future land use conditions model accounts for
several ongoing and future developments located in
the Northeast Fairfield area including the Villages of
Fairfield, Goldridge, Hawthorne Mill/Coopers Landing,
and developments within the Train Station Specific
Plan area. These areas are currently being served by
three trunk sewers that generally run north to south
along Claybank Road, Peabody Road/Huntington Drive,
and Strassberger Drive/Walters Road. The proposed
Northeast Fairfield Pump Station would divert flow
from the existing trunk sewer in Strassberger Drive/
Walters Road to the trunk sewer in Claybank Road,
allowing the Cement Hill Lift Station to be abandoned.

This proposed development in the Northeast Fairfield
area will result in the sewer deficiencies summarized
in Table 12-2.

In addition to the findings from the WCSMPU, the FSSD
staff have identified surcharging at the following loca- tions during existing conditions PWWF:
•27-inch pipe in Beck Avenue, north of the inter-
section with Cordelia Road with a surcharge depth
of 2.0 feet.
•30-inch pipe in Cordelia Road, west of the inter-
section with Beck Avenue with a surcharge depth
of 2.1 feet.
•24-inch pipe in Cordelia Road, at the intersection
with Bridgeport Avenue with a surcharge depth of

3.0 feet.
•12-inch pipe parallel to Bridgeport Avenue, west
of the intersection with Cordelia Road with a sur-
charge depth of 2.7 feet.

In addition to the FSSD trunk sewer system, the City-
owned sewers in West Texas Street between 5th Street
and Pennsylvania Avenue and extending downstream
along Gregory Street were added to the model to
evaluate capacity deficiencies and identify required
improvements to serve the redevelopment along West
Texas Street. This resulted in a deficiency being identi- fied for existing land uses (see the second row of Table 12-2). Additionally, capacity deficiencies were identified in the city-owned sewers in Texas Street between Taft
Street and Clay Street, which are not addressed by the
FSSD CIP. It was determined that if the deficiencies
were relieved in the city-owned sewers, it would not
result in new capacity deficiencies downstream in the
FSSD trunk sewers.

Wastewater Treatment Plant
On average, the Fairfield-Suisun Sub-regional WWTP
receives approximately 15 mgd ADWF. In 2010,
improvements were completed to increase the plant’s
capacity from 17.5 to 23.7 mgd ADWF. Thus, there is
excess capacity of approximately 8.7 mgd ADWF. The
highest historic dry weather flow between 1983 and
2016 was 16.7 mgd in 2006 (Swale, 2018). Although the
capacity of the WWTP is rated based on the ADWF, the
FSSD WWTP was also designed to treat the PWWF from
a 20-year storm event (a very large storm that would
occur on average about once every 20 years).

The WWTP is a complex treatment system that includes
the following processes:
•Headworks and Preliminary Treatment:

Wastewater is treated through bar screens to
remove large materials, then sand and sediment
settles to the bottom of the grit basins.
•Primary Clarifiers: Solids, grease, and scum are
removed and pumped to the anaerobic digesters.
•Oxidation Towers: Wastewater is sprayed over a
large honeycomb-like plastic media and pollutants
are removed.
•Intermediate Clarifiers: Solids are gathered,
removed, and pumped to the anaerobic digesters.
•Aeration Basins: Oxygen is added to the waste-
water to allow the activated sludge organisms to
feed on the waste.
")
")
!(
")
")
")
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
Park
Meadow
Glen
Park
Gary
Falati
Park

TP T WWU
Suisun
Travis
Air
Force
Base
URB

N L
I

T
L
I

E
URB

M
I

N
E
Cement
Hill
Suisun
Hill
NFPS (Future)
Central PS
CBC PS
Inlet PS
Cement Hill LS (To Be Abandoned)Burgan BlOhio St Peabody RdN Texas StTravis Av E Tabor Av
Texas StDover AvWatermanBl
BeckAvChadbourneRdE Travis Bl
Heath Dr
Cement Hill Rd
Clay Bank RdTravis Bl
Second StWTexasStPennsylvaniaAvUnion AvHilbornRd
Air Base Pkwy
Cordelia Rd
ManuelCamposPkwy
CourageDrOli
v
e
r

R
d
D
icksonHillRd
N:\Clients\295 Dyett and Bhatia\60-20-09 Fairfield GPU\GIS\MXD\Fig4_Sewer Results_11x17_UPDATED.mxd ")Trunk System Pump Stations
!(Other Pump Stations
City of Fairfield Sewers
FSSD Gravity Sewers
FSSD Forcemains
Capacity Deficient
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 3/15/2021

00.510.25
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020; FSSD 2021; Woodard & Curran 2020 Fairfield-Suisun Wastewater
Treatment Plant (WWTP)
Cordelia PS
Lopes LS SuisunValleyRdGold Hill
R
dLopes RdPi
ttmanRdGr
e
e
n
V
a
l
l
e
y
R
d
Red
Top
Rd Cordelia RdB u s in essCenterDrNeitzel
R
d
Cent
ra
l
Wy
Cordelia Area
CIP Project 5:

Cordelia Pump Station
Capacity Improvements
CIP Project 4:

Lopes Lift Station &
Force Main Improvements
CIP Project 2:

Peabody Road Sewer
Improvements Phase 1CIP Project 3:

Peabody Road Sewer
Improvements Phase 2
CIP Project 1:

West Texas Street
Sewer Improvements
Cordelia Area
12-12 Packet Page 224 of 390Attachment 25 Page 1 of 11

•Secondary Clarifiers: The activated sludge
organisms settle to the bottom of the clarifiers to
be removed.
•Nitrogen Control: Ammonia is converted to
nitrite, which is converted to nitrate and removed
through a process of denitrification.
•Dual Media Tertiary Filters: Wastewater flows
through anthracite and sand media filters.
•Ultraviolet Disinfection: Wastewater passes
through narrow, covered channels containing spe-
cial lightbulbs that prevent microorganisms from
reproducing.

The final treatment of the water meets stringent
federal, State and regional water quality standards.

Treated wastewater effluent is discharged to Boynton
Slough, southeast of the WWTP. About 10 percent of
the effluent is recycled for irrigation, marsh enhance- ment, and in-plant uses.

A major by-product of the WWTP processes is biosol-
ids. The biosolids are thickened and sent to the plant’s anaerobic digester, which produces a gas containing
mostly methane and carbon dioxide. The digested
solids are dewatered using a screw press. Previously,
biosolids were hauled offsite to a landfill, but since
2016, FSSD has partnered with Lystek International
to repurpose its digested solids into a high-grade fer- tilizer. The gas from the digesters is used to generate electricity.

Future BWF estimates were based on projected future
land uses. The major area of growth in the City is the
Northeast Fairfield area. Major developments include
the Train Station Specific Plan area, the Villages
of Fairfield, Hawthorne Mill/Coopers Landing, and
Goldridge. In addition, the “Heart of Fairfield” plan was adopted to guide redevelopment in the City’s down-
town area. Other areas of growth in the City include
Cordelia, areas north of Interstate-80 along Green
Valley Road and Suisun Valley Road, and the industrial
and office park areas south of Highway 12. The City
requires developers to prepare sewer master plans
to indicate how growth will be accommodated (Swale,
2018). Future FSSD BWF also includes planned devel-
opment in Suisun City and Middle Green Valley, an
unincorporated area of Solano County.

Table 12-4 summarizes the estimated existing and
future average BWF, PWWF for the 10-year, 24-hour
design storm for the FSSD system.

TABLE 12-4: Collection System Flow Estimates, mgd
Existing Future
Average BWF
Residential 7.7 11.1
Non-Residential 1.6 3.6
Travis AFB and AB In-Bev 1.1 1.1
TOTAL 10.4 15.8
PDWF (b)16.1 23.0/24.3 (d)
PWWF(c)77.3 71.2/82.6(d)
Notes:
(a) Future changes not known
(b) Includes groundwater infiltration for a typical wintertime period (c) For design storm (10-year, 24-hour)
(d) First value is based on flow in existing system without correction of deficiencies that may limit flows conveyed downstream; second value assumes that upstream trunk sewer and pump station deficiencies are relieved.

Source: Fairfield Suisun Sewer District Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update, Table ES-1 12-13Packet Page 225 of 390Attachment 25 Page 2 of 11

12.3 Stormwater Quality, Storm Drainage, and Flood Control Description
The City’s collection system consists of approximately
220 miles of storm drains, with sizes ranging from 6-
to 84-inches in diameter. Storm runoff travels through
storm drains and natural channels draining to McCoy,
Union, Pennsylvania Avenue, Ledgewood, Laurel, and
Union Ave-nue Creeks, discharging into tidal channels
tributary to Suisun Slough, and to American Canyon,
Suisun, Jameson Canyon, Green Valley, and Dan Wilson
Creeks, discharging into tidal channels tributary to
Cordelia Slough. All stormwater from the City flows into the Suisun Marsh, a tidal area of marshlands, sloughs
and bays.

Stormwater Quality
The City is subject to the requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San
Francisco Bay Region’s Municipal Regional Stormwater
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit, which mandates the implementation
of storm-water control measures to limit the contribu-
tions of urban runoff pollutants to the San Francisco
Bay. The NPDES permit was issued to the FSURMP, a
collaboration between the cities of Fairfield and Suisun City intending to reduce or eliminate pollutants dis-
charged from the urban environment into the storm
drains, creeks, and the Suisun Marsh. The NPDES
requires that all new development incorporate storm-
water quality measures during and post- construction.

All erosion control and stormwater quality measures
must be designed in accordance with the most recent
NPDES permit.

Provision C.3 of the NPDES permit requires the dis-
charger to control the flow of stormwater and storm-
water pollutants from new development sites. All
development projects that are required to treat storm-
water will need to follow Low Impact Development
(LID) methods including rainwa-ter harvesting and use,
infiltration, evapotranspiration, or biotreatment. Site design measures can be used to minimize the need for
LID methods. Ways to reduce the water quality impacts
through site design include reducing impervious sur-
faces, draining rooftops to lawns or land-scaping, and
using landscaping for stormwater treatment.

In addition, all development sites must have a
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to
the start of construction. Sites disturbing less than one acre of soil may have an abbreviated SWPPP.

The City is required to prepare a Green Stormwater
Infrastructure Plan to guide a shift to a more resilient and sustainable stormwater management system.

Green Stormwater facilities such as bioretention
facilities, pervious pavement, infiltration features, and rainwater harvesting systems can be incorporated into
new construction and existing development to reduce
stormwater runoff volumes, disperse runoff to vege-
tated areas, promote infiltration and evapo-transpira-
tion, and use bioretention to detain and treat runoff
before it reaches the creeks.

Storm Drainage System
The City’s storm drainage system consists of a collec-
tion system of storm drain pipes, three pump stations,
creeks, and engineered channels. The collection system
consists of approximately 220 miles of storm drains,
with sizes ranging from 6 to 84 inches in diameter. The FSSD is responsi-ble for operating and maintaining city- owned stormwater pump stations. The City’s existing
storm drain system is shown on Figure 12-4.

Flood Control
Storm drain facilities are designed to handle peak runoff from a design storm, described by a storm frequency
and duration. Design storm frequency is the long-term
average number of years in which a given storm event
is equaled or exceeded. Or phrased another way, the
frequency is related to the probability that the storm
will occur in any year; therefore, a 100-year storm event has a 1-percent chance of occurring each year. Design
storm duration is the length of time that rainfall occurs during the storm event.
12-14 Packet Page 226 of 390Attachment 25 Page 3 of 11

12-15
R o c k v ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdMankas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Red TopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad
Av
Ohio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordeli a R d
BusinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l CamposPk
w
y
Travis Av
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Meadow
Glen
Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
Rockville
Hills
Regional
Park
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Fairfield
HS
Fairfield
City Hall
Kaiser
Permanente
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
U

N
LI

M
I

L
I

E
U

E
Cement
Hill
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Suisun
Hill
Twin
Sisters
N:\Clients\295 Dyett and Bhatia\60-20-09 Fairfield GPU\GIS\MXD\Fig3_ExStorm_11x17_UPDATED.mxd ")Storm Drain Pump Station
Storm Drain
Open Channel
Levee
Stormwater Basin
100-Year FEMA Floodplain
500-Year FEMA Floodplain
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 3/15/2021
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Figure 12-3
Existing Storm Drain Facilities
Union CreekMcCoyCreekLaurel CreekLedg
e
w
o
o
d

C
r
e
e
k
Dan WilsonCreekGr
e
e
n
Va
l
l
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Jameson
Canyon Creek
American
Canyon Creek Suisun CreekCordeliaSloughMcCoy CreekUnion Ave.CreekPennsylvaniaAve. CreekSui sun
S
lough Putah SouthCanalFigure 12-4: Existing Storm Drain Facilities RockvilleRd
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvMangelsBl MainStCordelia StSuisunVa ll
ey
RdWaltersRdMankas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
Coura geD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Wa t erman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd Cordeli a R d
BusinessCenterDr ClayBankRdCement Hill RdManuelCamposPkwy Travis Av
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
Paradise ValleyGolf CourseRancho SolanoGolf Course MeadowGlen ParkN A PA C O U N T YS O L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
Rockville
Hills
Regional
Park
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Fairfield
HS
Fairfield
City Hall
Kaiser
Permanente
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
U

M
I

T
L
I

N
E
U

E
CementHill
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Suisun
Hill
TwinSisters
N:\Clients\295 Dyett and Bhatia\60-20-09 Fairfield GPU\GIS\MXD\Fig3_ExStorm_11x17_UPDATED.mxd ")Storm Drain Pump Station
Storm Drain
Open Channel
Levee
Stormwater Basin
100-Year FEMA Floodplain
500-Year FEMA Floodplain
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 3/15/2021
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Figure 12-3Existing Storm Drain Facilities Union CreekMcCoyCreekLaurel CreekLedg e
w
o
o
d

C
r
e
e
k
Dan WilsonCreekGr
e
e
n
Va
l
l
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Jameson
Canyon Creek
American
Canyon CreekSuisun CreekCordeliaSloughMcCoy CreekUnion Ave.CreekPennsylvaniaAve. CreekSuisun S
lough Putah SouthCanalPacket Page 227 of 390Attachment 25 Page 4 of 11

The combination of the design storm’s frequency and
duration determines the total precipitation for the
storm event. Based on the SCWA June 1999 Hydrology
Manual, the mean annual precipitation for the City
ranges from 20 to 28 inches. The 10-year, 24-hour
design storm ranges from 3.6 to 5.0 inches in the dif-
ferent areas of the City. This means that a storm with
an average frequency of 10-years (10-percent chance
of occurring each year) and a duration of 24-hours will have a total rainfall between 3.6 to 5.0 inches through- out the City. The 50-year, 24-hour storm is a large storm, having a 2-percent chance of occurring each year and a
total rainfall between 4.8 and 6.7 inches throughout the City. The 100-year, 24-hour storm is a very large storm, having a 1-percent chance of occurring each year and
a total rainfall between 5.3 and 7.4 inches throughout
the City.
•The following levees are located within the City
and shown on Figure 12-4:
•West Bank of Dan Wilson Creek between Solano
College Road and Interstate-80
•Approximately 1,400 feet along the east bank of
Dan Wilson Creek, upstream of Link Road
•North bank of Green Valley Creek between
Business Center Drive and the Interstate-80
On-Ramp
•West bank of Green Valley Creek, south of the
railroad
•A natural detention basin is located on McCoy
Creek, upstream of Air Base Parkway. A deten-
tion basin on Pennsylvania Avenue Creek, just
R o c k v ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
ey
RdWaltersRdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Red TopRd
Travis B l
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Wat erman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdC ement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordeli a R d
BusinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
Pk
w
y
Travis Av
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Meadow
Glen
Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

N
LI

M
I

T
L
I

N
E
U

E
Cement
Hill
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Suisun
Hill
Twin
Sisters
N:\Clients\295 Dyett and Bhatia\60-20-09 Fairfield GPU\GIS\MXD\Fig3_ExStorm_11x17_UPDATED.mxd ")Storm Drain Pump Station
Storm Drain
Open Channel
Levee
Stormwater Basin
100-Year FEMA Floodplain
500-Year FEMA Floodplain
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 3/15/2021
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Figure 12-3Existing Storm Drain Facilities
Union CreekMcCoyCreekLaurel CreekLedg
e
w
o
o
d

C
r
e
e
k
Dan WilsonCreekGr
e
e
n
Va
l
l
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Jameson
Canyon Creek
American
Canyon Creek Suisun CreekCordeliaSloughMcCoy CreekUnion Ave.CreekPennsylvaniaAve. CreekSuisun S
lough Putah SouthCanalRockvilleRd
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvMangelsBl MainStCordelia StSuisunValleyRd WaltersRdMankasCornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
Tr avis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
Coura geD r
Dickson Hil l RdNorth Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base PkwyWatermanBl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd Cordeli a R d
BusinessCenterDr ClayBankRdCement Hill RdManuelCamposPkwy Travis Av ")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
Paradise ValleyGolf CourseRancho SolanoGolf Course MeadowGlenParkN A PA C O U N T YS O L A N O C O U N T Y Joice Island St
Game Refuge
Rockville
Hills
Regional
Park
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
FairfieldHS
Fairfield
City Hall
Kaiser
Permanente
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
U

N
LI

M
I

T
L
I

N
E
U

E
CementHill
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Suisun
Hill
TwinSisters
N:\Clients\295 Dyett and Bhatia\60-20-09 Fairfield GPU\GIS\MXD\Fig3_ExStorm_11x17_UPDATED.mxd ")Storm Drain Pump Station
Storm Drain
Open Channel
Levee
Stormwater Basin
100-Year FEMA Floodplain
500-Year FEMA Floodplain
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 3/15/2021
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Figure 12-3Existing Storm Drain Facilities Union CreekMcCoyCreekLaurel CreekLedgewood C
r
e
e
k
Dan WilsonCreekGr
e
e
n
Va
l
l
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Jameson
Canyon Creek
American
Canyon CreekSuisun CreekCordeliaSloughMcCoy CreekUnion Ave.CreekPennsylvaniaAve. CreekSui sun
S
lough Putah SouthCanal12-16 Packet Page 228 of 390Attachment 25 Page 5 of 11

north of Interstate-80 was built by the California
De-partment of Transportation to regulate the
15-year flood so that floodwaters can pass under
Interstate 80 (FEMA, 2016).

The City experienced flooding in 1982, 1983, 1986,
1996, 1998, and most recently in 2005. Flooding has
been reduced in the City with the construction of vari- ous flood control projects, including the following.

FAIRFIELD VICINITY STREAMS PROJECT
To protect their communities from flooding, the cities of Fairfield and Suisun partnered with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the California Reclamation Board to
create a comprehensive flood control program. The
plan included construction of new bridges, recre-
ational facilities, channel revegetation, improvements
to detention basins, and creation of diversion channels and drop structures. The Fairfield Vicinity Streams
Project was designed to provide protection against the
200-year flood (0.5-percent annual probability) along
reaches of McCoy, Pennsylvania Avenue, Ledgewood,
Laurel, and Union Avenue Creeks (FEMA, 2016). It was
completed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in
1992. The FSSD is responsible for the operation and
mainte-nance of drainage facilities constructed as part of the project. Channel improvements along Laurel
Creek were constructed as part of the Fairfield Vicinity Streams Project extending approximately 1.1 miles
upstream of Air Base Parkway. These improvements,
along with improvements by private interests upstream
of this reach, provides protection to the land along
both banks from a 100-year storm (with 1-percent
annual probability) extending approximately 1.3 miles
upstream of Air Base Parkway (FEMA, 2016).

GREEN VALLEY FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
The Green Valley Flood Control Project (Green Valley
Project) was designed and constructed by the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers to protect the Cordelia area
against the 40-year storm event (2.5 percent probabil-
ity). The project consists of approximately 2.5 miles of channel improvements and a short levee along Dan
Wilson Creek and approximately 2 miles of channel
improvements along Green Valley Creek in the Cordelia
area (FEMA, 2016). After completion in 1962, the Green
Valley Project was turned over to the SCWA for oper-
ations and maintenance. Portions of the Green Valley
Project within the City have been upgraded to protect
against the 100-year storm event. The U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers inspects the project annually and re-views any plans for major modifications or improvements. The
Green Valley Project consists of unlined earth channels that are cleared annually to ensure adequate flood con- trol capacity. SCWA works closely with the City to ensure that development projects in the watershed adequately
mitigate stormwater runoff impacts (SCWA, 2021).

Storm Drainage Design
Standards
Individual land development projects are required to
address drainage and flood control issues with the City through mechanisms such as stormwater treatment
measure maintenance agree-ments, LID standards, and
post-construction stormwater requirements (Swale,
2018). All land development projects creating, adding,
or replacing 10,000 square feet or more of impervious
surface must submit an application to the City’s Public Works Department. Projects related to auto service
facilities, retail gasoline outlets, restaurants, and sur- face parking that create or re-place 5,000 square feet
or more of impervious surface are required to provide
LID treatment of stormwater runoff (FSSD, 2012). In
addition, new developments creating more than one
acre of impervious area are required to build stormwa-
ter detention basins to store stormwater runoff from
the project site and control the discharge, eliminating the flooding impact from the project development. The
City requires that peak discharge from the detention
basin does not exceed 90-percent of the undeveloped
peak flow from the 100-year, 24-hour storm event.
12-17Packet Page 229 of 390Attachment 25 Page 6 of 11

The City’s 2021 storm drainage design standards are
summarized below.
•The diversion of natural drainage is allowed only
within the limits of a proposed im-provement and
the natural drainage must leave the improved area
at its original horizontal and vertical alignment.
•Discharge from developments cannot exceed the
capacity of any portion of the existing downstream
system.
•Calculations for storm drainage design within a
development and calculations for runoff gener-
ated by upstream areas within the contributing
watershed must be submitted to the City Engineer
for approval.
•Design areas less than 640 acres shall use the
15-year design storm for drainage calculations.
•Design areas between 640 and 3,200 acres
shall use the 25-year design storm for drainage
calculations.
•Design areas greater than 3,200 acres shall use
the 100-year, 24-hour design storm for drainage
calculations.
•All proposed improvements shall be designed so
that there is no surcharging in any conduit during
the design storm.
•Flooding is required to be contained within public
rights-of-way. Flood depth shall not reach 0.5 feet
above the top-of curb before overland release
occurs.
•Drainage may not be conveyed through a devel-
opment in open channels without ap-proval of the
City Engineer. If permitted, open channels shall be
designed to carry the 100-year frequency with a
minimum 1.0 feet of freeboard.

Floodplain Mapping
Flood Hazards in the City were last updated by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in
2009, with the portion of the City closest to Suisun
Marsh updated in 2016. As a re-sult of various flood
protection projects, including those listed above, sev- eral areas along creeks which historically flooded were removed from the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA).

As shown in Figure 12-5, the following creeks still pres- ent SFHAs:
•Union Creek flows north to south in the northeast-
ern part of the City
•Laurel Creek flows north to south in the north-
western part of the City
•Ledgewood Creek flows north to south in the
middle of the City
•Dan Wilson Creek flows north to south in the west-
ern part of the City
•Green Valley Creek flows north to south in the
western part of the City
During large storm events, overflow of the City’s storm drain system also presents a hazard of localized
flooding. Local drainage system flooding was not evalu- ated or mapped by FEMA.

Stormwater And Flood Control
Issues
The primary stormwater issues are summarized below
and shown on Figure 12-5:
•Streets, alleys, and low-lying areas in the down-
town and Cordelia areas are subject to flooding
during large winter storms, especially during high
tides. This includes the area north of Highway 12
between Union Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue
and the areas south and east of the intersection of
Cordelia Road and Link Road. In addition, Isabella
Way, Grande Circle, and the portion of Cement Hill
Road between Walters Road and Noonan Lane
have been known to flood.
12-18 Photo credit: Daily RepublicPacket Page 230 of 390Attachment 25 Page 7 of 11

Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Meadow
Glen
Park
Rockville
Hills
Regional
Park
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Fairfield
HS
Fairfield
City Hall
Kaiser
Permanente
Travis AFB
Aero Club
U

N
L
I

M
I

T
L
I

N
E
Cement
Hill
Suisun
Hill
Ohio St Peabody RdN Texas StE Tabor Av
LopesRdTexas St
Pi
t
tmanRdTravis AvDover AvWaterman Bl
BeckAvChadbourneRdE Travis Bl
Heath Dr
Cement Hill Rd
ClayBankRdRe
d

T
o
p

R
d
Travis Bl
Second StW Texas St Pennsylvania AvUnion AvH i l b o r n R d B u s in essCenterDrAir Base Pkwy
N e itze lR dManuelCam
p
os
P
k
w
y
Coura g e D r Oli
v
e
r

R
d
DicksonHillRd
N:\Clients\295 Dyett and Bhatia\60-20-09 Fairfield GPU\GIS\MXD\Fig5_Storm Flooding_11x17_UPDATED.mxd Storm Drain Pump Station
Storm Drain
Open Channel
Levee
Stormwater Basin
Known Flooding Area
100-Year FEMA Floodplain
500-Year FEMA Floodplain
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 3/12/2021
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Figure 12-5
Kn own Flooding Locations
Union CreekMcCoyCreekLaurel CreekLe
d
g
e
w
o
o
d

C
r
e
e
k
Dan WilsonCreekGr
e
e
n
Va
l
l
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Jameson
Canyon Creek
America
n
Canyon
Cr
e
ek Suisun CreekCordeliaSloughMcCoy CreekUnion Ave.CreekPennsylvaniaAve. CreekSui sun
S
lough Putah SouthCanalAcacia Ditch is prone
to flooding due to trash
and debris clogging
the culverts.

In 2005, the Octo
Inn Detention
Basin overflowed
at the spillway.

The downtown area
is subject to flooding
during large storms.The Cordelia area is subject to
flooding during large storms.

In 2005, Cordelia Road, Pittman
Road, and Link Road flooded.

Cement Hill Road
between Walters
Road and Noonan
Lane has been
known to flood.

Grande Circle
has been
known to flood.

Isabella Way
has been
known to flood.

In 2005, Travis Blvd.
and Holiday Lane
were flooded.

In 2005, Ledgewood
Creek overflowed in
several areas.

In 2005, American Canyon
Creek Overflowed its bank
at Oakbrook Drive.

Storm drain surcharge
has occurred at the
intersection of State
St. and Texas St.

Repeated flooding
has occurred at
the Solano County
Court Building.

Figure 12-5: Known Flooding Locations
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Meadow
Glen
Park
Rockville
Hills
Regional
Park
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Fairfield
HS
Fairfield
City Hall
Kaiser
Permanente
Travis AFB
Aero Club
U

N
L
I

M
I

T
L
I

E
CementHill
Suisun
Hill
Ohio St Peabody RdN Texas StE Tabor Av
LopesRdTexas St
Pi
ttmanRdTravis AvDover AvWa terman Bl
BeckAvChadbourneRdE Travis Bl
Heath Dr
Cement Hill Rd
ClayBankRdRe
d

T
o
p

R
d
Travis Bl
Second StW Texa s St Pennsylvania AvUnion AvH i l b o r n R d B u sin essCenterDrAir Base Pkwy
N e itzelR dManuelCam
p
os
P
k
w
y
Cou ra g e D r Oli
v
e
r

R
d
Dickson
HillRd
N:\Clients\295 Dyett and Bhatia\60-20-09 Fairfield GPU\GIS\MXD\Fig5_Storm Flooding_11x17_UPDATED.mxd Storm Drain Pump Station
Storm Drain
Open Channel
Levee
Stormwater Basin
Known Flooding Area
100-Year FEMA Floodplain
500-Year FEMA Floodplain
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 3/12/2021
0 0.5 10.25
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Figure 12-5Known Flooding Locations
Union CreekMcCoyCreekLaurel CreekLe
d
g
e
w
o
o
d

C
r
e
e
k
Dan WilsonCreekGr
e
e
n
Va
l
l
e
y

C
r
e
e
k
Jameson
Canyon Creek
American
Canyo
n
Creek Suisun CreekCordeliaSloughMcCoy CreekUnion Ave.CreekPennsylvaniaAve. CreekSuisun S
lough Putah SouthCanalAcacia Ditch is prone
to flooding due to trash
and debris clogging
the culverts.

In 2005, the Octo
Inn Detention
Basin overflowed
at the spillway.

The downtown area
is subject to flooding
during large storms.The Cordelia area is subject to
flooding during large storms.

In 2005, Cordelia Road, Pittman
Road, and Link Road flooded.

Cement Hill Roadbetween Walters
Road and Noonan
Lane has been
known to flood.

Grande Circle
has been
known to flood.

Isabella Way
has been
known to flood.

In 2005, Travis Blvd.
and Holiday Lane
were flooded.

In 2005, Ledgewood
Creek overflowed in
several areas.

In 2005, American Canyon
Creek Overflowed its bank
at Oakbrook Drive.

Storm drain surcharge
has occurred at the
intersection of State
St. and Texas St.

Repeated flooding
has occurred at
the Solano County
Court Building.
12-19Packet Page 231 of 390Attachment 25 Page 8 of 11

•Flow capacity in storm drains and channels is
reduced by sedimentation buildup and vegetation
growth.
•Low-lying storm drainage channels are affected by
high tides in the Suisun Marsh. The most severe
flooding along Suisun Slough occurs when high
tides coincide with a large storm event.
•Repeated flooding has occurred at the Solano
County Court Building on Union Avenue in Fairfield.
•Storm drain surcharge has occurred at the inter-
section of State Street and Texas Street.
•Acacia Ditch and the culverts along Ledgewood
Creek are prone to flooding due to trash and
debris clogging the culverts.
•Neitzel Basin is prone to flooding due to beavers
within the inlet and outfall pipes.
2005 STORM EVENT
Due to severe rainstorms beginning on December 27,
2005, the County of Solano and City of Fairfield declared a local emergency. Flooding occurred at the following
locations within the City.
•The Octo Inn Detention Basin overflowed at the
spillway, flooding several adjacent businesses and
exacerbating the flooding on Holiday Lane.
•Travis Boulevard and Holiday Lane were flooded
to the point that the street was im-passable.
•American Canyon Creek overflowed its bank at
Oakbrook Drive due to debris at the box culvert.

Floating debris and mud traveled along City streets
for more than eight blocks.
•Cordelia Road, Pittman Road, and Link Road
flooded. The apartment complex on the corner of
Cordelia Road and Pittman Road had several units
flooded.
•Ledgewood Creek overflowed in several areas,
flooding some homes.
12-20 Packet Page 232 of 390Attachment 25 Page 9 of 11

12-21

12.4 Key Findings and Planning Considerations
1 ADDRESS POTABLE WATER SUPPLY ISSUES.

There are three primary factors that can impact the City’s potable water supply as summarized below.
•Climatic: Weather patterns that affect hydrologic conditions help determine SWP deliveries. In 2014, a critically dry year, the SWP delivered as little as 5 percent of annual entitlements. By using the SWP as a source, the City is dependent on precipitation in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins and the onset of drought conditions (including reduced snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and droughts caused by climate change). The Solano Project should be less impacted by climatic changes. Lake Berryessa is located in a coastal range and is not dependent upon snowpack for supply. Up to 90 percent of Solano Project deliveries are guaranteed under the Drought Measures Agreement, provided there is water in Lake Berryessa.
•Environmental/Legal: SWP water is conveyed through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, which is a productive habitat for wildlife, including some endangered species. The Delta serves as a migration pathway for salmonid species traveling between their home streams and the Pacific Ocean. It is also home to Delta Smelt, a threatened species of fish requiring protection. Protection of the Delta Smelt involves periodic pumping restrictions affecting Delta water exports (the SWP Supplies). The City has a legal entitlement to use water from Lake Berryessa through the Solano Project, as well as additional agreements with SID to purchase additional water. Full availability of the water supply from the Solano Project requires that four existing agreements with SID remain active. 2 POTENTIAL FOR INCREASED SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM AND
WWTP CAPACITY NEEDS.

Flows for the FSSD system are influenced by population, land use, and new devel- opment in the areas that it serves. The potential for growth and development on Travis AFB has not been assessed recently, and the City has no jurisdiction over it. New development on Travis AFB could potentially increase flows in the FSSD sewers and to the FSSD WWTP.

The WCSMPU identified capacity deficiencies in the existing trunk sewer system and explored alternative solutions including upsizing pipes, construction of par- allel pipes, flow diversions, and adding or replacing pumps. Based on the model results, about $15.3 million of recommended improvements were identified. •Water Quality/Treatment: SWP water is required to meet salinity and other water quality objectives for the Delta, which may restrict SWP exports from the Delta. In addition, SWP source water quality can provide a treat- ment challenge for the NBR WTP during winter storms due to elevated levels of total organic carbon (TOC) occurring from surface water runoff into the SWP. At TOC levels above 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L), the City will either blend SWP source water with its Solano Project water source or pause usage of SWP source water until the water quality improves.
3 ADDRESSING LOCALIZED FLOODING.

Thanks to various flood protection projects, several areas along creeks which historically flooded were removed from the FEMA Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). However, localized flooding still occurs in certain areas of the city. The General Plan will assess whether additional stormwater drainage improve- ments, policies or regulations will need to be developed or modified to address this issue.

Packet Page 233 of 390Attachment 25 Page 10 of 11

12-22 Packet Page 234 of 390Attachment 25 Page 11 of 11

Public Health
and Equity
Chapter 13
Public health and equity are not topics addressed in the current General Plan but have become increasingly important to long- range planning in recent years. This chapter provides background and context for these topics.

Packet Page 235 of 390Attachment 26 Page 1 of 20

13-2
On September 24, 2016, Governor Jerry Brown signed
Senate Bill (SB) 1000 into law. SB 1000 amended
Government Code Section 65302, requiring a local
agency to address environmental justice issues
when, on or after January 1, 2018, it concurrently
adopts or revises two or more general plan elements.

Environmental justice must be incorporated into the
general plan in a way that:
•Reduces the unique or compounded health
risks in disadvantaged communities by means
that include the reduction of pollution exposure,
including the improvement of air quality, and the
promotion of public facilities, food access, safe
and sanitary homes, and physical activity;
•Promotes civil engagement in the public decision-
making process; and
•Prioritizes improvements and programs that
address the needs of disadvantaged communities.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)
defines environmental justice as:

The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all
people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and poli- cies. Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environ-
mental consequences resulting from industrial, govern-
mental, and commercial operations or policies.1
Disadvantaged Communities
Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006, authorized California’s cap-and- trade program as one of several strategies to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Funds collected
through cap-and-trade are mandated to be used for
programs that further reduce GHG emissions. In 2012,
SB 535 directed that 25 percent of the proceeds from
the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (cap-and-trade)
go to projects that provide a benefit specifically to dis- advantaged communities, defined as low-income areas
disproportionately affected by environmental pollution
and other hazards. In 2016, AB 1550 provided addi-
tional funding to disadvantaged communities, requir-
ing a percent of proceeds to be spent on projects actu- ally located in these communities.
1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Learn about environmental justice, 2017.

13.1 Environmental Justice
“
”
Packet Page 236 of 390Attachment 26 Page 2 of 20

CalEnviroscreen, OHHA
13-13-3
SB 1000 and SB 535 specify the California Com-
munities Environmental Health Screening Tool 3.0
(CalEnviroScreen) as the primary screening method
for identifying disadvantaged communities. Developed
by the California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA), CalEnviroScreen uses environmental, health,
and socioeconomic information to produce scores for
every census tract in the state, thereby identifying com- munities that are most vulnerable to pollution’s effects.

The score assigned to each census tract is a product of exposure to pollution, adverse environmental effects
caused by pollution, presence of sensitive populations
(i.e. those with asthma or cardiovascular disease), and socioeconomic factors that increase vulnerability (i.e. low household income, low educational attainment,
and unemployment). A disadvantaged community is
defined as one which scores in the top 25th percentile
of CalEnviroScreen’s cumulative score.

Using these criteria, there are no census tracts within the Planning Area that are identified as disadvantaged
communities. However, relative to other census tracts
in the Planning Area, some tracts bear a disproportion- ate environmental burden. There is one Census tract
with a cumulative CalEnviroScreen 3.0 score over that
is above the 70th percentile (tract 2524.02 at the 74th percentile). Overall CalEnvirosScreen scores are cal-
culated from the scores of two groups of indicators,
pollution burden and population characteristics. While
no tracts in the Planning Area have a pollution burden
score that ranks in the 70th percentile or higher, there are 12 tracts whose population characteristics score
lands in the 70th percentile or higher. These tracts
are listed in Table 13-1. All of these Census tracts are located in Central Fairfield in the area bounded by
I-80 on the west, Highway 12 on the south, the Union
Pacific railway on the east, and Air Base Parkway on
the north. Figure 13-1 shows CalEnviroScreen results
by Census tract.

TABLE 13-1: Census Tracts in Planning Area with Environmental Burdens Census Tract Population
CalEnviroScreen

3.0 Percentile
Pollution Burden
Percentile
Population Characteristics
Percentile
2524.022 5,238 73.84 45.36 87.09
2526.05 5,520 64.32 19.15 97.35
2526.04 3,674 62.40 19.28 95.48
2526.11 3,263 52.62 9.88 94.92
2526.06 5,148 67.07 26.35 94.27
2526.08 3,807 60.29 18.52 93.38
2524.01 4,559 61.53 35.16 76.14
2525.01 2,670 57.91 19.33 88.78
2526.072 3,819 53.70 16.43 85.45
2525.02 2,275 61.48 29.22 81.93
2526.10 3,142 43.50 11.45 75.50
2527.07 4,753 49.92 18.32 75.23
Notes:

1. Only those census tracts in the Planning Area with CalEnvironScreen 3.0 overall scores or population characteristics scores that fall in percentile ranges >70% are listed in this table.

2. These Census tracts are partially in the Planning Area.

Sources: California Communities Environmental health Screening Tool 3.9 (CalEnvironScreen); Dyett & Bhatia, 2021.

Packet Page 237 of 390Attachment 26 Page 3 of 20

13-4
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u rageD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l CamposPk
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Armijo
HS
Fairfield
HS
Solano
Community
College
Fairfield
City Hall
Solano County
Courthouse
Kaiser
Permanente
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
U

L
I
M
I
T

L
I

E
U

E
C e m e n t
H i l l
E l k h o r n
P e a k
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
O k e l l
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
S u l p h u r
S p r i n g s
M o u n t a i n
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\CalEnviroScreen_3pt0_Results.mxd Overall Results
Statewide Ranking by Census Tract

60.1% - 73.8%

40.1% - 60.0%

24.0% - 40.0%

20.1% - 23.9%

11.4% - 20.0%
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
WaterMap Date: 5/4/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
13-1 CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Results
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: CalEnviroScreen 3.0, 2018; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 AÝ
Figure 13-1: CalEnviroScreen Results
Packet Page 238 of 390Attachment 26 Page 4 of 20

13-5

13.2 Public Health
According to the Center for Disease Control (CDC)
Foundation, “public health is the science of protecting and improving the health of people and their com-
munities… achieved by promoting healthy lifestyles,
researching disease and injury prevention, and detect-
ing, preventing and responding to infectious diseases.” While the City of Fairfield itself does not have a ded- icated Public Health Department, a healthy commu-
nity is achieved through a myriad of approaches,
including quality and affordable housing, decreased
rates of disease, a healthy economy, a clean environ-
ment, access to recreation, proximity to healthy food
and services, and more. Some of these approaches
the city can pursue independently, while others may
benefit from partnership and close alignment with the
Solano County Department of Public Health. Often, the
environmental impacts on health are divided into two
categories—social determinants of health and physical
determinants of health. Social determinants include
how factors such as poverty, educational attainment,
and housing affect health while physical determinants
include walking distance to goods and services, as well as air quality and public transit accessibility.

Health Outcomes
Evidence increasingly shows that the built environment
can help cause or worsen chronic, or ongoing, diseases
as well as infectious diseases.2 The City of Fairfield has higher rates than Solano County for obesity (35.8 per-
cent for all adults), asthma diagnoses in children (15.1 2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—Division of Community Health. A Practitioner’s Guide for Advancing Health Equity. Community Strategies for Preventing Chronic Disease.

Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2013.
percent), low-income food insecurity (9.1 percent), and lack of health insurance (11.5 percent among adults
18-64), according to 2018 California Health Interview
Survey data.3
At the census tract level, health disparities become
even more stark, with several census tracts bear-
ing a poorer health burden. Figure 13-2 shows how
census tracts within the Planning Area rank among
all California tracts for asthma, cardiovascular dis-
ease, and low birthweight, with census tracts 2526.05,
2526.11, and 2526.08 scoring above the 90th percen-
tile. Seven other tracts across the city also rank above the 80th percentile.

Social Determinants Of Health

POVERTY, UNEMPLOYMENT, AND

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Social determinants can increase stress levels and/or
make healthy living difficult, which can cause popula-
tions to be more sensitive to the effects of pollution.

For example, residents of high poverty neighborhoods
may be more likely to be exposed to toxic materials
in homes, dangerous streets, and pervasive advertis-
ing promoting harmful substances than residents of
higher-income neighborhoods.4 High-poverty neigh-
borhoods also may have limited options for healthy
food and safe leisure physical activity, and fewer
3 California Health Interview Survey, AskCHIS Neighborhood Edition - Local Level Health Data, 2018.
4 The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Center on Social Dis- parities in Health, and the Build Healthy Places network, Making the Case for Linking Community Development and Health, 2015. opportunities for education and high-quality employ-
ment than higher-income neighborhoods.

In 2019, approximately 8.6 percent of the City of
Fairfield’s population was living below the federal pov- erty level, a decrease from 13.1 percent in 2010, per
U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) data.5
While this rate is lower than Solano County’s 2019 pov- erty rate of 9.5 percent, certain Census tracts located in Central Fairfield have poverty rates higher than
this. In particular, tract 2526.05 has a poverty rate of

21.1 percent, tract 2526.11 has a poverty rate of 21.5
percent, and tract 2524.02 has a poverty rate of 19.7
percent. Within the Planning Area, tracts 2526.05,
2526.06, and 2526.07 are qualified Opportunity Zones.

Opportunity Zones are low-income census tracts
where new investments, under certain conditions, may
be eligible for preferential tax treatment, designed to spur economic development.6
The unemployment rate in the City of Fairfield is 5.8
percent, slightly less than the County average of

6.0 percent.7 In addition to the immediate financial
5 According to the Department of Health and Human Services, the 2019 federal poverty level was $12,490 for a single-person household and $25,750 for a four-person household.
6 Carroll. R.R. 2018. Opportunity Zones Program: An Early Overview of Program Details and What’s Ahead. Enterprise Community Partners. https://www.enterprisecommunity.org/ download?fid=8856&nid=6212
7 American Community Survey, 2019.

Packet Page 239 of 390Attachment 26 Page 5 of 20

13-6
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u rageD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMankas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Busin essC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
Pk
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

L
I
M
I
T
L
I

N
E
U

E
C e m e n t
H i l l
E l k h o r n
P e a k
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
O k e l l
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
S u l p h u r
S p r i n g s
M o u n t a i n
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\Asthma_CD_LowBirthweight.mxd Health Sensitivities
Statewide Ranking by Census Tract

80.1% - 94.0%

60.1% - 80.0%

40.1% - 60.0%

27.2% - 40.0%

27.1%
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
WaterMap Date: 5/4/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
13-2 Asthma, Cardiovascular Disease, Low Birthweight Burden: Statewide Ranking 0 1 2½
Miles
Source: CalEnviroScreen 3.0, 2018; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 AÝ
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad
Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u rageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
ey
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMankas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Busin essC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l CamposPk
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

L
I
M
I
T
L
I

E
U

E
C e m e n t
H i l l
E l k h o r n
P e a k
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
O k e l lH i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
S u l p h u r
S p r i n g s
M o u n t a i n
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\Asthma_CD_LowBirthweight.mxd Health Sensitivities
Statewide Ranking by Census Tract

80.1% - 94.0%

60.1% - 80.0%

40.1% - 60.0%

27.2% - 40.0%

Statewide Ranking
Packet Page 240 of 390Attachment 26 Page 6 of 20

13-7
impacts, stress from long-term unemployment can
lead to chronic illnesses, such as heart disease, and
can shorten a person’s life.8
Low educational attainment also impacts health.

Educational attainment correlates most strongly with
life expectancy and most health status measures.9
Additionally, several studies have associated edu-
cational attainment with susceptibility to the health
impacts of environmental pollutants.10 According
to ACS 2019 data, 13.0 percent of Fairfield’s popula-
tion over the age of 25 have no high school diploma,
higher than the Solano County average of 11.6 per-
cent. Across the city, however, certain neighborhoods
in Central Fairfield have worse educational outcomes
than other areas of the city. For those age 25 and over, within Census tract 2526.06, 29.9 percent have no high
school diploma. And for tracts 2526.07 and 2524.02,
this number is 26.6 percent.

Some tracts in the Planning Area have rates of pov-
erty, unemployment, and lack of educational attain-
ment that are higher than state levels. Figure 13-3
shows how census tracts within the Planning Area rank
among all California tracts for unemployment, the per-
centage living in poverty, and educational attainment
vulnerabilities, with census tracts 2526.06, 2526.04,
and 2526.05 scoring above the 80th percentile.
8 Brand J. E. The Far-Reaching Impact of Job Loss and Unem- ployment. Annual review of sociology, 41, 359-375, 2015. 9 Winkleby, M. A., Jatulis, D. E., Frank, E., & Fortmann, S. P.

Socioeconomic status and health: how education, income, and occupation contribute to risk factors for cardiovascular disease.

American Journal of Public Health, 82(6), 816-20, 1992. 10 The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Issue Brief: Why does education matter so much to health? 2013.

LINGUISTIC ISOLATION
Over one-third of the population in the City of Fairfield speak a language other than English, according to
2015 ACS data. Notably, 20.0 percent speak Spanish
and 6.5 percent speak Tagalog. While speaking multi-
ple languages is a strength, for those who are unable
to communicate fluently in English, language can pres-
ent barriers. When information is not presented in a
language that a person is able to communicate in or
understand, it can limit their ability access resources and be fully engaged in society. Adults who are not
able to speak or read English well often have trou-
ble talking to the people who provide social services
and medical care. Linguistically-isolated households
may not hear or understand important information
when there is an emergency like a fire, earthquake, or
extreme heat wave.

In Fairfield, 6.1 percent of the population age five
years and over has limited English speaking abilities.

Additionally, 5.5 percent of households in the city are considered limited English-speaking households. This
is modestly higher than the 4.7 percent of households
across Solano County that are considered to be limited
English-speaking.11 A limited English-speaking house-
hold is one in which no household member 14 years
old and over speaks English “very well.” Figure 13-4
shows the location of Census tracts across Fairfield
and their CalEnviroScreen 3.0 percentile rank com-
pared to all tracts statewide for linguistic isolation.

Many of these limited English-speaking households
are concentrated in Census tracts in Central Fairfield. 11 American Community Survey, 2015-2019.

Notably, tracts 2526.07, 2526.06, and 2524.04 have

18.4, 15.2, and 13.6 percent linguistically isolated
households, respectively, placing them above the 70th
percentile statewide.

As part of addressing language needs in the city,
Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) is translating tran- sit materials and information into essential languages
including Spanish, Tagalog, and Chinese. The effort is intended to expand mobility options among linguisti-
cally isolated communities in Fairfield, which can also help to promote transit ridership and healthy trans-
portation options.

Packet Page 241 of 390Attachment 26 Page 7 of 20

RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdO live
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Vall
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterD rClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
P
k
wy
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

L
I
M
I
T

L
I

N
E
U

E
C e m e n t
H i l l
E l k h o r n
P e a k
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
O k e l l
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
S u l p h u r
S p r i n g s
M o u n t a i n
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\LinguisticIsolation.mxd Linguistic Isolation
Statewide Ranking by Census Tract

60.1% - 80.0%

40.1% - 60.0%

20.1% - 40.0%

0.0% - 20.0%
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
WaterMap Date: 5/4/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
13-4 Linguistic Isolation: Statewide Ranking
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: CalEnviroScreen 3.0, 2018; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 AÝ
13-8
Figure 13-4: Linguistic Isolation: Statewide Ranking
Packet Page 242 of 390Attachment 26 Page 8 of 20

13-9
TABLE 13-3: Rent Burden within the City
of Fairfield
Gross Rent as
a Percentage
of Household
Income
Number of
Households
Percent
of Renter
Households
Less than 15.0
percent 1,182 8.2

15.0 to 19.9 percent 1,493 10.4

20.0 to 24.9 per-
cent 1,741 12.1

25.0 to 29.9 per-
cent 2,213 15.4

30.0 to 34.9 per-
cent 1,696 11.8

35.0 percent or
more 6,049 42.1
Total occupied
units paying rent 14,374 100%
Sources: American Community Survey, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021.

Housing

HOUSING AGE
Access to safe, quality, affordable housing is a critical component of environmental justice. It is common for
disadvantaged populations to live in neighborhoods
with a higher proportion of housing stock constructed
before modern building codes. This can increase the
likelihood of residents’ exposure to lead or asbes-
tos. As shown in Table 13-2, 40 percent of the City of
Fairfield’s housing stock was constructed before 1980.

The city’s oldest housing stock is located in Census
tracts around its Downtown core; in tract 2525.01 the
median year built is 1957, and in tracts 2525.02 and
2524.01 it is 1958.12 This corresponds to the city’s his- toric development pattern.
12 American Community Survey, 2019.

TABLE 13-2: Year of Housing Structure
Construction in the City of Fairfield
Year Built Total Percent
2014 or later 1153 3
2010 to 2013 1092 3
2000 to 2009 6241 16
1990 to 1999 5750 15
1980 to 1989 8721 23
1970 to 1979 6663 17
1960 to 1969 4822 13
1950 to 1959 3111 8
1940 to 1949 402 1
1939 or earlier 417 1
Total Housing Structures 38372 100%
Sources: American Community Survey, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021.

HOUSING BURDEN
The US Department of Housing and Urban
Development considers a threshold of 30 percent of
an individual or household’s income going to hous-
ing costs to be an indicator of housing affordability.

Therefore, those who spend over 30 percent of their
income on housing costs are considered to be bur-
dened by the cost of housing. As housing costs grow
to take up a greater share of the household’s total
income, it reduces the availability of funds for school- ing, childcare, groceries, transportation, and other
monthly costs. According to this definition, more than
50 percent of Fairfield renters are burdened by the
cost of rent. As seen in Table 13-3, 42.1 percent of
rental households are paying 35 percent or more of
their income towards rent.

The majority of householders in the City of Fairfield
own their homes (59.3 percent), though many still pay
a significant portion of their income towards housing
costs. According to 2019 ACS data, 18.6 percent of all
Fairfield homeowners are paying 35 percent or more
of their monthly income towards housing costs. And
among the 74.6 percent of homeowners in Fairfield
who have a mortgage on their homes, this number
increases to 35.3 percent. Figure 13-5 shows how
Census tracts across the Planning Area compare to
those across the state in terms of their percentile rank for the degree of low-income households that experi-
ence housing burden.

Packet Page 243 of 390Attachment 26 Page 9 of 20

13-10
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMankas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
BusinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
Pk
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

L
I
M
I
T

L
I

N
E
U

E
C e m e n t
H i l l
E l k h o r n
P e a k
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
O k e l l
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
S u l p h u r
S p r i n g s
M o u n t a i n
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\HousingBurden.mxd Housing Burden
Statewide Ranking by Census Tract

80.1% - 94.9%

60.1% - 80.0%

40.1% - 60.0%

20.1% - 40.0%

0.4% - 20.0%
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
WaterMap Date: 5/4/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
13-5 Housing Burden: Statewide Ranking
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: CalEnviroScreen 3.0, 2018; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 AÝ
Figure 13-5: Housing Burden: Statewide Ranking
Packet Page 244 of 390Attachment 26 Page 10 of 20

13-11

HOMELESSNESS
The most recent Solano County Homelessness
Point-in-Time Count was conducted in January 2019.

Housing First Solano, the Solano County Continuum of
Care (CoC) Program, is the lead agency on the count as
they receive federal funding to provide homeless hous-
ing and services. The count found a total of 1,151 indi- viduals experiencing homelessness in Solano County, a
decrease of seven percent from 2017’s 1,232, but still
up six percent from 2015’s 1,082. According to a draft
City of Fairfield Homelessness Gaps Analysis Report,
the 2019 PIT Count identified 277 persons experienc-
ing homelessness in the City of Fairfield, approximately 24 percent of the total PIT Count. This was a 50%
decrease (–279) since the 2017 PIT Count in Fairfield,
when 556 people experiencing homelessness were
identified in the City.

At the county level, the population of homeless individ- uals living in temporary shelter decreased from 2017
to 2019 by 31 percent from 315 to 219, while the pop-
ulation of those homeless individuals living outdoors
increased by two percent from 917 to 932.

As part of a survey accompanying the 2019 Count,
homeless individuals’ top response when asked what
might have prevented homelessness was employ-
ment assistance (30 percent), followed by alcohol/drug
counseling (25 percent) and rent/mortgage assistance
(24 percent). 82 percent of homeless individuals sur-
veyed reported Solano County as their location of resi- dence prior to homelessness. When asked about their
interest in permanent housing, 93 percent of survey
respondents indicated they would like affordable per-
manent housing if it became available soon.

Physical And Environmental
Determinants Of Health

POLLUTION SOURCES
The City of Fairfield and its Planning Area enjoy
relatively good air quality on the whole. Though
Interstate 80 is a major freeway corridor, and five of
the six Census tracts adjacent to I-80 north of Travis
Boulevard in the Planning Area rank above the 80th
percentile among all California tracts for traffic density (measured in vehicle-kilometers per hour per road
length). For more information on air quality from both
mobile and stationary sources, see Chapter 5.

No tracts within the Planning Area rank higher than
the 60th percentile in CalEnviroScreen 3.0 for pollu-
tion burden. However, as seen in Figure 13-6, tracts
2528.02, 2523.17, 2528.01, and 2524.02 rank above
the 70th percentile for groundwater threats and prox-
imity to hazardous waste sites. Groundwater threats
happen when hazardous chemicals are stored in
containers on land or in underground storage tanks;
leaks from tanks can contaminate soil and groundwa-
ter. Common soil and groundwater pollutants include
gasoline and diesel fuels at gas stations, as well as sol- vents, heavy metals and pesticides. Hazardous waste
and their facilties contains chemicals that may be
harmful to health. For more information on hazardous
waste in the Planning Area, see Chapter 9.

WALKABILITY
The City of Fairfield has a Walk Score of 32 (on a scale of 1 to 100), meaning that it is described as a “car-de- pendent” city.13 While some neighborhoods of the city
do have high walkability, in most areas, amenities such as parks, restaurants, and grocery stores are not within walking distance of residents. As seen in the Figure
13-7, amenities are grouped in Downtown Fairfield and
along the city’s commercial corridors, including West
Texas and North Texas streets, and Travis Boulevard.

Convenient access to public transit also helps commu-
nity members increase physical activity and decrease
vehicle miles traveled. Almost one-third of Americans
who commute to work via public transit meet their
daily requirements for physical activity (30 or more
minutes a day) by walking as a part of their daily life, including to and from transit stops.14 However, as seen 13 Walk Score measures the walkability of a location by analyzing walking routes to nearby amenities. Points are awarded based on the distance to amenities in each category. Walk Score also measures pedestrian friendliness by analyzing population density and road metrics such as block length and intersection density. 14 L. Besser and A. Dannenberg, “Walking to Public Transit: Steps to Help Meet Physical Activity Recommendations”. Vol. 32, Issue 4, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, at 273-280, 2005.

Packet Page 245 of 390Attachment 26 Page 11 of 20

Libraries can provide community internet access.
13-12
TABLE 13-4: Means of Commuting
Within the Planning Area
Means of
Commute
Workers 16
Years and Over Percent
Car, truck, or van –
Drive alone 46,5858 76.6
Car, truck, or van –
Carpool 8,368 13.8
Work from home 2,892 4.8
Public transpor-
tation (excluding
taxicab)1,414 2.3
Taxicab, motorcycle,
or other means 668 1.1
Walk 675 1.1
Bicycle 220 0.4
TOTAL 60,822 100%
Source: American Community Survey, 2019; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021. in Fairfield and across the country. Data is still emerg- ing that analyzes the full effects of the pandemic on
travel behavior, and there is still much uncertainty
about how people will respond in the long-range
as in-person activities continue to resume gradu-
ally. For instance, according to US Department of
Transportation (DOT) statistics, Solano County resi-
dents made approximately 2.08 million trips in October
of 2019, but only approximately 995,000 in October of
2020. The pandemic has resulted in greater exposure
of people to biking and walking for recreation and for
short trips. E-bikes, which still require some personal effort are also becoming increasingly popular. Future
planning for active transportation in Fairfield will have to plan for this evolving context and the evolving
nature of people’s travel demands.

INTERNET ACCESS
Over the past few decades, reliable access to the inter- net has played an increasingly important part in daily
and civic life, helping people to gather and share infor- mation, access services, or stay connected to friends
and family – in many ways, internet access has become
a necessity. The COVID-19 pandemic has only height-
ened the need for internet connectedness: school and
work closures and social distancing measures imple-
mented to slow the spread of COVID-19 require indi-
viduals to rely even more heavily on internet access to connect to health services, learn virtually, or work from home.

In Fairfield, 3.2 percent of the population has access
to a computer in their household but do not have an
internet subscription. And another 3.0 percent have no
computer in their household. However, certain popu-
lations experience the burden of the digital divide dis- proportionately. Among those age 65 and older, 4.3
percent have a computer but are without access to an
internet subscription, and 10.9 percent are without a
computer in the home. Certain neighborhoods across
the Planning Area also have higher portions of their
population without internet access than others, as
seen in Figure 13-8. In tract 2526.06 in Central Fairfield,

14.7 percent have a computer but lack internet access,
while another 5.2 percent do not have access to a
computer in the household.
in Table 13-4, very few residents within the Planning
Area utilize public transit or active transportation. Over 90 percent of residents in the Planning Area commute
to work via car, truck, or van. Of those, almost 77 per- cent drove alone, while close to 14 percent carpooled.

At the County level, 3.2 percent of the population uses public transit to commute to work, compared to 5.1
percent across all of California.15
However, it is also important to recognize that these
data points are from 2019, before the COVID-19 pan-
demic significantly affected the landscape for workers
15 American Community Survey, 2019.

Packet Page 246 of 390Attachment 26 Page 12 of 20

13-13
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad
Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u rageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRd Cordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Vall
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
P
k
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

L
I
M
I
T
L
I

N
E
U

E
C e m e n t
H i l l
E l k h o r n
P e a k
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
O k e l l
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
S u l p h u r
S p r i n g s
M o u n t a i n
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\GroundwaterThreats_HazardousWaste.mxd Pollution Sources
Statewide Ranking by Census Tract

80.1% - 97.2%

60.1% - 80.0%

40.1% - 60.0%

20.1% - 40.0%

0.0% - 20.0%
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
WaterMap Date: 5/4/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
13-6 Groundwater Threats and Hazardous Waste Sites: Statewide Ranking 0 1 2½
Miles
Source: CalEnviroScreen 3.0, 2018; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 AÝ
Figure 13-6: Groundwater Threats and Hazardous Waste Sites: Statewide Ranking Packet Page 247 of 390Attachment 26 Page 13 of 20

13-14
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\Walkability.mxd Source: Walkscore.com, 2021; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Map Date: 5/4/2021
01 2½
Miles
14-9 Walkability
Walkscore10025
Figure 13-7: Walkability
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\Walkability.mxd Source: Walkscore.com, 2021; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Map Date: 5/4/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
14-9 Walkability
Walkscore10025
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\Walkability.mxd Source: Walkscore.com, 2021; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Map Date: 5/4/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
14-9 Walkability
Walkscore10025
Packet Page 248 of 390Attachment 26 Page 14 of 20

13-15
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad
Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMankas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sin essC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l CamposPk
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

N
L
I
M
I
T
L
I

N
E
U

E
C e m e n t
H i l l
E l k h o r n
P e a k
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
O k e l l
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
S u l p h u r
S p r i n g s
M o u n t a i n
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\InternetAccess.mxd Internet Access
No Internet or Computer

20.1% - 40.0%

0.0% - 20.0%
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
WaterMap Date: 5/4/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
13-8 Internet Access
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 AÝ
Figure 13-8: Internet Access
Packet Page 249 of 390Attachment 26 Page 15 of 20

13-16
facilities that provide primary care services in under- served areas. However, as seen in Figure 13-10,
most medical facilities in Fairfield are not walkable
to much of the city’s residents as they are clustered
near NorthBay Medical Center, which is adjacent to
the Solano Town Center mall and I-80. Other health-
care centers—especially those run by the County of
Solano—are clustered in the primarily industrial pocket of the city south of Highway 12.

ACCESS TO HEALTHY FOOD AND

HEALTHCARE SERVICES
Access to healthy foods is also important to a commu-
nity’s health. The presence of a supermarket in a neigh- borhood is linked to higher fruit and vegetable con-
sumption, as well as a reduced incidence of obesity.
16Residential areas of the Planning Area are generally
well-served by access to grocery stores and markets.

However, as seen in Figure 13-9, there are large gaps
in the southern portion of the Cordelia neighborhood
and in Northeast Fairfield where no grocery stores or
food markets are within walking distance.

A healthy community should have convenient access
to medical services. When health care facilities are
accessible via public transit, medical care is more read- ily accessible to those who do not drive or own cars.

There are multiple medical facilities located within the Planning Area, ranging from large hospitals and medi-
cal complexes, such as North Bay Medical Center and
David Grant United States Air Force Medical Center
(located on Travis AFB), to smaller medical offices like Sutter Fairfield Medical Campus. The Planning Area
also includes three Federally Qualified Health Centers
(FQHCs), two operated by OLE Health and one by the
County of Solano. FQHCs are community-based health
care providers and critical community development
16 Inagami, S., et al., “You Are Where You Shop: Grocery Store Locations, Weight, and Neighborhoods”, Vol. 31, Issue 1, American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 10-17. See also K.

Morland et al., “Supermarkets, Other Food Stores, and Obesity:

The Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study”, Vol. 30, Issue 4, American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 333-339, 2006.

Packet Page 250 of 390Attachment 26 Page 16 of 20

13-17
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
Pk
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

L
I
M
I
T
L
I

E
U

E
C e m e n t
H i l l
E l k h o r n
P e a k
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
O k e l l
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
S u l p h u r
S p r i n g s
M o u n t a i n
T w i n
S i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\FoodRetailAccess.mxd Supermarket
Food Market
1-mile Radius of Food Retail
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 5/4/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
4-10 Food Retail Access
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: BAE, 2021; Solano County GIS, 2021; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 AÝ
Fairfield
HS
Fairfield
City Hall
Kaiser
Permanente
Air Base P kwy
NTexasStE Travis BlPennsylvaniaAvUnion AvHi
l
bornRdTravis BlLopesRdBusinessCenterDr!"c$
!"c$
Inset 2Not to Scale
Inset 1Not to Scale
Figure 13-9: Healthy Food Access
Packet Page 251 of 390Attachment 26 Page 17 of 20

13-18

13.3 Key Findings and Planning Considerations

WHILE NO CENSUS TRACTS MEET THE STATE DEFINITION

OF A DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY, THERE ARE STILL SEV-

ERAL TRACTS THAT EXPERIENCE HIGH BURDENS FROM

CERTAIN POLLUTANTS AND POSSESS NUMEROUS POPULA-

TION CHARACTERISTICS THAT PLACE RESIDENTS AT HIGHER
HEALTH AND EXPOSURE RISK. THE CITY SHOULD TAKE CARE

TO MINIMIZE EXPOSURE AMONG GROUPS VULNERABLE TO

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS AND AVOID LOCATING
ADDITIONAL HAZARDS IN ALREADY BURDENED AREAS.

Census tract 2524.02 bears a disproportionate environmental burden score (a composite score of pollution burden score, and population characteristics score) compared to the rest of the Census tracts in the Planning Area. It ranks at the 74th percentile among all tracts in California for environmental burden. Additionally, a total of 12 tracts in the Planning Area rank above the 70th percentile among all California tracts for the susceptibility created by their population characteristics.

Furthermore, of these 12 tracts, tracts 2526.05, 2526.04, 2526.11, 2526.06, and 2526.08 all rank above the 90th percentile. Most of these tracts cover neighborhoods in Central Fairfield bounded by Air Base Parkway, Highway 12, I-80, and Dover Avenue. When tracts are analyzed for specific environmental hazards—presence of groundwater threats and hazardous waste facilities—four tracts rank above the 70th percen- tile among all California tracts, with tracts 2528.02 and 2523.17 ranking above the 90th percentile.

The City should take care to avoid locating future uses that could pro- duce a further environmental burden in these areas. Some options to consider include mitigation and clean-up measures and buffers

AS LAND AND HOUSING VALUES CONTINUE TO INCREASE,

HOW CAN THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD MAINTAIN ITS DIVERSITY,

PREVENT DISPLACEMENT OF LOWER-INCOME POPULA-

TIONS, AND CONTRIBUTE TO SOLVING THE HOMELESSNESS
CRISIS?
Affordable and quality housing are essential components of healthy neighborhoods. Beyond the social, economic, and physical impacts on families and individuals, the consequences of the lack of affordable housing affect everyone. For example, if teachers, hotel and other ser- vice workers, agricultural workers, nurses, and other low- to middle-in- come workers in Napa must live outside the Planning Area, this can negatively affect Napa’s educational system, the local economy, access to health services, and environmental quality. In Fairfield, 53.9 percent of renters are burdened by the cost of rent. That is, they are putting more than 30 percent of their household income towards covering the cost of rent. Among all California tracts, there are nine tracts within the Planning Area that rank above the 70th percentile for housing burden.

Thus, affordable rental and owner-occupied housing for all types of lower-income families and individuals should be a high priority in the General Plan update and Housing Element.
1 2
between any industrial and residential areas. For tracts with a higher population characteristic vulnerability (e.g., unemployment, poor health outcomes, poverty, and other factors) the City should coordinate closely with Solano County Department of Public Health and Department of Health and Social Services as well as local community groups to miti- gate environmental hazards and potential negative effects on health.

Packet Page 252 of 390Attachment 26 Page 18 of 20

13-19

IN CERTAIN AREAS, FAIRFIELD HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO

CREATE AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT THAT THAT PROMOTES

MULTIPLE MODES SUCH AS WALK, BIKE AND PUBLIC TRAN-
SIT, AND HAS CONVENIENT ACCESS TO HEALTHY FOOD.

Currently, most of the Planning Area is not highly walkable in areas more than a few blocks from its major corridors of West Texas and North Texas streets. As new, denser development continues to be built and the Planning Area’s population grows, improving walkability and access to, as well as service levels of, transit is key. New transportation tech- nologies and emerging forms of transportation, such as autonomous shuttles and micromobility, can be harnessed through the General Plan update in order to increase transportation options and connectivity in Fairfield. In addition to transportation modes, planning for expanded accessibility must also consider differing abilities. Improving the walk/ rollability of Fairfield’s neighborhoods will ensure that older residents and those with disabilities will have access to all of their daily needs.

In addition, access to grocery stores is uneven throughout the Planning Area. Attracting grocery stores, neighborhood markets, and other types of neighborhood-serving retail to the Cordelia and Northeast Fairfield neighborhoods in particular can increase walkability and accessibility for those with and without disabilities, improving public health for all.

This will be important as development continues to expand into pre- viously undeveloped areas of the city. Additionally, the General Plan update will need to take into account the nexus between land use, housing, and transportation as planning continues in these neighbor- hoods and across the city to ensure that public transit is best able to meet the needs of the community.

IMPROVING ACCESS TO HIGH SPEED INTERNET.

A disproportionately high proportion—14.7 percent—of households in central Fairfield have a computer but not access to the Internet.

Another 5.2 percent do not have a computer at all. This means that one-fifth of households in central Fairfield lack access to the Internet from their homes. Because these neighborhoods are fairly compact and dense, the City may want to consider measures such as public Wi-Fi in Downtown and central Fairfield to improve the community’s Internet access.
3 4
Packet Page 253 of 390Attachment 26 Page 19 of 20

13-20 Packet Page 254 of 390Attachment 26 Page 20 of 20

Existing Conditions, Trends,
and Opportunities Analysis
May 10, 2021
Packet Page 255 of 390Attachment 27 Page 1 of 65

Prepared by
bae urban economic
For the City of Fairfield General Plan Update
Packet Page 256 of 390Attachment 27 Page 2 of 65

1 Table of Contents
1 Table of Contents ......................................................................................................... i 2 Table of Tables ............................................................................................................ ii 3 Table of Figures ......................................................................................................... iii 4 Executive Summary ................................................................................................... iv

4.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................. iv

4.2 Demographic and Economic Conditions ................................................................ iv

4.3 Real Estate Market Conditions ................................................................................v

4.4 Growth Projections .................................................................................................. vi 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1

5.1 Purpose of Study..................................................................................................... 1

5.2 Geographic Definitions ............................................................................................ 1 6 Demographic Characteristics .................................................................................... 2

6.1 Population and Household Trends ......................................................................... 2

6.2 Household Composition .......................................................................................... 3

6.3 Resident Age Distribution ....................................................................................... 3

6.4 Race and Ethnicity .................................................................................................. 5

6.5 Educational Attainment ........................................................................................... 6

6.6 Household Income Distribution ............................................................................... 7

6.7 Demographic Implications for General Plan Update .............................................. 8 7 Economic Characteristics ........................................................................................ 10

7.1 Labor Force Characteristics .................................................................................. 10 8 Real Estate Market Conditions ................................................................................ 18

8.1 Residential Market Overview ................................................................................ 18

8.2 Housing Affordability ............................................................................................. 27

8.3 Nonresidential Real Estate Market Conditions ..................................................... 38 9 Projections ................................................................................................................. 44

9.1 Residential Growth Scenarios .............................................................................. 44

9.2 Nonresidential Growth Scenarios ......................................................................... 46

9.3 Key Takeaways for General Plan Update ............................................................ 52 Packet Page 257 of 390Attachment 27 Page 3 of 65

2 Table of Tables
Table 1: Population and Households, 2010 and 2020 .......................................................... 2 Table 2: Household Competition, 2010 and 2020 ................................................................. 3 Table 3: Age Distribution, 2010 and 2020 ............................................................................. 4 Table 4: Race and Ethnicity, 2010 and 2020 ........................................................................ 6 Table 5: Educational Attainment, 2020.................................................................................. 7 Table 6: Household Income Distribution, 2020 ..................................................................... 8 Table 7: Unemployment Rate, November 2020 ..................................................................11 Table 8: Employed Residents by Industry ...........................................................................11 Table 9: Jobs by Industry, 2020...........................................................................................13 Table 10: Fairfield Principal Employers, 2020 .....................................................................14 Table 11: Commute Time, 2020 ..........................................................................................15 Table 12: Commute Flow, 2018...........................................................................................15 Table 13: Taxable Sales, 2019 ............................................................................................16 Table 14: Household Tenure, 2010 and 2020 .....................................................................18 Table 15: Units in Structure, 2018 .......................................................................................19 Table 16: Year Built, 2018 ...................................................................................................20 Table 17: Housing Occupancy and Vacancy Status, 2018 .................................................20 Table 18: Multifamily Rental Summary by Unit Size, Q3 2020 (c) ......................................22 Table 19: Characteristics of Home Sales by Type, City of Fairfield, Dec. 2019 to Dec. 2020......................................................................................................................................24 Table 20: Fairfield Residential Development Pipeline.........................................................26 Table 21: HCD Income Limits, Solano County, 2020 ..........................................................27 Table 22: Affordable Rents, Solano County, 2020 ..............................................................29 Table 23: Affordable For-Sale Prices, Solano County, 2020 (Page 1 of 2) ........................31 Table 24: Housing Cost Burden by Income Category and Tenure, 2017 (Page 1 of 3).....34 Table 25: Office Market Overview, Q3 2020 .......................................................................39 Table 26: Retail Market Overview, Q3 2020 .......................................................................41 Table 27: Industrial Market Overview, Q3 2020 ..................................................................42 Table 28: Population, Household, and Housing Unit Projections, 2020 to 2050 ...............46 Table 29: Summary of Nonresidential Projections, 2020 -2050 .........................................51

Packet Page 258 of 390Attachment 27 Page 4 of 65

iii

3 Table of Figures
Figure 1: Annual Unemployment Rate, 2010 -2019 .............................................................10 Figure 2: Median Home Sale Price, Single -Family Residences, 2012-2020 ......................25

Packet Page 259 of 390Attachment 27 Page 5 of 65

4 Executive Summary

4.1 Introduction
BAE Urban Economics prepared this Existing Conditions, Trends, and Opportunities Analysis in support of the City of Fairfield General Plan Update, in partnership with Dyett & Bhatia and the City of Fairfield. This report provides an overview of the existing demographic and economic conditions, local real estate market conditions and trends, and factors that will drive demand in various land use categories over the General Plan planning horizon . This report places more emphasis on residential land use types, because the City of Fairfield is separately commissioning the preparation of an economic development strategy; however, this report also evaluates potential demand in primary non-residential land use categories as well . While this analysis focuses on evaluating the conditions and trends throughout the City of Fairfield, it also examines conditions in Solano County, the nine -county Bay Area region (“ABAG Region”), and California.

4.2 Demographic and Economic Conditions
As of 2020, the City of Fairfield had approximately 117,000 resident s and 38,000 households, representing an increase 11.5 percent and 10.7 percent, respectively, since 2010, far outpacing growth in the region and the state. This relatively robust growth in population and households indicates strong housing demand, and the ability of Fairfield to provide relatively affordable housing for workers employed elsewhere in the region. If there is a shift to more home- based/remote employment, the COVID-19 pandemic may help reinforce this trend as people seek places to live where they can afford more space to accommodate working from home.

In addition, Fairfield is an attractive place for families, which represent nearly three -quarters of the city’s households, much higher than in the ABAG region and the state. The population is also, on average, younger and more diverse than the region and state, with significant growth in the population aged 25 to 34 years since 2010 and a nearly 70 percent minority population.

Correspondingly, Fairfield residents speak a variety of languages. After English, the languages most commonly spoken by Fairfield residents are Spanish Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Chinese (including Mandarin and Cantonese). Finally, the city’s median household income of $88,000 falls below the nearly $110,000 median household income in the ABAG region, but above the state’s median household income of $77,500. These factors point to strong demand for family housing at a range of price levels.

Prior to the pandemic, the Fairfield unemployment rate of 3.6 percent was comparable to the

4.0 percent rate statewide, while in the ABAG region, the unemployment rate was only 2.6 percent. Employment in Fairfield was, however, impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. A detailed analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on the Fairfield Economy is provided in the ‘Economic Scan’ section of the Economic Development Roadmap by Chabin Concepts. The analysis includes monitoring the recovery of the city’s economy from the impacts of the pandemic on employment.

Packet Page 260 of 390Attachment 27 Page 6 of 65

In November 2020, the unemployment rates in Fairfield (7.6 percent) and the state (7.9 percent) were comparable, and higher than the 5.9 percent unemployment rate in the ABAG region. This suggests that the Fairfield economy is somewhat less robust than that of the ABAG region as a whole. This is also evident in the difference in industries employing Fairfield residents compared to the region overall, such as the large gap in the relatively high -paying Professional, Scientific and Technical Services industries be tween the city and region.

Conversely, in Fairfield, the percentage of residents employed in healthcare, education, and retail is greater than the regional percentages in these sectors . Furthermore, over half of workers with jobs in Fairfield live in Solano County, although only 24.2 percent live in Fairfield.

A significant portion of workers employed in Fairfield commute relatively long distances.

Fairfield may be able to capture a larger portion of these workers who commute into the city if a range of relatively affordable housing is provided, particularly for the relatively large number of commuters from nearby cities like Vacaville, Suisun City, Vallejo, and Dixon. For those local workers who continue to live further away for various reasons and for those local residents who commute to jobs outside of the city, maintaining and improving the transit connections to the city will be an important component of providing a high quality of life and ensuring competitiveness within the regional real estate market s.

4.3 Real Estate Market Conditions
One of the fundamental appeals of Fairfield is the relative affordability of single -family homes compared to the inner Bay Area, which explains not only the disproportionately high rate of family households in the city, but also the disproportionately high growth in family households in the city over the past ten years. However, there has not been a similar increase the number of multifamily units and condos that could be affordable to a wider range of households, including some of the city’s workforce. In fact, the city’s 4.1 percent vacancy rate (as of 2014- 2018 American Community Survey) suggests there has been an undersupply of housing, as roughly five percent is typically considered healthy. This may reflect the increa sing popularity of Fairfield for homebuyers, although ultimately it indicates that development must increase to keep up with demand. This is especially true for multifamily housing units, among which the vacancy rate is only 2.9 percent, which has contributed to increasing monthly rents while rents in the ABAG region have fallen since the onset of the COVID -19 pandemic. The data indicate there is an undersupply of both single-family and multifamily units, and particularly larger multifamily units.

Citywide, there is also a considerable gap between market -rate housing costs and the ability of lower-income households to pay for housing. For both rental and for-sale housing, costs are prohibitive for households within the low-, very low-, and extremely low-income categories.

For a three-person household in Fairfield, the respective household income ranges are $41,650 to $66,000; $25,000 to $41,650; and $25,000 or less. However, with increasing costs of newer construction locally as demand spills over from mor e expensive high-demand areas closer to the inner Bay Area job centers, local homes are also increasingly unaffordable for even moderate- and above moderate-income households. This underscores the need for increased housing production in the area.

Packet Page 261 of 390Attachment 27 Page 7 of 65

The demand for retail and industrial space in the city is relatively strong. As described in the Retail Market & Trend Analysis prepared by Marketek, Fairfield has a reputation as a retail center and has shopping centers conveniently located along I-80 that are frequented by customers from Fairfield, the region, and those travelling through. The prospects for local retail real estate will ultimately depend on the growth in residential development as well as regional and national trends in retail marketplaces, but opportunities also exist to promote development along the highway and enhance the attraction of local and regional shoppers in the downtown area. COVID-19 has had some marginal effects on demand for retail space, but rents and occupancy rates ultimately remained fairly stable. In contrast, the impact of the pandemic was most pronounced in its effect on office demand, which was diminished in general as a result of the pandemic. It should be noted that the long -term effects of the COVID- 19 pandemic are not likely to be fully understood for quite some time.

City staff report that Fairfield has historically not had a strong local market for office space other than for smaller businesses oriented towards a local clientele. Larger scale office/business park developments have experienced weak demand, leading to conversion to residential and other uses, in some cases.

4.4 Growth Projections
To estimate the future demand for residential development in the City of Fairfield through the General Plan time horizon (2050), BAE developed three residential growth projection scenarios, including baseline, accelerated, and maximum population and household growth .

These were based predominantly on projection data provided by ABAG. As shown in Tab le ES- 1 below, the total number of households in Fairfield is projected to range from roughly 45,200 to 47,550 by 2050, which would translate to between approximately 7,000 and 9,400 new households over the General Plan time horizon. Future housing demand and land use policy that is consistent with the City’s existing supply would yield approximately 74 percent of these units in the single-family category, while a shift in the local housing production to be more consistent with the historic regional pattern would increase the emphasis on multifamily production and reduce the share of single -family units produced as a percentage of new production. These household projections were used to establish a range of population growth estimates and to derive a range of residential housing unit demand estimates, which account for vacant units and units currently in the city’s development pipeline.

Packet Page 262 of 390Attachment 27 Page 8 of 65

vii

In terms of total Fairfield population, the city is projected to grow to between 142,940 and 150,130 total residents by 2050, or between 25,530 to 32,720 new residents. To accommodate the future population and household growth, BAE projects the number of housing units in Fairfield will grow by between roughly 7,500 and to 10,000 new units. By 2050, this would lead to a total citywide housing stock of approximately 47,580 to 50,070 housing units . This is the range the City may wish to consider as it evaluates the future need for housing in terms of available land to develop, redevelop, or annex. With a disproportionately low number of multifamily units in Fairfield compared to the region, and given increasing demand in the region for multifamily units, it may be prudent to target higher density residential development in areas where there is good access to public amenities, which can be enhanced by investing in new public improvements. Nonetheless, the availability and price point of single-family homes is one of the fundamental appeals of the city to new residents, so it is unlikely that the overall profile of housing unit types will shift dramatically towards multifamily units barring concerted City policy changes .

Table ES-1 below also summarizes the non -residential growth projections, including industrial, office, and retail demand over the General Plan time horizon. As seen below, the Baseline Projection scenario assumes roughly 2.7 million square feet of new industrial space,

1.9 million square feet of new office space, 764,250 square feet of new non -automotive retail space, and 14 acres of automotive-related retail land. The Accelerated Projection scenario assumes a robust increase in industrial space, aligning with stakeholder input and regional growth projections, yielding a total of 7.4 million square feet of new industrial space. Under this same growth scenario, office and retail demand projections are more modest, with 2.3 million square feet of office, and 876,300 square feet of non -automotive retail and 16 acres of automotive retail land. In terms of the Maximum Projection scenario, BAE estimates demand for roughly 11.1 million square feet of new industrial space, 2.5 million square feet of office space, nearly 1.0 million square feet of non-automotive retail space, and 18 acres of automotive retail land.

These projections indicate a range of growth potential over the n ext 30 years. To the extent that these projections suggest acceleration from past trends in the non-residential sectors in particular, it will most likely require concerted efforts to develop and promote the City’s available land to achieve these numbers. The City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan can provide important strategic guidance in this regard.

Packet Page 263 of 390Attachment 27 Page 9 of 65

viii

Table ES-1: Total Residential and Nonresidential Demand by Growth Scenario Note:
(a) For the detailed projection methodology, please see the Projections section of this report.

Sources: Association of Bay Area Governments; Esri; BAE, 2020.

Historic Projected (a)Growth (2020-2050)
City of Fairfield 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Number Percent Baseline Projections
Housing Units 37,194 40,101 44,749 46,423 47,583 7,482 18.7% Industrial (Sq. Ft.)12,473,713 15,595,777 16,335,891 17,278,656 18,283,484 2,687,707 17.2% Office (Sq. Ft.)2,585,386 2,705,519 3,376,367 3,914,792 4,579,247 1,873,728 69.3% Non-Auto Retail (Sq. Ft.)5,928,640 5,801,861 6,235,086 6,462,805 6,566,112 764,251 13.2% Auto Retail (Acres)n.a.62 70 74 76 14 23.1%
Accelerated Projections
Housing Units 37,194 40,101 44,749 47,582 48,846 8,745 21.8% Industrial (Sq. Ft.)12,473,713 15,595,777 17,632,596 20,227,117 22,992,438 7,396,661 47.4% Office (Sq. Ft.)2,585,386 2,705,519 3,419,604 4,190,528 5,022,815 2,317,296 85.7% Non-Auto Retail (Sq. Ft.)5,928,640 5,801,861 6,235,086 6,572,137 6,678,148 876,287 15.1% Auto Retail (Acres)n.a.62 70 77 79 16 26.5%
Maximum Projections
Housing Units 37,194 40,101 44,749 48,771 50,066 9,965 24.9% Industrial (Sq. Ft.)12,473,713 15,595,777 18,661,645 22,315,757 26,670,979 11,075,202 71.0% Office (Sq. Ft.)2,585,386 2,705,519 3,496,024 4,352,158 5,197,310 2,491,791 92.1% Non-Auto Retail (Sq. Ft.)5,928,640 5,801,861 6,235,086 6,672,875 6,781,378 979,517 16.9% Auto Retail (Acres)n.a.62 70 78 80 18 29.6%
Packet Page 264 of 390Attachment 27 Page 10 of 65

5 Introduction

5.1 Purpose of Study
In support of the City of Fairfield General Plan Update, BAE Urban Economics, in partnership with Dyett & Bhatia and the City of Fairfield, prepared the following Existing Conditions, Trends, and Opportunities Analysis. This report provides an overview of the existing demographic and economic conditions, local real estate market conditions and trends, and factors that will drive demand for various land use types over the General Plan planning horizon. Based on the forecasted population, household, and job growth, this study then estimates the anticipated demand for new housing units and new non -residential development through the General Plan time horizon of 2050.

5.2 Geographic Definitions
While this analysis focuses on evaluating the conditions and trends throughout the City of Fairfield, it also examines conditions in two additional geographic areas:
• At the highest level, the analysis considers data for California as a whole, to place local conditions and trends in a statewide context.
• The analysis also includes data for a nine-county region called the “ABAG Region,” which corresponds to the region under the jurisdiction of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). It consists of the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma . This geography is used as a regional comparison for the City of Fairfield.
• In some cases, data are unavailable for the City of Fairfield alone. In these cases, Solano County data provides a representation of characteristics within the City of Fairfield.

Packet Page 265 of 390Attachment 27 Page 11 of 65

2 6 Demographic Characteristics
The following section presents historic population, household, and housing characteristics and trends in the City of Fairfield, the ABAG Region, and the State of California, providing the demographic context for the General Plan Update . This section draws primarily from 2020 data from Esri Business Analyst, a private vendor of demographic, economic, and housing data, and 2018 five-year sample data from the US Census Bureau. In addition to current estimates, the following analysis also presents data from 2010 to identify important demographic trends over time within the city and region.

6.1 Population and Household Trends
Between 2010 and 2020, population growth in the City of Fairfield outpaced growth in the ABAG region and California by a substantial margin, reaching 117,413 total residents in 2020 .

This represents an 11.5 percent increase over the 2010 population, well above the growth in the ABAG Region and California, at 7.0 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively, over the same time period. The number of Fairfield households also grew rapidly, to 38,176 households in 2020. This amounts to a 10.7 percent increase since 2010, above the ABAG Region and California growth over that same time period, of 6.4 percent and 5.7 percent, respectively.

In all three geographies, the population growth outpaced household growth between 2010 and 2020, which is reflected in the slight increase in average household sizes over the time period .

The average household size of 3.02 in the City of Fairfield has remained consistently larger than that of the ABAG Region and California, which average 2.70 and 2.92 persons per household, respectively.

Table 1: Population and Households, 2010 and 2020
Note:
(a) The nine-county Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Region includes: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma counties.

Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2020; BAE, 2020.
% Change
Population 2010 2020 2010-2020
City of Fairfield 105,333 117,413 11.5%
ABAG Region (a)7,150,739 7,648,473 7.0%
California 37,253,956 39,648,525 6.4%
% Change
Households 2010 2020 2010-2020
City of Fairfield 34,488 38,176 10.7%
ABAG Region 2,608,023 2,775,585 6.4%
California 12,577,498 13,300,367 5.7%
Avg. Household Size 2010 2020
City of Fairfield 2.98 3.02
ABAG Region 2.69 2.70
California 2.90 2.92
Packet Page 266 of 390Attachment 27 Page 12 of 65

3 6.2 Household Composition
Although the majority of households in all three geographies are family households, the City of Fairfield has the greatest proportion of family households. As illustrated in Table 2, approximately 74.9 percent of Fairfield households are families, compared to 64.5 percent in the ABAG Region and 68.6 percent in California. This aligns with the higher average household sizes discussed previously, as family households are typically larger than non -family households. The proportion of family and non-family households has remained relatively constant in Fairfield between 2010 and 2020, indicating continuing strong demand for hous ing that can accommodate families.

Table 2: Household Competition, 2010 and 2020
Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2020; BAE, 2020.

6.3 Resident Age Distribution
The population in the City of Fairfield is slightly younger than the populations in the ABAG Region and California. As reported in Table 3, the median age in Fairfield is about 34.8 years, compared to 39.1 years in the ABAG Reg ion and 36.4 years in California. In all three geographies between 2010 and 2020, the fastest growing age cohorts are 55 years or older, which corresponds with the aging of the large baby boomer cohort . These residents are nearing or at the age of retirement and may drive demand for senior-specific services and housing within the city as they continue to age during the General Plan time horizon . That said, it is likely that demand from families will continue to be a major driver of demand for housing, retail, and services. However, although the oldest age cohorts grew the most substantially, the City’s relatively low median age can be attributed to its large proportion of people under the age of 18 and increasing number of residents between the ages of 25 an d 34. % Change
City of Fairfield Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2020 Family Households 25,841 74.9%28,599 74.9%10.7%
Non-Family Households 8,647 25.1%9,577 25.1%10.8%
Total Households 34,488 100%38,176 100%10.7%
% Change
ABAG Region Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2020
Family Households 1,685,972 64.6%1,790,066 64.5%6.2%
Non-Family Households 922,051 35.4%985,519 35.5%6.9%
Total Households 2,608,023 100%2,775,585 100%6.4%
% Change
California Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2020
Family Households 8,642,473 68.7%9,129,808 68.6%5.6%
Non-Family Households 3,935,025 31.3%4,170,559 31.4%6.0% Total Households 12,577,498 100%13,300,367 100%5.7%
2010 2020
2010 2020
2010 2020
Packet Page 267 of 390Attachment 27 Page 13 of 65

4 Table 3: Age Distribution, 2010 and 2020
Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2020; BAE, 2020.
% Change
City of Fairfield Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2020 Under 18 28,504 27.1%28,433 24.2%-0.2%
18-24 11,251 10.7%11,350 9.7%0.9%
25-34 14,688 13.9%19,210 16.4%30.8%
35-44 14,224 13.5%15,057 12.8%5.9%
45-54 15,197 14.4%13,799 11.8%-9.2%
55-64 10,679 10.1%14,105 12.0%32.1%
65 or older 10,790 10.2%15,459 13.2%43.3%
Total Population 105,333 100%117,413 100%11.5%
Median Age
% Change
ABAG Region Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2020
Under 18 1,589,673 22.2%1,607,223 21.0%1.1%
18-24 641,008 9.0%655,135 8.6%2.2%
25-34 1,052,669 14.7%1,109,648 14.5%5.4%
35-44 1,065,647 14.9%1,051,592 13.7%-1.3%
45-54 1,072,222 15.0%1,012,843 13.2%-5.5%
55-64 851,291 11.9%988,186 12.9%16.1%
65 or older 878,229 12.3%1,223,846 16.0%39.4%
Total Population 7,150,739 100%7,648,473 100%7.0%
Median Age
% Change
California Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2020
Under 18 9,295,040 25.0%9,057,970 22.8%-2.6%
18-24 3,922,951 10.5%3,854,436 9.7%-1.7%
25-34 5,317,877 14.3%6,159,922 15.5%15.8%
35-44 5,182,710 13.9%5,169,660 13.0%-0.3%
45-54 5,252,371 14.1%4,879,342 12.3%-7.1%
55-64 4,036,493 10.8%4,751,567 12.0%17.7%
65 or older 4,246,514 11.4%5,775,628 14.6%36.0%
Total Population 37,253,956 100%39,648,525 100%6.4%
Median Age

37.8 39.1
2010 2020

35.2 36.4
2010 2020

33.7 34.8
2010 2020
Packet Page 268 of 390Attachment 27 Page 14 of 65

5 6.4 Race and Ethnicity
Although Fairfield’s Hispanic and Latino populations increased substantially between 2010 and 2020, by approximately 24.2 percent, the majority of Fairfield residents are non -Hispanic or Latino. The city does, however, contain a higher percentage of Hispanic and Latino residents, at 30.5 percent, compared to the ABAG Region (23.7 percent), but less than the 39.8 percent in California. The absolute number of non-Hispanic White residents declined overall in Fairfield since 2010, falling to 31.5 percent of the city’s population, which is a smaller share than in the ABAG region or the state. In addition, 14.2 pe rcent of residents are Black/African American, while 6.6 percent are two or more races, and 1.0 percent are Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander. Asian residents comprise 15.7 percent of Fairfield residents, and the number increased by over 20 percent since 2010, which was the second-fastest rate of growth among racial and ethnic groups, after Hispanic/Latino residents. Correspondingly, Fairfield residents speak a variety of languages, including Spanish, Tagalog, Vietnamese, and Chinese (including Mandarin and Cantonese). Over one-fifth of the population speak Spanish. After English and Spanish, the next most-common language among Fairfield residents is Tagalog, spoken by six percent of the population.

Packet Page 269 of 390Attachment 27 Page 15 of 65

6 Table 4: Race and Ethnicity, 2010 and 2020
Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2020; BAE, 2020.

6.5 Educational Attainment
As shown in Table 5, all three geographies have similar percentage s of residents who have at least attained a high school diploma . However, the difference in educational attainment level is most prominent in the percentage of the City’s population with bachelor’s degrees or higher .

While only about 28.0 percent of Fairfield residents over the age of 25 attained bachelor’s degrees or higher, about 48.8 percent of ABAG Region residents and 34.7 percent of California residents attained post-secondary educational degrees. The difference between the percentage of residents in Fairfield earning high school diplomas or higher and those earning bachelor’s degrees or higher is due to the substantial concentration of Fairfield residents with some college experience or associate degrees relative to residents in the ABAG Region and Ca lifornia.

Additionally, the proportion of Fairfield residents who earned a graduate or professional degree is markedly less than the percentages in the region and state . % Change
City of Fairfield Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2020 Hispanic/Latino 28,797 27.3%35,764 30.5%24.2%
Not Hispanic/Latino 76,536 72.7%81,649 69.5%6.7%
White 37,091 35.2%36,947 31.5%-0.4%
Black/African American 15,994 15.2%16,631 14.2%4.0%
Native American 462 0.4%455 0.4%-1.5%
Asian 15,256 14.5%18,449 15.7%20.9%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 1,051 1.0%1,202 1.0%14.4% Other 231 0.2%243 0.2%5.2%
Two or More Races 6,451 6.1%7,722 6.6%19.7%
Total Population 105,333 100%117,413 100%11.5%
% Change
ABAG Region Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2020
Hispanic/Latino 1,681,800 23.5%1,811,718 23.7%7.7%
Not Hispanic/Latino 5,468,939 76.5%5,836,755 76.3%6.7%
White 3,032,903 42.4%2,894,159 37.8%-4.6%
Black/African American 460,178 6.4%438,239 5.7%-4.8%
Native American 20,691 0.3%19,381 0.3%-6.3%
Asian 1,645,872 23.0%2,116,184 27.7%28.6%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 41,003 0.6%42,465 0.6%3.6% Other 20,024 0.3%20,199 0.3%0.9%
Two or More Races 248,268 3.5%306,128 4.0%23.3%
Total Population 7,150,739 100%7,648,473 100%7.0%
% Change
California Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2020
Hispanic/Latino 14,013,719 37.6%15,793,829 39.8%12.7%
Not Hispanic/Latino 23,240,237 62.4%23,854,696 60.2%2.6% White 14,956,253 40.1%14,200,080 35.8%-5.1%
Black/African American 2,163,804 5.8%2,179,401 5.5%0.7% Native American 162,250 0.4%157,923 0.4%-2.7%
Asian 4,775,070 12.8%5,888,206 14.9%23.3%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 128,577 0.3%140,621 0.4%9.4% Other 85,587 0.2%83,916 0.2%-2.0%
Two or More Races 968,696 2.6%1,204,549 3.0%24.3%
Total Population 37,253,956 100%39,648,525 100%6.4%
2010 2020
2010 2020
2010 2020
Packet Page 270 of 390Attachment 27 Page 16 of 65

7 Table 5: Educational Attainment, 2020
Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2020; BAE, 2020.

6.6 Household Income Distribution
According to Esri data, the largest percentage of households in Fairfield and California had annual incomes between $100,000 and $149,999. In comparison, the largest group of households (24.5 percent) in the ABAG Region had incomes over $200,000. However, Fairfield also had the smallest proportion of households earning less than $15,000 compared to the region and state. With the distribution of household incomes shown in Table 6, the median household income in the City of Fairfield is about $87,831. Although this is higher than the median household income statewide, it is much lower than that of the ABAG Region median of $109,884. Furthermore, Fairfield has a lower per capita income of $36,609, compared to the per capita incomes in both the ABAG Region and California, at $55,656 and $37,302, respectively. The difference between median household income and per capita income in Fairfield can be attributed to the larger average household size in the city compared to the region and state. The lower per capita incomes in the city likely result in less discretionary spending potential to support retail and other businesses.

Packet Page 271 of 390Attachment 27 Page 17 of 65

8 Table 6: Household Income Distribution, 2020
Source: Esri Business Analyst, 2020; BAE, 2020.

6.7 Demographic Implications for General Plan
Update
For many of the population and household characteristics discussed above, Fairfield differs quite significantly from the ABAG Region and California, most notably due to its relatively fast population growth.

As of 2020, the City of Fairfield had approximately 117,413 residents, which represents an 11.5 percent increase over the 2010 population . This growth far outpaced the ABAG Region and California, which grew by only 7.0 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively . The number of households in each geography also grew at similar rate relative to population growth . This robust population and household growth pattern in Fairfield indicate strong housing demand, and the COVID-19 pandemic may continue this trend as people seek places where they c an afford more space to accommodate working from home.

The population in the City of Fairfield is also fairly diverse. While all three geographies have majority-minority populations, Fairfield has the largest proportion of minorities, at about 68.5 percent. The ages of residents are also somewhat evenly distributed, though Fairfield’s median age is lower than that in both the ABAG Region and state and the city has a higher percentage of children under 18 years of age . Across all geographies, the largest growth was among residents age 55 and over, with the biggest decrease among working -age adults aged 45 and

54. The majority of residents in all three areas, but especially in Fairfield, live in family households. With a larger majority of family households in Fairfield, its average household size is also higher than those in the ABAG Region and California, indicating strong demand for larger housing units that can accommodate couples and families with children, while also recognizing the needs of the City’s growing senior population.

Income Category Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Less than $15,000 2,020 5.3%175,573 6.3%1,161,091 8.7%
$15,000-$24,999 1,757 4.6%133,994 4.8%953,279 7.2%
$25,000-$34,999 1,586 4.2%124,237 4.5%925,496 7.0%
$35,000-$49,999 3,923 10.3%195,085 7.0%1,349,543 10.1%
$50,000-$74,999 6,512 17.1%329,147 11.9%2,051,166 15.4% $75,000-$99,999 5,623 14.7%297,842 10.7%1,634,081 12.3% $100,000-$149,999 8,531 22.4%491,347 17.7%2,261,121 17.0% $150,000-$200,000 4,060 10.6%347,502 12.5%1,242,444 9.3% Greater than $200,000 4,158 10.9%680,826 24.5%1,721,931 12.9% Total Households 38,170 100%2,775,553 100%13,300,152 100% Median HH Income
Per Capita Income $36,609 $55,656 $37,302
City of Fairfield ABAG Region California
$87,831 $109,884 $77,500
Packet Page 272 of 390Attachment 27 Page 18 of 65

9 Although Fairfield’s per capita income is comparable to California’s, the City’s median household income is noticeably higher due to the larger average household size. However, Fairfield’s per capita income and median household in come are still considerably lower than in the ABAG Region. This indicates the need for housing at a range of price levels, while the relatively low percentages of extremely low-income households and very high-income households suggests an emphasis on continuing to expand the supply of moderately priced housing as well as the supply of below-market rate housing. Moderately priced housing and below market rate housing in particular are needed to that the City provides an adequate supply of “workforce” housing that is affordable to local workers, lessening the need for workers to commute long distances and providing a valuable amenity for local businesses who most compete for workers within the regional labor market .

Residents in all three areas generally are likely to have completed at least a high school education, though Fairfield lags in the proportion of residents who have completed undergraduate degrees or higher, compared to the region and state.

Fairfield’s demographic attributes have implications for l ocal retail demand, as well as for broader economic development efforts that seek to link new business activity . The City’s retailers will need to tailor their offerings to the City’s diverse population with moderate incomes. This could include ethnic specialties, as well as retail and service offering catering to families and seniors. Economic development efforts will need to recognize the City’s labor force characteristics and target industries that can utilize local residents’ education and skills, while other industries may also be attracted to the city because of its relatively affordable housing stock and the City’s ability to increase its workforce housing supply, as discussed in subsequent chapters.

Packet Page 273 of 390Attachment 27 Page 19 of 65

10 7 Economic Characteristics
This section summarizes current economic conditions in the City of Fairfield and its comparison geographies. In addition to the geographies used in the previous section, this analysis also includes Solano County, as some sources only provide data at the co unty level.

This section draws on data from a number of sources, including data published by Esri, the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the Californ ia Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), and the US Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer -Household Dynamics (LEHD).

7.1 Labor Force Characteristics

UNEMPLOYMENT
Figure 1 shows the change in the annual unemployment rate from 2010 to 2019 in Fairfield, Solano County, and the ABAG region, revealing that the region had the lowest unemployment rate of the three geographies at the end of 2019, at 2.6 perc ent. As Table 7 shows, the ABAG region was also the most resilient to labor force impacts of the COVID -19 pandemic, as the unemployment rate climbed to just 5.9 percent in November 2020, compared to 7.4 percent in the city and 7.9 percent in the state .

Figure 1: Annual Unemployment Rate, 2010-2019

3.6%3.7%

4.5%5.2%5.5%

6.8%

8.2%

9.7%

11.0%

11.4%

2.6%2.8%

3.4%3.9%4.3%

5.4%

6.6%

8.1%

9.4%

10.2%

4.0%

4.3%4.8%

5.5%6.2%

7.5%

8.9%

10.4%

11.7%12.2%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%
2019201820172016201520142013201220112010
Fairfield city ABAG Region California
Packet Page 274 of 390Attachment 27 Page 20 of 65

11 Sources: California Employment Development Department, 2020; BAE, 2020 Table 7: Unemployment Rate, November 2020
Sources: California Employment Development Department, 2020; BAE, 2020

RESIDENT EMPLOYMENT
According to Esri, the industries employing the most Fairfield residents are: Healthcare/Social Assistance, Retail Trade, Manufacturing, Public Administration, and Construction. These industries account for 55.4 percent of employed residents in the city. By comparison, the industries employing the most ABAG region residents include: Professional, Scientific and Technical Services, Healthcare/Social Assistance, Manufacturing, and Finance and Insurance.

These industries account for 56.4 percent of the ABAG region’s employed residents. One of the most pronounced differences between the city and the Region is the 11.0 percentage point discrepancy in the share of employed residents working in the relatively high -paying Professional, Scientific and Technical Services industries. Generally, the differences among largest industries for resident employment in Fairfield ver sus the ABAG region correspond with the finding of higher household and per capita incomes and higher educational attainment in the region compared to the city.

Table 8: Employed Residents by Industry

Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2020; Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020; BAE 2020.

Labor Force Characteristics Labor Force Employment Number Percent City of Fairfield 52,200 48,300 3,900 7.4%
ABAG Region 4,070,500 3,830,500 240,000 5.9%
California 18,928,800 17,437,200 1,491,600 7.9%
Unemployment
Industry Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Accomodation/Food Services 2,564 5.5%187,943 5.2%936,012 5.6% Administrative/Support/Waste Management 1,931 4.1%146,990 4.0%739,327 4.4% Agricultural 631 1.3%25,110 0.7%370,286 2.2%
Arts/Entertainment/Recreation 724 1.5%59,160 1.6%323,967 1.9% Construction 3,595 7.6%237,389 6.5%1,230,684 7.3%
Educational Services 2,990 6.4%307,272 8.4%1,494,305 8.9% Finance & Insurance 2,224 4.7%160,279 4.4%648,093 3.9%
Healthcare/Social Assistance 9,168 19.5%491,798 13.5%2,314,215 13.8% Information 815 1.7%130,234 3.6%452,705 2.7%
Management of Companies 50 0.1%7,081 0.2%24,036 0.1%
Manufacturing 4,641 9.9%370,348 10.2%1,575,513 9.4%
Mining 82 0.2%2,642 0.1%24,085 0.1%
Other Services 1,502 3.2%157,387 4.3%807,675 4.8%
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 2,470 5.3%590,292 16.2%1,683,147 10.0% Public Administration 3,762 8.0%132,331 3.6%780,692 4.7% Real Estate/Rental/Leasing 656 1.4%90,780 2.5%423,706 2.5% Retail Trade 4,859 10.3%294,834 8.1%1,538,102 9.2%
Transportation/Warehouse 2,903 6.2%143,749 3.9%793,209 4.7% Utilities 492 1.0%23,374 0.6%121,967 0.7%
Wholesale Trade 936 2.0%83,161 2.3%488,208 2.9%
Total Employed Residents 46,995 100%3,642,154 100%16,769,934 100% City of Fairfield ABAG Region California
Packet Page 275 of 390Attachment 27 Page 21 of 65

12 WORKERS BY INDUSTRY
Notably, the largest industries for resident employment discussed above are not all the same as the largest industries providing employment in the city . Other than Healthcare/Social Assistance and Public Administration, three of the largest industries in the city are Retail Trade, Educational Services, and Accommodation/Food Services, accounting for nearly 30 percent of all jobs within the city. Note that these data include civilian employees at Travis Air Force base, but do not include about 10,000 uniformed servicemembers who are assigned to the base .

Civilian employees at Travis Air Force Base (about 3,000) are scattered across numerous sectors, but the three largest are Healthcare/Social Assistance; Public Administration; and Administration, Support and Waste Management.

For both Healthcare/Social Assistance and Public Administration, which are also two of the largest industries employing Fairfield residents at any location, whether in Fairfield or elsewhere), these industries account for a larger share of workers in the city than resident employment. This suggests that significant portions of the workers in these industries do not live in Fairfield, but these workers in particular might comprise some of the future housing demand that Fairfield could capture. These two industries, along with Administration, Support, and Waste Management, are also three of the largest industries employing the approximately 3,000 civilians who work at Travis Airforce Base. Workers commuting to Fairfield to work at Travis Air Force Base may be strong candidates to live in the city in the future if housing options that are suitable for their needs are made available .

Finally, although only accounting for 3.8 percent of jobs in the city, Wholesale Trade is a booming industry in Fairfield, based on discussions with experts in local commercial real estate. As this industry grows its share of overall jobs in the city over the next few years, the potential new jobs also present an opportunity for Fairfield to capture new residents who work in this growing sector, if the city can provide appropriate new housing .

Packet Page 276 of 390Attachment 27 Page 22 of 65

13 Table 9: Jobs by Industry, 2020
Notes:
(a) Universe consists of all wage and salary employment by place of work. Does not include self-employed persons not on payroll. Industry classification is not self-reported by individual workers. (b) Reporting of employment numbers can vary slightly between BLS and LEHD sources, e.g., LEHD aggregates public and private sectors of a given industry into one number whereas BLS does not. (c) Retail trade job loss may reflect industry recategorization.

Sources: Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), US Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020; BAE, 2020.

PRINCIPAL EMPLOYERS
The largest employers in Fairfield identified in the City of Fairfield’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) are shown below in Table 10, emphasizing government, healthcare, and educational institutions. Travis Air Force Base is by far the largest employer, with over 13,000 employees. As Fairfield is the county seat, it is home to the Solano County Government Center and the Solano County Sheriff headquarters making Solano County the second largest employer in Fairfield, followed by the local K-12 school district. Other health-related establishments, the City of Fairfield, plus Jelly- Belly Candy Company, and Westamerica Bank round out the list.

Industry Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 46 0.1%12,656 0.4%107,117 0.7% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 4 0.0%2,332 0.1%12,196 0.1% Utilities 42 0.1%16,420 0.5%55,700 0.3%
Construction 1,350 2.7%146,208 4.1%672,037 4.2%
Manufacturing 1,555 3.2%334,956 9.3%1,231,556 7.7%
Wholesale Trade 1,875 3.8%124,384 3.5%661,444 4.1%
Retail Trade 6,487 13.2%423,912 11.8%2,064,940 12.9%
Transportation and Warehousing 795 1.6%84,182 2.3%400,090 2.5% Information 762 1.6%241,201 6.7%562,206 3.5%
Finance and Insurance 1,102 2.2%146,671 4.1%615,279 3.8% Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,227 2.5%107,448 3.0%519,843 3.3% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 1,375 2.8%346,948 9.7%1,260,051 7.9% Management of Companies and Enterprises 21 0.0%7,919 0.2%35,395 0.2% Administration, Support, and Waste Mgmt.1,767 3.6%104,472 2.9%470,902 2.9% Educational Services 3,109 6.3%283,547 7.9%1,388,508 8.7% Health Care and Social Assistance 12,387 25.2%394,288 11.0%1,882,759 11.8% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1,182 2.4%100,556 2.8%546,873 3.4% Accommodation and Food Services 4,256 8.7%310,472 8.7%1,531,031 9.6% Other Services (exc. Public Administration)2,404 4.9%192,008 5.4%911,707 5.7% Public Administration 7,287 14.8%184,138 5.1%967,607 6.1% Unclassified 99 0.2%22,493 0.6%90,402 0.6%
Total Workers 49,132 100%3,587,211 100%15,987,643 100%
City of Fairfield ABAG Region California
Packet Page 277 of 390Attachment 27 Page 23 of 65

14 Table 10: Fairfield Principal Employers, 2020

Sources: City of Fairfield, 2020; BAE, 2020.

COMMUTE PATTERNS
A greater share of Fairfield residents commutes less than 20 minutes to work, at 41.1 percent, compared to ABAG region residents at 32.0 percent. A similar share of residents commute more than 40 minutes to work, with 31.6 percent in Fairfield and 30.7 percent regionwide. By comparison, only 25.5 percent of California residents commute more than 40 minutes to work.

In terms of where commuters are going, nearly 37 percent of Fairfield residents are commuting within the city, which helps to explain some of the shorter commute times compared to the ABAG region. However, over 30 percent of residents are also commuting further away, to places like San Francisco, Alameda County, Contra Costa County, and Sacramento . Table 12 lists the top commuting destinations for employed Fairfield residents in descending order, showing that an additional 23.8 percent of employed residents commute further still, commuting to work in numerous more distant and widely dispersed counties, all of which individually account for less than 5.4 percent of Fairfield workers.

Over half of workers with jobs in Fairfield live in Solano County, although only 24.2 percent live in Fairfield. While over 60 percent of Fairfield workers live in Solano or Napa County, the large proportion of local workers who live in more distant counties, including Sacramento County (6.0%), Yolo County (3.5%) and San Joaquin County (2.5%), indicates a large part of the Fairfield workforce is commuting long distances to work. Further, the commute pattern indicates that the local workers with longer commutes may be seeking more a ffordable housing prices in communities to the east. Notably, Contra Costa County, immediately to the west of Solano County and typically a more expensive housing market, does not appear in the list of top residence locations for Fairfield workers.

Major Employers Industry Employees
Travis Air Force Base U.S. Military 13,414
County of Solano Government 2,633
Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District Eduction 2,213 NorthBay Healthcare Center Healthcare 1,969
Solano Community College Education 750
City of Fairfield Government 571
Partnership HealthPlan Healthcare 561
Jelly Belly Candy Co.Manufacturing 489
Sutter Fairfield Medical Campus Healthcare 475
Westamerica Bank Banking 418
City of Fairfield
Packet Page 278 of 390Attachment 27 Page 24 of 65

15 Table 11: Commute Time, 2020
Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2020; BAE, 2020.

Table 12: Commute Flow, 2018
Sources: U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics via OnTheMap, 2020; BAE, 2020.

TAXABLE SALES
While generating important revenues to support the City’s General Fund operations as well as specially-designated purposes such as transportation and transit services, taxable sales are an indicator of local retail sales activity. Table 13 shows the total and per capita taxable sales in Fairfield and Solano County in 2019. Per capita sales in the County are somewhat higher than in Fairfield, which may be linked to lower overall per capita and household incomes in the city compared to the county overall. This suggests that the potential for new retail d evelopment based on local population growth may not be as high as elsewhere in the County based on 2019 spending levels. That said, a portion of the lower per capita taxable sales figures in Fairfield may be driven by residents leaving the city to make purchases at retail locations outside of the city (i.e., retail leakage) in locations such as the large outlet center in Vacaville. This may create an opportunity for Fairfield to fill existing retail gaps to capture a higher share of resident spending within the city.

Commute Time Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Less than 10 Minutes 5,246 10.3%272,891 7.6%1,592,067 9.4% 10-19 Minutes 15,595 30.7%871,841 24.4%4,581,764 27.1%
20-29 Minutes 7,602 15.0%685,271 19.2%3,403,150 20.2%
30-39 Minutes 6,255 12.3%649,592 18.2%3,001,440 17.8%
40-59 Minutes 6,882 13.6%566,895 15.8%2,241,414 13.3%
Greater than 1 Hour 9,160 18.1%530,604 14.8%2,063,568 12.2% Total 50,740 100%3,577,094 100%16,883,403 100%
City of Fairfield ABAG Region California
Employed Residents Workers
Place of Work Number Percent Place of Residence Number Percent Solano County 18,541 36.8%Solano County 23,841 57.0%
Fairfield city 10,109 20.1%Fairfield city 10,109 24.2%
Vacaville city 3,457 6.9%Vacaville city 5,932 14.2%
Vallejo city 2,175 4.3%Suisun city 2740 6.5%
All Other Solano County 2,800 5.6%Vallejo city 2,586 6.2% Contra Costa County 6,024 12.0%Dixon city 604 1.4%
Concord city 1,316 2.6%Benicia city 599 1.4%
All Other Contra Costa County 4,708 9.3%All Other Solano County 1,271 3.0% Alameda County 4,414 8.8%Sacramento Couty 2,494 6.0%
Oakland city 1,542 3.1%Sacramento city 824 2.0%
All Other Alameda County 2,872 5.7%All Other Sacramento County 1,670 4.0% Napa County 3,751 7.4%Napa County 1,560 3.7%
Napa city 1,782 3.5%Napa city 821 2.0%
All Other Napa County 1,969 3.9%American Canyon city 440 1.1% San Francisco County 2,938 5.8%All Other Napa County 299 0.7% Sacramento Couty 2,745 5.4%Yolo County 1,454 3.5%
Sacramento city 1,277 2.5%Alameda County 1,379 3.3%
All Other Sacramento County 1,468 2.9%San Joaquin County 1,039 2.5% All Other Locations 11,982 23.8%All Other Locations 10,071 24.1% Total, Employed Residents 50,395 100%Total, All Jobs 41,838 100% Packet Page 279 of 390Attachment 27 Page 25 of 65

16 Research from Marketek, who conducted a ‘Retail Market and Trend Analysis’ for the Heart of Fairfield Business Development Roadmap, suggests that categories with significant leakage1 in the City of Fairfield include restaurants, building materials and gardening, apparel and accessories, and miscellaneous specialty retailers. Some of the retail categories with leakage may simply be masked by sales captured in large department stores and big box stores that are categorized as General Merchandise, although in general, new retail development should seek to fill gaps in retail offerings in the city. However, as Marketek points out, the potential for new brick-and-mortar retail may have been permanently undermined by the impacts of the pandemic and the accelerated shift towards e -commerce, so there may be less of a direct correlation between taxable sales per capita or retail leakage, and demand for retail space.

Table 13: Taxable Sales, 2019
Note:
(a) Based on 2019 population estimates published by the Department of Finance.

Sources: California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), 2020; California Department of Finance, 2020; BAE, 2020.

1 A retail gap or leakage is found by comparing retail supply (i.e., actual retail sales) with retail demand (i.e., the expected amount spent by Fairfield households based on income and consumer expenditure patterns).

City of Fairfield Solano County
Per Per
Category Number Percent Capita (a)Number Percent Capita (a) Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers $296,583,063 14.4%$2,550 $1,067,619,933 12.9%$2,433 Furnishings and Appliance Stores $65,714,404 3.2%$565 $206,131,060 2.5%$470 Bldg. Matrl. and Garden Equipment $105,800,356 5.1%$910 $416,780,776 5.1%$950 Food and Beverage Stores $65,548,168 3.2%$564 $266,835,335 3.2%$608 Gasoline Stations $201,141,364 9.8%$1,729 $709,968,445 8.6%$1,618 Clothing and Clothing Accessories $102,588,877 5.0%$882 $434,847,295 5.3%$991 General Merchandise Stores $198,415,693 9.6%$1,706 $800,077,249 9.7%$1,823 Food Services and Drinking Places $205,328,559 10.0%$1,765 $758,192,549 9.2%$1,728 Other Retail Group $85,710,897 4.2%$737 $618,171,249 7.5%$1,409 Subtotal, All Retail and Food $1,326,831,381 64.4%$11,407 $5,278,623,891 64.0%$12,029 All Other Outlets $732,768,721 35.6%$6,300 $2,972,648,078 36.0%$6,774 Total, All Outlets $2,059,600,102 100%$17,706 $8,251,271,969 100%$18,803 Packet Page 280 of 390Attachment 27 Page 26 of 65

17 ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Unemployment in Fairfield has corresponded more with statewide trends than regional trends .

Prior to the pandemic, the 3.6 percent unemployment rate in Fairfield was comparable to the

4.0 percent rate statewide, while in the ABAG region, the unemployment rate was only 2.6 percent. Furthermore, in November 2020, the pandemic led to increased unemployment rates across all three geographies, but the unemployment rates in Fairfield (7.6 percent) and the state (7.9 percent) are comparable, and higher than the 5.9 percent unemployment rate in t he ABAG region. This suggests that economic and market forces influence the Fairfield economy differently as compared to the larger ABAG region . Indeed, the industries employing Fairfield residents are not the same as those employing regional residents ove rall. Specifically, there is a large gap between Fairfield resident employment in higher paying industries relative to the ABAG region, such as Professional, Scientific and Technical Services, which have also proven more resilient than many other industries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Data on jobs in the city reveals that a larger share of jobs in the city are in Public Administration and Healthcare/Social Assistance than there are Fairfield residents employed in those industries. As mentioned previously, major city employers include Travis Air Force Base, the City of Fairfield and Solano County government plus public educational institutions and various large healthcare related establishments. Fairfield may be able to capture a larger portion of these local workers who commute into the city, particularly the relatively large number of commuters from nearby cities like Vacaville, Suisun City, Vallejo, and Dixon.

Diversification of the Fairfield economy, to more closely reflect the Bay Area jobs by industry could help to make the local economy more robust and resilient, and also increase local household income levels, to the extent that workers in higher-wage industries can be attracted to live in Fairfield. All else being equal, if Fairfield, attracts more higher-income residents, then per capita taxable sales occurring in the city may rise closer to the level of per capita taxable sales in Solano County. This would support slightly more retail development in the future than if per capita spending remains at its current levels.

Packet Page 281 of 390Attachment 27 Page 27 of 65

18 8 Real Estate Market Conditions
This section summarizes current real estate market conditions and trends in the City of Fairfield, the ABAG Region, and California using data published by Esri, US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), the California Department of Housing and Community Development, ListSource, Redfin, and CoStar. The analysis also draws from a number of interviews with real estate brokers, Realtors, and other key real estate professionals active in the Fairfield area.

8.1 Residential Market Overview
The following section summarizes key housing market characteristics within the City of Fairfield as well as residential sales prices and rental rate trends compared to the regional context.

HOUSEHOLD TENURE
Compared to the ABAG region and the state, Fairfield has a much higher rate of homeowner households, which comprise 61.6 percent of city households. Moreover, the increase in owner households between 2010 and 2020 (12.9 percent), was more than double the rate in the ABAG region and triple the rate in California. Given the overall faster rate of growth in households over the past decade in Fairfield, growth in owner households was not at the expense of growth in renter households, which increased in line with trends in both the region and state. This is summarized in Table 14. These findings confirm comments from stakeholders and those knowledgeable about the local real estate market interviewed for this study that describe one of Fairfield’s fundamental appeals to be the relative affordability of single-family homes in the city.

Table 14: Household Tenure, 2010 and 2020
Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2020; BAE, 2020.
% Change
City of Fairfield Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2020 Owner-Occupied 20,827 60.4%23,513 61.6%12.9%
Renter-Occupied 13,661 39.6%14,663 38.4%7.3%
Total Households 34,488 100%38,176 100%10.7%
% Change
ABAG Region Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2020
Owner-Occupied 1,465,362 56.2%1,554,588 56.0%6.1%
Renter-Occupied 1,142,661 43.8%1,220,997 44.0%6.9%
Total Households 2,608,023 100%2,775,585 100%6.4%
% Change
California Number Percent Number Percent 2010-2020
Owner-Occupied 7,035,371 55.9%7,324,702 55.1%4.1%
Renter-Occupied 5,542,127 44.1%5,975,665 44.9%7.8%
Total Households 12,577,498 100%13,300,367 100%5.7%
2010 2020
2010 2020
2010 2020
Packet Page 282 of 390Attachment 27 Page 28 of 65

19 UNITS IN STRUCTURE
As shown in Table 15, about 73.6 percent of the housing stock in the City of Fairfield is single- family units, most of which are detached units . The regional and statewide comparison geographies also have large shares of single-family units, where they make up 62.4 percent and

64.9 percent, respectively, though Fairfield has a higher concentration of these unit types .

Conversely, Fairfield contains a relatively low supply of multifamily units, accounting for only

23.9 percent of the housing stock, compared to 35.6 percent in the ABAG Region and 31.2 percent statewide. This difference is especially pronounced in duplexes and complexes with more than 20 units. This undersupply of higher density housing may be excluding certain household types and income levels from finding housing within Fairfield . This is consistent with several local stakeholder conversations, which also highlighted the need for denser single-family units and multifamily housing developments that are a ffordable for new homebuyers, seniors, and the workforce, including military personnel . Most notably, the lack of accessible and affordable homes for seniors force the elderly to relocate outside of the City of Fairfield due to the lack of supply. As the baby boomer cohort continues to age, as shown previously in Table 3, the need for senior-oriented housing will continue to escalate.

Table 15: Units in Structure, 2018
Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2020; US Census Bureau, ACS, 2014-2018 five-year sample data, Table B25024, 2020; BAE, 2020.

YEAR BUILT
Table 16 shows that Fairfield’s housing stock began growing in earnest between 1960 and 1969 and the city has added to its housing stock steadily in the subsequent decades. Compared to the region and the state, the data indicate that Fairfield has added proportionately more housing in every decade since the 1970s . This means that Fairfield’s housing stock is also comparatively new; however, there is still a substantial portion of the city’s housing stock that is 30 or more years of age, indicating the need for continued widespread investments in housing maintenance and rehabilitation .

Units in Structure Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 1 Unit, Detached 25,453 67.2%1,535,495 53.3%8,157,883 57.9% 1 Unit, Attached 2,423 6.4%261,884 9.1%991,403 7.0%
2 Units 387 1.0%100,432 3.5%344,085 2.4%
3-4 Units 1,806 4.8%177,705 6.2%777,985 5.5%
5-9 Units 2,859 7.5%169,283 5.9%859,787 6.1%
10-19 Units 1,652 4.4%153,463 5.3%731,491 5.2%
20-49 Units 851 2.2%158,035 5.5%691,834 4.9%
50+ Units 1,499 4.0%266,831 9.3%995,111 7.1%
Mobile Home/Boat/RV/Van/etc.962 2.5%58,888 2.0%535,245 3.8% Total, Housing Units 37,892 100%2,882,016 100%14,084,824 100% City of Fairfield ABAG Region California
Packet Page 283 of 390Attachment 27 Page 29 of 65

20 Table 16: Year Built, 2018
Sources: Esri Business Analyst, 2020; US Census Bureau, American Community Survey (ACS), 2014-2018 five-year sample data, Table B25034, 2020; BAE, 2020.

VACANCY
Based on data shown in Table 17, Fairfield’s residential vacancy rate is 4.1 percent, which is lower than the vacancy rates of the ABAG Region and California of 5.8 percent and 7.9 percent, respectively. As most economists consider a vacancy rate of about five percent t o represent a healthy level of vacancy for a given geography, Fairfield is showing signs of a slight undersupply of housing, especially within the for-sale inventory. Within the city and the ABAG Region, the largest share of vacant units is characterized a s vacant for other reasons, followed by units for rent. California, on the other hand, has a sizeable share of vacant units for seasonal use, which are typically located in resort towns and second-home communities.

This low vacancy demonstrated in Fairfie ld, which is from the ACS 2014-2018 five-year data is especially pronounced and even exacerbated during the COVID -19 pandemic, according to several local real estate professionals . With low inventory and increasing demand for housing due to low interest rates and relative affordability of Fairfield compared to other nearby cities, homes are selling extremely quickly, and at higher prices, compared to before the pandemic.

Table 17: Housing Occupancy and Vacancy Status, 2018
Note:
(a) Includes units vacant for other reasons, such as personal reasons of the owner, use by a caretaker or janitor, and boarded-up units not available for occupancy.

Sources: US Census Bureau, ACS, 2014-2018 five-year estimates, Tables B25002, B25004, B25014, 2020; BAE, 2020.

Year Built Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Pre-1939 358 0.9%426,498 14.8%1,299,679 9.2%
1940-1949 464 1.2%187,923 6.5%849,660 6.0%
1950-1959 3,096 8.2%382,020 13.3%1,900,467 13.5%
1960-1969 4,533 12.0%409,179 14.2%1,892,586 13.4%
1970-1979 7,017 18.5%501,359 17.4%2,488,636 17.7%
1980-1989 8,638 22.8%365,509 12.7%2,135,838 15.2%
1990-1999 5,886 15.5%273,393 9.5%1,536,758 10.9%
2000-2009 6,281 16.6%250,907 8.7%1,598,759 11.4%
2010+1,619 4.3%85,228 3.0%382,441 2.7%
Total, Housing Units 37,892 100%2,882,016 100%14,084,824 100% City of Fairfield ABAG Region California
City of Fairfield ABAG Region California
Occupancy/Vacancy Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Occupied Housing Units 36,348 95.9%2,715,010 94.2%12,965,435 92.1% Vacant Housing Units 1,544 4.1%167,006 5.8%1,119,389 7.9% For rent 454 1.2%38,232 1.3%217,600 1.5%
For sale only 135 0.4%10,012 0.3%83,128 0.6%
Rented or sold, not occupied 72 0.2%21,330 0.7%112,207 0.8% For seasonal use 100 0.3%37,908 1.3%388,227 2.8%
For migrant workers 0 0.0%157 0.0%3,312 0.0%
Other vacant (a)783 2.1%59,367 2.1%314,915 2.2%
Total, All Housing Units 37,892 100%2,882,016 100%14,084,824 100% Packet Page 284 of 390Attachment 27 Page 30 of 65

21 MULTIFAMILY RENTAL HOUSING MARKET
According to multifamily rental market data in Q3 2020 provided by CoStar, shown in Table 18 on the following page, the City of Fairfield has an inventory of about 5,000 multifamily housing units. Of these, about 56.3 percent are two-bedroom units, followed by 36.2 percent one- bedroom units. Unlike multifamily for-sale units, as shown in Table 19, only a small percentage of multifamily rental units (about 1.3 percent) are three -bedroom units. Currently, the average rental rate is about $1,700, which is a slight increase of about 5.4 pe rcent from Q3 2019. This contrasts with the trend in the ABAG Region, which saw a decrease of about 5.1 percent between Q3 2019 and Q3 2020. Part of the reason for the increasing local rents may be Fairfield’s very low multifamily rental vacancy rate (2.9 percent), which is far lower than the

8.4 percent vacancy rate of the ABAG Region, and the benchmark five percent vacancy rate that is widely considered indicative of a reasonable balance between supply and demand. This may also be driven by residents throughout the region leaving the higher-priced inner Bay Area cities for more affordable rental units, facilitated by the increase in work-from-home arrangements due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Given the absence of newly completed rental projects and units unde r construction in Fairfield, the absorption of available multifamily rental units is very strong among all unit sizes, demonstrating solid demand for this type of housing that is not currently being met by increases in supply .

Packet Page 285 of 390Attachment 27 Page 31 of 65

22 Table 18: Multifamily Rental Summary by Unit Size, Q3 2020 (c) Notes:
(a) Unit totals may not add up due to some units lacking classification by number of bedrooms. (b) Data suppressed due to insufficient data.
(c) Market-rate units only.

Sources: CoStar, 2020; BAE, 2020.

City of Fairfield
All Unit
Types (a)Studio 1BR 2BR 3BR 4+ BR (b)
Inventory, Q3 2020 (units) 5,027 312 1,818 2,831 65 n.a. % of Units (a)100%6.2%36.2%56.3%1.3%n.a.

Average Unit Size (sq. ft.)835 439 699 933 1,313 n.a.

Vacant Units 148 7 52 88 1 n.a.

Vacancy Rate 2.9%2.2%2.9%3.1%1.5%n.a.

Average Rents, Q3 2019 - Q3 2020 (per unit) (c)
Average Rent, Q3 2019 $1,607 $1,202 $1,485 $1,696 $2,236 n.a.

Average Rent, Q3 2020 $1,694 $1,311 $1,580 $1,776 $2,367 n.a. % Change Q3 2019 - Q3 2020 5.4%9.1%6.4%4.7%5.9%n.a.

Net Absorption
One-Year Net Absorption (units), Q3 2019 - Q3 2020 0 0 0 0 0 n.a.

Ten-Year Net Absorption (units), Q3 2010 - Q3 2020 541 21 272 226 19 n.a.

New Deliveries (units), Q3 2019 - Q3 2020 0 0 0 0 0 n.a.

Under Construction (units), Q3 2020 0 0 0 0 0 n.a.

ABAG Region
All Unit
Types Studio 1BR 2BR 3BR 4+ BR
Inventory, Q3 2020 (units) 570,747 160,580 201,367 182,854 23,302 2,644 % of Units (a)100%28.1%35.3%32.0%4.1%0.5%
Average Unit Size (sq. ft.)820 522 694 965 1,275 1,844
Vacant Units 47,725 12,993 18,068 14,526 1,952 187
Vacancy Rate 8.4%8.1%9.0%7.9%8.4%7.1%
Average Rents, Q3 2019 - Q3 2020 (per unit) (c)
Average Rent, Q3 2019 $2,487 $2,078 $2,272 $2,687 $3,536 $5,686 Average Rent, Q3 2020 $2,359 $1,926 $2,133 $2,567 $3,448 $5,717 % Change Q3 2019 - Q3 2020 -5.1%-7.3%-6.1%-4.5%-2.5%0.5% Net Absorption
One-Year Net Absorption (units), Q3 2019 - Q3 2020 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ten-Year Net Absorption (units), Q3 2010 - Q3 2020 29,342 239 14,609 13,151 1,347 (3) New Deliveries (units), Q3 2019 - Q3 2020 9,863 1,159 4,475 3,489 666 74 Under Construction (units), Q3 2020 14,804 6,236 4,778 3,202 525 63 Packet Page 286 of 390Attachment 27 Page 32 of 65

23 FOR-SALE HOUSING MARKET
According to data from ListSource in Table 19, there were about 1,273 single-family home sales and 87 townhome and condominium sales between December 2019 and December 20202.

During this time period, the most commonly sold single -family residences were three or more bedrooms, making up 97.3 percent of all single-family sales. The median sale price was about $515,000, and the average sale price was slightly higher at about $540,000 . The average sales price per square foot was about $275. The average and median living area were both about 2,000 square feet, though there is a drastic difference between the average and median lot size.

As several home sales included large lots of agriculture and greenspace, the average lot area was skewed upwards to nearly 10,000 square feet. Controlling for these outliers, the median lot area was about 6,000 square feet, which be tter illustrates the lot size for the typical single- family residence.

Among townhome and condominium for-sale units, the most popular unit types had two or three bedrooms, making up 83.9 percent of multifamily sales. The median sales price was about $265,000, and the average sales price was about $290,000. Given the smaller unit types compared to single -family residences, the average and median living area is also smaller at about 1,200 square feet. The average sale price per square foot, about $242, was also lower than the average single-family sale price. This runs contrary to typical market dynamics, where smaller units often sell for higher prices per square foot . This suggests that the inventory of higher-density for-sale units in Fairfield may be older and in worse condition relative to the single-family inventory in Fairfield. In addition, in other communities, higher density for-sale units are often located in amenity-rich locations where buyers are willing to pay a per square foot premium for the access to shopping, dining, jobs, arts and cultural attractions, or other desirable community features. This price premium is often necessary to make higher density multifamily for-sale projects financially feasible, given increased construction costs r elative to low-density housing types.

2 Some sales records were missing crucial data points, such as number of bedrooms and sales price, and thus were excluded from this analysis.

Packet Page 287 of 390Attachment 27 Page 33 of 65

24 Table 19: Characteristics of Home Sales by Type, City of Fairfield, Dec. 2019 to Dec. 2020

Sources: ListSource, 2020; BAE, 2020.

Figure 2 shows longer-term trends in the median sale price of single -family residences using data from Redfin between 2012 and 2020 for the City of Fairfield as well as each county in the ABAG Region and for the State of California as a whole . These data indicate that the citywide median home sale price falls far below the other counties within the region and state overall, though it remains consistent with the median price within Solano County . Because the figure shows data following the Great Recession of 2008, all jurisdictions have seen increasing sale prices through this time period.

Single-Family Residences
Sale Price Range 1 BD 2 BD 3 BD 4+ BD Total % Total
Less than $400,000 0 22 147 28 197 15.5%
$400,000-$499,999 1 10 239 141 391 30.7%
$500,000-$599,999 1 1 121 210 333 26.2%
$600,000-$699,999 0 0 23 179 202 15.9%
$700,000-799,999 0 0 5 59 64 5.0%
$800,000-$999,999 0 0 8 49 57 4.5%
$1,000,000 or more 0 0 8 21 29 2.3%
Total, SFR Sales 2 33 551 687 1,273 100%
% of Total 0.2%2.6%43.3%54.0%100%
Median Sale Price $532,000 $365,000 $445,000 $580,000 $513,620 Average Sale Price $532,000 $371,758 $470,882 $602,826 $539,615 Median Living Area (sq. ft.)1,835 1,072 1,475 2,378 1,923 Average Living Area (sq. ft.)1,835 1,159 1,601 2,449 2,049 Median Lot Size (sq. ft.)20,640 5,200 6,013 6,970 6,355 Average Lot Size (sq. ft.)20,640 6,047 10,085 9,851 9,880 Average Price per Living sq. ft.$292 $329 $302 $251 $275 Townhomes/Condominiums
Sale Price Range 1 BD 2 BD 3 BD 4+ BD Total % Total
Less than $300,000 9 30 11 0 50 57.5%
$300,000-$399,999 0 10 12 1 23 26.4%
$400,000-$499,999 0 4 3 2 9 10.3%
$500,000-$599,999 0 0 2 0 2 2.3%
$600,000-699,999 0 0 1 0 1 1.1%
$700,000-$899,999 0 0 0 2 2 2.3%
$1,000,000 or more 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%
Total, Townhome Sales 9 44 29 5 87 100%
% of Total 10.3%50.6%33.3%5.7%100%
Median Sale Price $170,000 $245,000 $343,000 $475,000 $265,000 Average Sale Price $184,389 $253,791 $331,267 $584,300 $291,431 Median Living Area (sq. ft.)648 1,022 1,306 1,520 1,164 Average Living Area (sq. ft.)666 1,073 1,407 2,046 1,198 Average Price per Living sq. ft.$277 $234 $233 $303 $242 Packet Page 288 of 390Attachment 27 Page 34 of 65

25 These data indicate that the Fairfield home sales market primarily serves larger households seeking traditional single-family homes that are more affordable than homes that are available within the inner Bay Area. There are much more limited options for homebuyers seeking to purchase smaller homes or homes in multifamily building configurations.

Figure 2: Median Home Sale Price, Single-Family Residences, 2012 -2020

Sources: Redfin, 2020; BAE, 2020.

DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE

$0K
$200K
$400K
$600K
$800K
$1,000K
$1,200K
$1,400K
$1,600K
$1,800K
$2,000K
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
City of Fairfield Alameda County Contra Costa County
Marin County Napa County San Francisco County
San Mateo County Santa Clara County Solano County
Sonoma County California
Packet Page 289 of 390Attachment 27 Page 35 of 65

26 Table 20 shows the number of housing units in the city’s residential development pipeline .

These 1,964 units are either yet to be built in projects that have already begun construction, are in approved projects that have not yet been begun construction or are unde r construction as of Q4 2020. As discussed later in the Housing Units Demand Analysis section, these units are subtracted from the estimate of housing demand by 2050, as some of the projected demand will be met by these units once they deliver.

Packet Page 290 of 390Attachment 27 Page 36 of 65

27 Table 20: Fairfield Residential Development Pipeline Notes:
(a) Remaining units in active projects are units in projects that have built some units, but not all the units they are planned/permitted for. These remaining units are also not currently under construction (b) Units in new planned products are units in developments that have been approved but have not yet begun construction
(c) Units under construction refer to units that are currently being built and have not yet been completed.

Sources: City of Fairfield; BAE, 2020.

KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
One of the fundamental appeals of Fairfield is the relative affordability of single -family homes compared to elsewhere in the region, which explains not only the disproportionately high rate of family households in the city, but also the disproportionately high growth in family households in the city over the past ten years. However, there has not been a similar increase in the supply of multifamily units and condos that could be affordable to a wider range of households, including some of the city’s workforce and households desiring smaller housing units for lifestyle or affordability reasons. Stakeholders identify this need for denser single - family units and multifamily housing tha t are affordable for new homebuyers, seniors, and the workforce, including military personnel, which may present an opportunity for the city as it reconsiders zoning and density, and permissible development types . At the same time, the relatively low price per square foot for existing multifamily for-sale units in Fairfield is likely a challenge for development feasibility. The city could seek to address this challenge by targeting higher density residential development in areas where there is good access t o amenities and by investing in new public improvements that will add further value to the targeted locations .

The city’s 4.1 percent residential vacancy rate suggests there is currently an undersupply of housing, as approximately five percent is considered healthy in a market that is predominantly single-family for-sale homes. This may reflect the increasing popularity of Fairfield for homebuyers, although ultimately it indicates that development must increase to keep up with demand. This is especially true for multifamily housing, among which the vacancy rate is only

2.9 percent, which has led to increasing monthly rents while rents in the ABAG Region have fallen. Therefore, there is an undersupply of both single-family and multifamily units, and particularly larger multifamily units. The number of family households in the city would suggest that larger units are more appropriate to meet housing demand in Fairfield, and the lack of three-bedroom multifamily units is one gap in the market that may b e an opportunity for the city to address.

Residential Pipeline Number
Remaining Units in Active Projects (a)383
Units in New Planned Projects (b)1,528
Units Under Construction, Q4 2020 (c) 53
Total 1,964
Packet Page 291 of 390Attachment 27 Page 37 of 65

28 8.2 Housing Affordability
The following section discusses the number of households that live in the City of Fairfield by income level, cost burden, and tenure, to approximate the maximum affordable rental rates and for-sale home prices that households can pay without incurring excessive housing cost burdens and assess the current affordability of the local housing market in relation to local household incomes.

INCOME LIMITS BY FAMILY SIZE
Table 21 identifies the maximum income within each income bracket by number of persons in a household for Solano County in 2020. This adjustment for household size is in recognition that larger households require a higher income to achieve the same overall standard of living .

For example, an income of $60,000 per year would place a single -person household in the median-income category, while a four-person household with the same income would be considered low-income, by comparison. Each income bracket is based on the median family income (MFI) for a family of four, which is $95,400 in Solano County.

Table 21: HCD Income Limits, Solano County, 2020
Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 2020; BAE, 2020.

AFFORDABLE RENTAL COSTS
Table 22 calculates the rental rates that can be considered affordable to households at each income level, based on the HCD income limits shown above . The rental rates assume that households can afford to spend up to 30 percent of their gross income on housing, including the monthly rent, plus utility costs, such as heating, cooling, water heating, lighting, refrigeration, and small appliance usage . Other utility costs, such as water, sewer, and garbage collection are assumed to be provided at no additional cost to the tenant (i.e., the cost i s included as part of the monthly rent paid to the property owner). Depending on the household size and associated unit demand, an extremely low -income household at up to 30 percent of the MFI can afford to pay between $435 and $643 per month in rent . A low-income household at up to 80 percent of the MFI can afford to pay between $1,244 and $1,874 in monthly rent .

Median Family Income $95,400
Number of Persons in Household
Income Level One Two Three Four Five
Extremely Low-Income (30% MFI)$19,450 $22,200 $25,000 $27,750 $30,680 Very Low-Income (50% MFI)$32,400 $37,000 $41,650 $46,250 $49,950 Low-Income (80% MFI)$51,800 $59,200 $66,600 $73,950 $79,900 Median Income (100% MFI)$66,800 $76,300 $85,850 $95,400 $103,050 Moderate-Income (120% MFI)$80,150 $91,600 $103,050 $114,500 $123,650 Packet Page 292 of 390Attachment 27 Page 38 of 65

29 RENTAL HOUSING AFFORDABILITY GAP
Juxtaposing the affordable rent levels with the market -rate rents shown in Table 18, lower income households (i.e., in the low-, very low-, and extremely low-income categories) cannot afford rents without incurring excessive cost burdens . This places these lower-income households in a difficult position, where they must decide between living in crowded conditions, substandard housing, or overpaying for housing . At the lowest income levels, overpayment becomes a greater burden, as each dollar spent on housing cannot be spent on other necessities, like food, transportation, or healthcare .

Packet Page 293 of 390Attachment 27 Page 39 of 65

30 Table 22: Affordable Rents, Solano County, 2020
Notes:
(a) Income limits are based on the HCD-adjusted median family income of $95,400 ($2020). (b) Affordable rents equal to 30 percent of gross monthly income, minus a utility allowance. The utility allowance is derived based on the 2020 figures for attached dwellings published by the Solano County Housing Authority effective 1 July 2020. Utility allowance estimates assume that all heating, cooking, and water heating would be done using natural gas. Other electricity usage is estimates assume that all heating, cooking, and water heating would be done using natural gas. Other electricity usage is also included, accounting for lighting, refrigeration, and small appliances.

Sources: HCD, 2020; Solano County Housing Authority, 2020; BAE, 2020.

Packet Page 294 of 390Attachment 27 Page 40 of 65

31 AFFORDABLE PURCHASE PRICES
Table 23 reports the home sale prices that can be considered affordable to households at each income level. The sale prices assume that households can pay 30 percent of income on housing and purchase the unit using a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, backed by the Federal Housing Administration (FHA). As shown below, there is a broad spread in purchase prices that are affordable at different income levels . For example, BAE estimates that the maximum home purchase price that could be considered affordable to a three-person extremely low-income household would be about $115,288, while a three -person low-income household could afford to pay up to $307,128. A three-person household with income at the 120 percent MFI limit for moderate-income households could afford to pay $475,172 for a home .

FOR-SALE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY GAP
At these prices, the market-rate single-family home market in Fairfield is generally affordable only to above moderate-income households or households at the upper limit of the moderate- income category with incomes equal to or above 120 percent of the MFI. However, housing costs are increasingly challenging for higher income households as well, especially with newer construction. Market rate townhomes and condominiums in Fairfield are affordable to low- income households based on the median sale price listed in Table 19. However, according to interviews with local real estate professionals, many of the options for condominiums and townhomes are not desirable due to their quality and location. Furthermore, not only are there relatively few condos and townhomes in the city compared to the large number of single -family homes, but also high HOA fees place a greater financial burden on lower-income households that is not reflected in the initial sale price .

Packet Page 295 of 390Attachment 27 Page 41 of 65

Table 23: Affordable For-Sale Prices, Solano County, 2020 (Page 1 of 2) -Continued on next page-
Median Family Income:$95,400
Persons Per Household
2020 Income Limits (a)One Two Three Four Five
Extremely Low-Income (30% MFI)$19,450 $22,200 $25,000 $27,750 $30,680 Very Low-Income (50% MFI)$32,400 $37,000 $41,650 $46,250 $49,950 Low-Income (80% MFI)$51,800 $59,200 $66,600 $73,950 $79,900 Median Income (100% MFI)$66,800 $76,300 $85,850 $95,400 $103,050 Moderate-Income (120% MFI)$80,150 $91,600 $103,050 $114,500 $123,650 Amount Avail.Principal &Property Property Mortgage Total Monthly Down-Affordable 1-Person Household for Housing Interest Insurance Taxes Insurance Payment Payment Home Price Extremely Low-Income $486 $309 $24 $93 $60 $486 $4,707 $89,648 Very Low-Income $810 $514 $40 $156 $100 $810 $7,844 $149,414 Low-Income $1,295 $823 $63 $249 $160 $1,295 $12,541 $238,877 Moderate-Income $2,004 $1,273 $98 $385 $248 $2,004 $19,407 $369,660 Amount Avail.Principal &Property Property Mortgage Total Monthly Down-Affordable 2-Person Household for Housing Interest Insurance Taxes Insurance Payment Payment Home Price Extremely Low-Income $555 $353 $27 $107 $69 $555 $5,375 $102,376 Very Low-Income $925 $588 $45 $178 $115 $925 $8,958 $170,627 Low-Income $1,480 $940 $72 $284 $183 $1,480 $14,333 $273,003 Moderate-Income $2,290 $1,454 $112 $440 $284 $2,290 $22,177 $422,416 Amount Avail.Principal &Property Property Mortgage Total Monthly Down-Affordable 3-Person Household for Housing Interest Insurance Taxes Insurance Payment Payment Home Price Extremely Low-Income $625 $397 $31 $120 $77 $625 $6,053 $115,288 Very Low-Income $1,041 $661 $51 $200 $129 $1,041 $10,081 $192,024 Low-Income $1,665 $1,058 $81 $320 $206 $1,665 $16,124 $307,128 Moderate-Income $2,576 $1,636 $126 $495 $319 $2,576 $24,947 $475,172 Amount Avail.Principal &Property Property Mortgage Total Monthly Down-Affordable 4-Person Household for Housing Interest Insurance Taxes Insurance Payment Payment Home Price Extremely Low-Income $694 $441 $34 $133 $86 $694 $6,721 $128,016 Very Low-Income $1,156 $734 $57 $222 $143 $1,156 $11,195 $213,237 Low-Income $1,849 $1,174 $90 $355 $229 $1,849 $17,906 $341,069 Moderate-Income $2,863 $1,818 $140 $550 $354 $2,863 $27,726 $528,112 Amount Avail.Principal &Property Property Mortgage Total Monthly Down-Affordable 5-Person Household for Housing Interest Insurance Taxes Insurance Payment Payment Home Price Extremely Low-Income $767 $487 $38 $147 $95 $767 $7,428 $141,482 Very Low-Income $1,249 $793 $61 $240 $155 $1,249 $12,096 $230,392 Low-Income $1,998 $1,269 $98 $384 $247 $1,998 $19,349 $368,553 Moderate-Income $3,091 $1,963 $151 $594 $383 $3,091 $29,934 $570,170 Packet Page 296 of 390Attachment 27 Page 42 of 65

33 Table 23: Affordable For-Sale Prices, Solano County, 2020 (Page 2 of 2) Notes:
(a) Income limits are based on the HCD-adjusted median family income of $95,400 ($2020). (b) Based on an average of quoted insurance premiums from th e Homeowners Premium Survey, published by the California Department of Insurance, for a 16-25 year old home valued at $500,000 with a $1,000 annual deductible in Fairfield, Solano County.

Sources: HCD, 2020; California Department of Insurance, Homeowners Premium Survey, 2020; Bankrate.com, 2020; BAE, 2020.

Ownership Cost Assumptions
% of Income for Housing Costs 30%of gross annual income Mortgage Terms
Down payment 3.50%of home value
Annual interest rate 1.88%fixed
Loan term 30 years
Upfront mortgage insurance 1.75%of home value
Annual mortgage insurance 0.85%of mortgage
Annual property tax rate 1.25%of home value
Annual hazard insurance (b)0.32%of home value
Packet Page 297 of 390Attachment 27 Page 43 of 65

COST BURDEN BY TENURE
To demonstrate the number of households in need of housing assistance, HUD routinely commissions a special tabulation from the U.S. Census Bureau, known as the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) dataset, which reports the number of households experiencing excessive housing costs, by income category and tenure . According to HUD’s definition, identifies an excessive housing cost burden exists when gross housing costs, including utilities for renter households and mortgage principal, interest, property taxes, and insurance (PITI) for owner households exceed 30 percent of the monthly gross household income. Households are considered to have a severe housing cost burden when monthly housing costs exceed 50 percent of gross income.

Table 24, on the following pages summarizes households by HUD income category, tenure, and housing cost burden for the time period 2013 to 2017, for the City of Fairfield, the ABAG Region, and California. Approximately 36.1 percent of total Fairfield households are lower income (i.e., in the low-, very low-, and extremely low-income categories), which is slightly lower than the proportions in the ABAG Region and the state, at 38.6 percent and 43.9 percent, respectively .

Nearly 51 percent of Fairfield renter households are lower income, compared to just 24.5 percent of owner households. Most of the lower income households are renter households, with about 50.9 percent compared to only 24.5 percent owner households . Renter households in Fairfield are also more likely to be cost burdened. About 49.8 percent of renter households are paying 30 percent or more of their household income on housing costs compared to about

26.1 percent of owner households. This information shows that substantial portions of Fairfield households fall into the lower-income categories that will have trouble affording market rate rental housing, and even larger portions of Fairfield households fall into the income categories of moderate and below, and will have trouble affording market rate owner housing.

Packet Page 298 of 390Attachment 27 Page 44 of 65

Table 24: Housing Cost Burden by Income Category and Tenure, 2017 (Page 1 of 3)

-Continued on next page-

City of Fairfield
Income Category (a)
All Income Extremely Low-Income Very Low-Income Low-Income Moderate-Income Above Moderate-Income Levels (≤ 30% HAMFI)(> 30% ≤ 50% HAMFI)(> 50% ≤ 80% HAMFI)(> 80% ≤ 120% HAMFI)(> 120% HAMFI) Owner Households Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent With ≤ 30% Cost Burden 14,733 73.5%110 12.0%445 33.8%1,281 47.8%2,446 68.4%10,451 90.5% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 3,255 16.2%170 18.6%255 19.4%920 34.3%929 26.0%980 8.5% With > 50% Cost Burden 1,965 9.8%555 60.7%615 46.8%480 17.9%199 5.6%115 1.0% Not Computed (No or Negative Income)80 0.4%80 8.7%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0% Subtotal, Owner Households 20,033 100%915 100%1,316 100%2,681 100%3,575 100%11,545 100% Renter Households
With ≤ 30% Cost Burden 7,674 48.8%310 11.3%150 5.9%996 36.2%2,116 62.0%4,102 95.0% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 4,207 26.7%215 7.9%1,356 53.7%1,226 44.6%1,226 35.9%185 4.3% With > 50% Cost Burden 3,631 23.1%1,986 72.6%1,021 40.4%525 19.1%69 2.0%30 0.7% Not Computed (No or Negative Income)225 1.4%225 8.2%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0% Subtotal, Renter Households 15,737 100%2,736 100%2,526 100%2,746 100%3,411 100%4,317 100% All Households
With ≤ 30% Cost Burden 22,407 62.6%420 11.5%595 15.5%2,276 41.9%4,562 65.3%14,553 91.7% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 7,462 20.9%385 10.5%1,611 41.9%2,146 39.5%2,155 30.9%1,165 7.3% With > 50% Cost Burden 5,596 15.6%2,541 69.6%1,636 42.6%1,006 18.5%268 3.8%145 0.9% Not Computed (No or Negative Income)305 0.9%305 8.4%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0% Total, All Households 35,770 100%3,652 100%3,842 100%5,428 100%6,986 100%15,862 100% Packet Page 299 of 390Attachment 27 Page 45 of 65

36 Table 24: Housing Cost Burden by Income Category and Tenure, 2017 (Page 2 of 3)

-Continued on next page-

ABAG Region
Income Category (a)
All Income Extremely Low-Income Very Low-Income Low-Income Moderate-Income Above Moderate-Income Levels (≤ 30% HAMFI)(> 30% ≤ 50% HAMFI)(> 50% ≤ 80% HAMFI)(> 80% ≤ 120% HAMFI)(> 120% HAMFI) Owner Households Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent With ≤ 30% Cost Burden 1,064,854 70.7%22,880 19.6%50,970 41.7%86,471 51.0%161,506 62.4%743,026 88.5% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 252,742 16.8%16,805 14.4%26,035 21.3%47,860 28.2%74,911 28.9%87,131 10.4% With > 50% Cost Burden 180,881 12.0%68,476 58.6%45,205 37.0%35,170 20.7%22,350 8.6%9,680 1.2% Not Computed (No or Negative Income)8,705 0.6%8,705 7.4%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0% Subtotal, Owner Households 1,507,182 100%116,866 100%122,211 100%169,501 100%258,767 100%839,837 100% Renter Households
With ≤ 30% Cost Burden 638,625 53.5%40,600 14.5%35,200 20.5%77,661 42.9%151,606 71.2%333,558 95.9% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 267,972 22.4%43,175 15.4%72,001 41.9%81,181 44.8%57,650 27.1%13,965 4.0% With > 50% Cost Burden 268,275 22.5%177,346 63.3%64,741 37.7%22,260 12.3%3,765 1.8%163 0.0% Not Computed (No or Negative Income)18,925 1.6%18,925 6.8%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0% Subtotal, Renter Households 1,193,798 100%280,047 100%171,941 100%181,101 100%213,022 100%347,686 100% All Households
With ≤ 30% Cost Burden 1,703,479 63.1%63,481 16.0%86,171 29.3%164,131 46.8%313,113 66.4%1,076,584 90.7% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 520,714 19.3%59,980 15.1%98,036 33.3%129,041 36.8%132,561 28.1%101,096 8.5% With > 50% Cost Burden 449,157 16.6%245,822 61.9%109,946 37.4%57,430 16.4%26,115 5.5%9,843 0.8% Not Computed (No or Negative Income)27,630 1.0%27,630 7.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0% Total, All Households 2,700,980 100%396,913 100%294,152 100%350,603 100%471,789 100%1,187,523 100% Packet Page 300 of 390Attachment 27 Page 46 of 65

37 Table 24: Housing Cost Burden by Income Category and Tenure, 2017 (Page 3 of 3) Note:
(a) CHAS data reflect HUD-defined household income limits.

Sources: HUD, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013-2017 5-year sampling data, Tables 8 and 12, 2020; BAE, 2020.

California
Income Category (a)
All Income Extremely Low-Income Very Low-Income Low-Income Moderate-Income Above Moderate-Income Levels (≤ 30% HAMFI)(> 30% ≤ 50% HAMFI)(> 50% ≤ 80% HAMFI)(> 80% ≤ 120% HAMFI)(> 120% HAMFI) Owner Households Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent With ≤ 30% Cost Burden 4,803,876 68.4%84,210 15.7%229,290 37.7%470,806 48.5%815,896 63.3%3,203,674 88.5% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 1,229,971 17.5%69,490 12.9%136,130 22.4%290,100 29.9%367,310 28.5%366,940 10.1% With > 50% Cost Burden 933,631 13.3%326,325 60.8%243,245 40.0%210,545 21.7%105,240 8.2%48,275 1.3% Not Computed (No or Negative Income)56,840 0.8%56,840 10.6%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0% Subtotal, Owner Households 7,024,318 100%536,866 100%608,666 100%971,451 100%1,288,446 100%3,618,889 100% Renter Households
With ≤ 30% Cost Burden 2,741,218 46.7%151,215 10.6%161,885 16.1%466,576 41.9%724,116 71.6%1,237,426 94.5% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 1,434,257 24.5%168,840 11.9%426,920 42.4%507,046 45.6%262,760 26.0%68,690 5.2% With > 50% Cost Burden 1,563,902 26.7%980,191 68.8%418,215 41.5%138,755 12.5%23,945 2.4%2,795 0.2% Not Computed (No or Negative Income)124,435 2.1%124,435 8.7%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0% Subtotal, Renter Households 5,863,812 100%1,424,682 100%1,007,021 100%1,112,376 100%1,010,821 100%1,308,912 100% All Households
With ≤ 30% Cost Burden 7,545,094 58.5%235,425 12.0%391,175 24.2%937,381 45.0%1,540,012 67.0%4,441,100 90.1% With > 30%, but ≤ 50% Cost Burden 2,664,228 20.7%238,330 12.2%563,051 34.8%797,146 38.3%630,071 27.4%435,631 8.8% With > 50% Cost Burden 2,497,533 19.4%1,306,517 66.6%661,461 40.9%349,300 16.8%129,185 5.6%51,070 1.0% Not Computed (No or Negative Income)181,275 1.4%181,275 9.2%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0%0 0.0% Total, All Households 12,888,130 100%1,961,547 100%1,615,687 100%2,083,827 100%2,299,268 100%4,927,801 100% Packet Page 301 of 390Attachment 27 Page 47 of 65

KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
As demonstrated in this section, there is a considerable gap between market-rate housing costs and household incomes for a large swath of Fairfield households. For both rental and for-sale housing, market rate housing costs are not affordable for households within the low-, very low-, and extremely low-income categories. However, with increasing housing costs for newly constructed housing, local homes are also increasingly unaffordable for even moderate-income households, especially for-sale units. Due to these demonstrated affordability gaps, a large number of Fairfield households, especially lower-income and renter households, are experiencing cost high housing cost burdens. This trend reflects conditions seen on the regional and state level, as households in the ABAG Region and California are similarly cost burdened, and it further demonstrates the need for more housing in the area . The General Plan Update will need to plan for new housing that is affordable to the broad range of income groups, including new below market rate housing, which typically requires higher building densities (i.e., dwelling units per acre). To the extent that the local housing market cannot meet the needs of all local workers, due to affordability constraints or other issues, it will be important to maintain and expand on the regional transportation options that commuters can use to access jobs in Fairfield. Similarly, maintaining strong transportati on connections will help those local residents commute out of Fairfield to jobs elsewhere.

Packet Page 302 of 390Attachment 27 Page 48 of 65

39 8.3 Nonresidential Real Estate Market Conditions
This section provides an overview of local market conditions in the office, retail, and industrial real estate sectors.

OFFICE MARKET
Fairfield currently plays a relatively limited role within the broader Bay Area office real estate market. As shown in Table 25, according to CoStar, there are 2.7 million square feet of office space in Fairfield, which is less than one percent of the total office inventory in the ABAG region. Office vacancy rates in F airfield as of Q3 2020 are 12.7 percent, which is higher than the 9.6 percent vacancy rate in the ABAG region. These vacancy rates are higher than in Q1 of 2020, suggesting the COVID-19 pandemic affected demand for office space both in the city and region. However, despite the potential impact of the pandemic on vacancy rates, Fairfield and the ABAG region had diverging trends in average asking gross rents since Q3 of 2019.

Whereas the average asking gross monthly rent in Fairfield fell five percent, to $1.76 per square foot it increased by 4.3 percent in the ABAG region to $4.11, a rent level that is more than double that of the city.

Both areas experienced negative net absorption between Q3 2019 and Q3 2020, defined as a loss of occupied office space, following overall positive net absorption between 2010 and 2020. Finally, while there were no deliveries of newly completed office space in Fairfield, there are nearly 50,000 square feet of office development under construction in the city . This represent 0.3 percent of the office space under construction in the ABAG region, meaning that Fairfield is seeing a disproportionately low share of the region’s pipeline office development .

Brokers and stakeholders interviewed indicated that office space in Fairfield has the most challenging prospects of nonresidential building types in the city . Prior to the pandemic, which may have permanently diminished the need for office space nationwide, brokers found relatively little local demand for office space, even in convenient downtown locations because of broader perception issues the downtown area is facing, such as crime and homelessness.

Although most of the Fairfield office stock is in more suburban style office park settings, these developments have not traditionally captured strong demand from the regional market and primarily serve smaller tenants oriented to the local clientele.

It should be noted that the City of Fairfield has commissioned a separate analysis headed by Chabin Concepts (Fairfield Economic Development Roadmap) that is evaluating the City’s opportunities for economic growth in the non-residential sectors more broadly, and also in the Heart of Fairfield area, which encompasses downtown . This study, which is underway, will provide an in-depth assessment of economic growth opportunities that will complement the nonresidential real estate market overviews contained in this section, and provide strategic recommendations for consideration in the General Plan Update process.

Packet Page 303 of 390Attachment 27 Page 49 of 65

40 Table 25: Office Market Overview, Q3 2020
Sources: CoStar, 2020; BAE, 2020.

RETAIL MARKET
Fairfield has over 5.8 million square feet of retail development, with a vacancy rate of 6.8 percent compared to 4.2 percent regionwide . Considering that the economic challenges of the last year have hit the retail sector relatively hard, these vacancy levels are relatively low .

While the city accounts for 1.7 percent of the region’s inventory, as of Q3 2020, none of the region’s 1.2 million square feet of retail under construction is in Fairfield and there were no new deliveries of new retail space in Fairfield between Q3 2019 and Q3 2020 . Average asking triple-net (NNN) rents for retail space in Fairfield increased by 13.6 percent between Q3 2019 and Q3 2020, to $1.67. Additionally, as Table 26 shows, retail rents in the ABAG region fell 1.5 percent during the same period, although rents regionwide are nearly one dolla r higher than in Fairfield.

City of
Office Summary Fairfield ABAG Region
Total Inventory (sq. ft.), Q3 2020 2,705,519 468,375,492 Vacant Stock (sq. ft.)343,231 45,072,188
Vacancy Rate 12.7%9.6%
Avg. Asking Gross Rents
Avg. Asking Gross Rent per sq. ft., Q3 2019 $1.85 $3.94 Avg. Asking Gross Rent per sq. ft., Q3 2020 $1.76 $4.11 % Change, Q3 2019 - Q3 2020 -4.9%4.3%
Net Absorption
Net Absorption (sq. ft.), Q3 2010 - Q3 2020 284,073 50,438,222 Net Absorption (sq. ft.), Q3 2019 - Q3 2020 (47,029)(2,705,232) New Deliveries (sq. ft.), Q3 2019 - Q3 2020 0 5,323,861 Under Construction (sq. ft.), Q3 2020 49,978 17,667,086 Packet Page 304 of 390Attachment 27 Page 50 of 65

41 Brokers and other professionals active in the local real estate market have suggested in interviews that retail property in Fairfield closest to I-80 and the regional mall charge rents up to $4 per square foot, while the numerous big box businesses pay as little as $0.50 per square foot. Local stakeholders also suggested the retail market was strong enough to withstand some of the COVID-19 impacts, and rents were halted for several months before increasing slightly. As a result, the vacancy rate was largely unchanged. However, COVID-19 has impacted the way retail businesses operate, and one observation from those interviewed was that drive-through windows for delivery drivers have become increasingly useful for certain restaurant businesses promoting limited contact. One broker mentioned a perception that there is a moratorium on drive-throughs in Fairfield. Although City staff indicate this is not a citywide policy, such restrictions may present an obstacle for restaurants attempting to adapt to evolving conditions, or new restaurants and franchises interested in moving to Fairfield. Brokers and stakeholders identify restaurants and food service as the kinds of businesses with the greatest potential in Fairfield, especially near the freeway, so limiting the flexibility of restaurants may undermine the city’s ability to capture this demand. It would be advisable to clarify this policy for the local retail development and brokerage community so that key stakeholders working to bring new restaurants to Fairfiel d know where drive- throughs are acceptable and not acceptable, perhaps differentiating between locations where drive-throughs would be appropriate (e.g., near freeway exits) and not appropriate (e.g., downtown core and other areas with a pedestrian focus).

Fairfield has a reputation as a retail center and has conveniently located shopping centers along I-80 that are frequented by customers from Fairfield, the region, and those travelling through. However, despite the presence of a regional mall and significant retail options along the freeway, brokers and other professionals note that some Fairfield residents leave the city to places like nearby Vacaville for more retail options. Indeed, the Retail Market Analysis by Marketek for the Heart of Fairfield finds significant leakage in brick-and-mortar retail that could potentially support upwards of one million new square feet of retail development if the city could recapture it by expanding retail options. In some ways, the COVID -19 pandemic may have had the effect of improving retail prospects as the Marketek study also notes the increased interest on the part of households in moving to Fairfield from the inner Bay Area.

Ultimately, residential growth will drive demand for new retail, particularly near new developments or in mixed-use redevelopments. As growth increases demand and shifts the economic profile of the city, the city may be able to attract more diverse and higher-end retail options that may also be able to recapture leakage. Marketek notes that resta urants, drinking places, and specialty food stores are among the kinds of businesses Fairfield is missing.

Packet Page 305 of 390Attachment 27 Page 51 of 65

42 Table 26: Retail Market Overview, Q3 2020
Sources: CoStar, 2020; BAE, 2020.

INDUSTRIAL MARKET
Not only is industrial space the largest local nonresidential land use (among office, retail, and industrial uses), with over 15.5 million square feet, Fairfield’s share of the ABAG region’s industrial inventory is 3.4 percent. By comparison, Fairfield accounts for 1.7 percent of retail space and less than one percent of the region’s office space, suggesting this sector is a strength for the city. In fact, between Q3 2019 and Q3 2020, the city accounted for 6.9 percent of new industrial space deliveries in the ABAG region and 3.8 percent of the industrial space under construction as of Q3 2020. Notably, the 7.5 percent industrial vacancy rate in Fairfield is higher than the vacancy rate of 5.2 percent regionwide . Moreover, asking average NNN rents in Fairfield are lower than in the region , having fallen by 8.3 percent to $0.77 between Q3 2019 and Q3 2020 despite rents increasing by 1.5 percent in the ABAG region overall .

Although it is not yet evident in the data, real estate professionals interviewed for this study suggest that warehousing is an increasingly popular use for industrial space in the city, and that demand for warehouse space has increased with the massive growth in e -commerce and the need for storage of goods for last mile delivery. Further, the strength of the Napa Valley wine industry, coupled with the high cost of land in the valley itself helps to drive demand for wine-related warehouse and distribution space in the Fairfield/Cordelia area. While these have been strong demand drivers in recent years, the City of Fairfi eld is still interested in seeing greater attraction of high-tech manufacturing and other activities in its industrial areas that have higher employment densities and higher wage scales.

City of
Retail Summary Fairfield ABAG Region
Total Inventory (sq. ft.), Q3 2020 5,801,861 349,124,153 Vacant Stock (sq. ft.)391,640 14,518,783
Vacancy Rate 6.8%4.2%
Avg. Asking NNN Rents
Avg. Asking NNN Rent per sq. ft., Q3 2019 $1.47 $2.65
Avg. Asking NNN Rent per sq. ft., Q3 2020 $1.67 $2.61
% Change, Q3 2019 - Q3 2020 13.6%-1.5%
Net Absorption
Net Absorption (sq. ft.), Q3 2010 - Q3 2020 (82,222)8,118,230 Net Absorption (sq. ft.), Q3 2019 - Q3 2020 79,362 (981,907) New Deliveries (sq. ft.), Q3 2019 - Q3 2020 0 1,259,263 Under Construction (sq. ft.), Q3 2020 0 1,216,633
Packet Page 306 of 390Attachment 27 Page 52 of 65

43 Table 27: Industrial Market Overview, Q3 2020
Sources: CoStar, 2020; BAE, 2020.

KEY TAKEAWAYS FOR GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
The demand for retail and industrial space is relatively strong, considering the impacts of the pandemic. Fairfield has a reputation as a retail center and has conveniently located sh opping centers along I-80 that are frequented by customers from Fairfield, the region, and those travelling through. The prospects for the retail sector will ultimately depend on the growth in residential development, but opportunities also exist to promote development along the highways, as downtown Fairfield is more out of the way for non -residents and does not yet have the appeal that places like downtown Livermore have cultivated over the past decade.

Fairfield’s numerous locations with I-80 freeway access are attractive for chain retail, big boxes, and fast food, but downtown Fairfield can be a good location for independent retail, specialty dining, and experiential retail. Over the longer term, concerted efforts to implement the Heart of Fairfield plan should stimulate interest in space for a range of retail and business and personal services categories in the downtown area.

While rents are down and vacancies are up for industrial development, the prospect of increased warehousing businesses was note d by brokers and property managers and is considered a growing industry in the city. The City will need concerted marketing efforts to establish itself as a more prominent location for more intensive industrial uses, such as high - tech manufacturing, but affordable land/building costs relative to inner Bay Area locations, and worker and workforce housing availability could be selling points. While COVID-19 may have had marginal effects on demand for retail space, it was most pronounced in its effect on office demand, which was diminished in general as a result of the pandemic. Brokers also noted some challenges in selling and leasing properties downtown, which signal the need for continued revitalization efforts.

City of
Industrial Summary Fairfield ABAG Region
Total Inventory (sq. ft.), Q3 2020 15,595,777 463,452,793 Vacant Stock (sq. ft.)1,176,361 24,270,649
Vacancy Rate 7.5%5.2%
Avg. Asking NNN Rents
Avg. Asking NNN Rent per sq. ft., Q3 2019 $0.84 $1.14
Avg. Asking NNN Rent per sq. ft., Q3 2020 $0.77 $1.16
% Change, Q3 2019 - Q3 2020 -8.3%1.8%
Net Absorption
Net Absorption (sq. ft.), Q3 2010 - Q3 2020 3,065,316 18,828,289 Net Absorption (sq. ft.), Q3 2019 - Q3 2020 145,743 456,270 New Deliveries (sq. ft.), Q3 2019 - Q3 2020 482,405 6,944,201 Under Construction (sq. ft.), Q3 2020 223,718 5,949,721 Packet Page 307 of 390Attachment 27 Page 53 of 65

44 City officials and local stakeholders should consider the information from these nonresidential real estate market overviews in concert with the findings and recommendations from the forthcoming Fairfield Economic Development Roadmap to ensure that the General Plan Update can support office, retail, and industrial real estate development that is in line with the City’s economic opportunities and local priorities.

Packet Page 308 of 390Attachment 27 Page 54 of 65

45 9 Projections
BAE developed a range of growth projections to estimate the future demand for residential and nonresidential development in the City of Fairfield through the General Plan time horizon (2050). For residential development, three escalating scenarios are established to project future population and households in the city, which are then used to derive an estimate of housing unit projections. Similarly, retail, office and industrial growth are also each evaluated separately using a baseline, aggressive, and maximum scenario. Providing a range of future of residential and nonresidential demand helps to account for potential mar ket fluctuations and changes to demand drivers.

9.1 Residential Growth Scenarios
Population and households are projected primarily using ABAG’s ‘Projections 2040’ dataset that uses 2010 as a base year and projects population, households, and employment to 204 0.

In the following analysis, BAE applied the growth rates established by ABAG from 2020 to 2040, which are provided in five-year intervals, to Esri’s 2020 estimates for populations and households. Since ABAG does not provide projections that extend through the General Plan time horizon of 2050, BAE applied the Department of Finance (DoF) growth rates for Solano County between 2040 and 2050 to the 2040 population and household projections of both Fairfield and Solano County in order to yield estimates for t he full General Plan time horizon.

As a result, there are two caveats to the projections from 2040 to 2050: first, the different sources used for growth rates may cause some inconsistencies in the projections; and second, DoF only provides projections for population, and not households, through 2050, and does so only at the County level. Given the second caveat, County level projections are applied to Fairfield and the number of households are estimated by dividing the 2050 population projections by the estimated average household size in 2040.

To account for potential long-term changes in market demand, BAE created three growth scenarios for both population and households, which were then converted to residential unit demand. The residential unit demand calculations account for a stabilized market vacancy rate of roughly five percent, which is a standard assumption that reflects what many economists and housing experts consider a reasonable balance between housing supply and housing demand. The household projections for Fairfield, Solano County, and the ABAG region serve as the basis for three growth scenarios that will help the City identify a range of future demand. The scenarios are also applied to population projections, although only household projections are used to derive housing unit projections, accounting for vacant units. All scenarios assume the same population and household growth rates between 2020 and 2030, based on ABAG forecasts for the city, but then assume a range of growth rates from 2030 to 2050, assuming various capture rates of the County and Regional population and household growth.

Packet Page 309 of 390Attachment 27 Page 55 of 65

46 Baseline. The baseline projection scenario assumes Fairfield population and households will grow by the average annual rates projected by ABAG for the city between 2020 and 2030 (1.2 and 1.1 percent, respectively) and between 2030 and 2040 (0.6 percent and 0.4 percent, respectively), and by the DoF growth rate through 2050 (0.2 percent for both population and households). In this scenario, by 2050, Fairfield is projected to have a population of 142,942 and a total of 45,216 households. This translates into demand for 7,482 additional housing units by 2050, including a vacancy rate of five percent. There are currently 1,911 units in the city’s development pipeline (i.e., units that are either planned, permitted for construction or under construction), which suggests that under this scenario, there is a need for 5,971 additional units by 2050.

Aggressive. The aggressive projection scenario considers future growt h if the city grows commensurate with the rate of growth projected by ABAG for Solano County between 2030 and 2050. This would mean Fairfield captures a larger share of Solano County’s growth during that period, at the expense of other county jurisdictions . Under this scenario, between 2030 and 2040, Fairfield households are projected to grow at an average annual rate of 0.6 percent, instead of 0.4 percent. Growth is then projected to slow down to just 0.2 percent during the 2040 to 2050 time period. Similarly, population is projected to grow at 0.8 percent between 2030 and 2040 under the aggressive scenario, as opposed to 0.6 percent in the baseline scenario. This scenario would lead to just over 29,000 new residents and 8,158 new households by 2050, which translates into 8,745 new housing units. Accounting for units already in the development pipeline, this translates into demand for roughly 6,834 additional residential units.

Maximum. The maximum projection scenario assumes that Fairfield population and households grow commensurate with the projected average annual rate of growth for the ABAG region as a whole between 2030 and 2040, followed by a more modest growth rate between 2040 and 2050. This would be an average annual growth rate of 0.8 percent for households, and 1.1 percent for population. Under this scenario, where the city’s growth is directly related to region’s overall growth, the city would grow by just under 33,000 residents and approximately 9,380 new households by 2050. Accounting for a five percent vacancy rate, this would lead to approximately 9,965 new housing units, or 8,054 new units after accounting for the 1,911 units currently in the development pipeline.

Packet Page 310 of 390Attachment 27 Page 56 of 65

47 Table 28: Population, Household, and Housing Unit Projections, 2020 to 2050

Notes:
(a) The baseline demand projection is based on the household growth forecasted by ABAG for the City of Fairfield.
(b) The accelerated demand projection assumes that between 2020 and 2030, Fairfield household growth will mirror the ABAG projections for the City, followed by more robust growth between 2030 and 2040, in line with the ABAG projections for Solano County as a whole. (c) The maximum demand projection assumes that between 2020 and 2030, Fairfield household growth will mirror the ABAG projections for the City while household growth between 2030 and 2040 is based on ABAG's projected growth for Bay Area region during that timeframe (d) Housing unit projections account for stabilized vacant unit demand. The stabilized vacant unit demand is the difference between the number of currently vacant units and the number of vacant units there would be if the Study Area had the stabilized vacancy rate of 5.0 percent as opposed to the existing (and lower) 4.1 percent vacancy rate.
(e) Housing unit projections account for a stabilized vacancy allowance. The stabilized vacancy allowance is the number of vacant units there would be given the household growth and assuming the stabilized vacancy rate of 5.0 percent.

Sources: Association of Bay Area Governments; Esri; BAE, 2020.

9.2 Nonresidential Growth Scenarios
BAE developed three scenarios for each of the three general non-residential land use categories of retail, industrial, and office . Projections of future retail development in the city are based on taxable sales by residents and the residential growth projections presented in the previous section, while projections of future office and industrial demand are based on growth of office and industrial jobs projected by ABAG.

Historic Growth Projected Growth Growth (2020-2050)
City of Fairfield 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Number Percent Baseline Projections (a)
Population 105,333 117,413 131,884 139,491 142,942 25,529 21.7% Households 34,488 38,176 42,549 44,124 45,216 7,040 18.4% Housing Units (d) (e) 37,194 40,101 44,749 46,423 47,583 7,482 18.7% Accelerated Projections (b)
Population 105,333 117,413 131,884 143,143 146,684 29,271 24.9% Households 34,488 38,176 42,549 45,215 46,334 8,158 21.4% Housing Units (d) (e) 37,194 40,101 44,749 47,582 48,846 8,745 21.8% Maximum Projections (c)
Population 105,333 117,413 131,884 146,508 150,132 32,719 27.9% Households 34,488 38,176 42,549 46,405 47,553 9,377 24.6% Housing Units (d) (e) 37,194 40,101 44,749 48,771 50,066 9,965 24.9% Packet Page 311 of 390Attachment 27 Page 57 of 65

48 RETAIL PROJECTIONS
Future retail development is calculated for both automotive and nonautomotive retail under all scenarios. Future automotive retail development projections range from 14 net new acres, to 18 net new acres. Future non-automotive retail development projections range from approximately 764,000 square feet of new development, to just under 1.0 million square feet under the maximum scenario. All retail projections include a vacancy rate of five percent by 2050. Notably, BAE’s maximum estimate of new retail development generally align s with the estimate of new retail development from the Retail Market and Trend Analysis developed by Marketek for the Heart of Fairfield Business Development Roadmap . That report estimates the Fairfield Market Area can support about 1.2 million square feet of new retail, although the Market Area is slightly larger than the city itself.

Baseline. The Baseline retail development projection scenarios uses the baseline population projection of 25,500 new residents by 2050. Based on the taxable sales data presented in Table 13, current annual taxable non-automotive retail sales in the city are approximately $7,128 per capita, while automotive retail sales are $4,279 per capita . Multiplying the non- automotive sales by the baseline population growth projections and dividing by $250 in assumed taxable sales per square feet, yields a net new retail demand of 764,251 square feet by 2050. Similarly, multiplying the automotive sales per capita by the same projected increase in population and dividing by an assumed $8 million in sales per acre yields net new automotive retail development of 14.3 acres by 2050.

Aggressive. Using the same assumptions of $7,128 and $4,279 per capita for non -automotive and automotive retail, respectively, this scenario assumes the aggressive population growth projections for the City of Fairfield, of just over 29,000 new residents, would result in demand for an additional 876,287 square feet of non-automotive retail and 16 acres of automotive retail land by 2050.

Maximum. The maximum scenario also assumes of $7,128 and $4,279 per capita sales for non-automotive and automotive retail, respectively. Based on maximum population projections of over 32,000 new residents, the projected demand for additional retail space in the city would be nearly 980,000 square feet of non -automotive retail space and 18 acres of automotive retail land by 2050.

Packet Page 312 of 390Attachment 27 Page 58 of 65

49 INDUSTRIAL PROJECTIONS
A range of projections for future industrial development by 2050 are estimated using unique methodologies for each scenario, including baseline jobs projections with varying assumptions of the supportable square feet per employee, as well as historic growth in industrial development within the City. Notably, the projection of industrial jobs uses Esri data from Table 9: Jobs by Industry, 2020, to estimate the number of existing in dustrial jobs within Fairfield (5,667 industrial jobs). In the baseline and aggressive scenarios, this current estimate is projected to increase based on ABAG’s growth rates for industrial -related jobs in Fairfield through 2040, which are provided in five -year intervals. The ABAG average annual growth rate for these industries between 2020 and 2040 is then used to project the new industrial jobs from 2040 to 2050. As a result, the projected average annual growth rate of Fairfield industrial jobs from 2020 to 2050 is 1.2 percent. Industrial projections assume a ten percent vacancy rate.

Baseline. The baseline industrial development projection is based on the projections of jobs from ABAG through 2040, and BAE’s augmented projections from 2040 to 2050. These projections suggest Fairfield will add 2,443 new industrial jobs by 2050. Assuming an average of 1,000 square feet per employee, typical of newer industrial developments in warehousing and manufacturing developments, this would translate to a need for an a dditional 2.7 million square feet of additional industrial space by 2050.

Aggressive. The aggressive projection assume s the same increase in industrial jobs by 2050 as the baseline scenario (2,433). However, based on the city’s existing industrial development square feet per employee of 2,752, as determined by dividing the existing industrial inventory by the estimated number of industrial jobs, the projected need by 2050 would be

7.4 million square feet. This assumes that future industrial demand will mirror the current inventory of companies, which have relatively low job densities. Especially as logistics and distribution companies continue to automate their processes, this higher square feet per employee estimate may more closely reflect the long-term demand for industrial space in Fairfield.

Maximum. Whereas the baseline and aggressive scenarios examine future industrial development need based on demand from projected job growth, the maximum scenario provides an estimate based on historic trends in supply. Since 2007, the city’s inventory of industrial development has grown by an average annual rate of 1.8 percent, adding over 3.1 million square feet based on data on new deliveries of industrial space from CoStar. If industrial growth within the city over the General Plan time horizon mirrors this historic growth, which is plausible given the previously discussed increasing demand for warehousing and logistics in Fairfield, there would be demand for an additional 11.1 million square feet of industrial deve lopment by 2050.

Packet Page 313 of 390Attachment 27 Page 59 of 65

50 OFFICE PROJECTIONS
Future office development in Fairfield is projected by escalating the growth rate in office jobs, based on the ABAG projections for Fairfield and for the ABAG region overall through 2040 .

The average annual growth between 2020 and 2040 is used to determine the number of new office jobs between 2040 and 2050 for both Fairfield and the region . These projections also use Esri data from Table 9: Jobs by Industry, 2020 to estimate the number of office jobs in the city in 2020 (32,623). The aggressive and maximum scenarios consider the need for office development by assuming growth rates in office jobs for the ABAG region, which has historically and is projected to have more robust office job growth than Fairfield .

Baseline. According to ABAG, Fairfield’s office jobs will grow by an average annual rate of 0.6 percent through 2050, adding 6,814 new office jobs. Assuming a ten percent vacancy rate and 250 square feet per employee, these new jobs would translate to an additional 1.9 million square feet of office demand by 2050.

Aggressive. Office jobs in the ABAG region are projected to grow at a faster average annual rate between 2020 and 2050, at 0.8 percent as opposed to 0.6 percent in the City of Fairfield, according to ABAG projections. Assuming Fairfield office jobs grow commensurate with the region, this would result in 8,427 net new office jobs by 2050, translating to 2.3 million square feet of new office development.

Maximum. As ABAG jobs projections are provided in five-year intervals, the growth rates for each interval is different for the city compared to the region overall . As average annual growth rates in office jobs are faster in either the city of region depending on th e five-year interval, the maximum scenario assumes Fairfield growth in office jobs will match the highest growth rate in each of the projection intervals for the city and region . This growth rate typically ranges from 0.8 to 1.0 percent per year across the various time periods. In total, this growth scenario would yield an additional 9,061 office jobs in Fairfield by 2050, and a need for 2.5 million square feet of new office space .

Packet Page 314 of 390Attachment 27 Page 60 of 65

51 SUMMARY OF NONRESIDENTIAL PROJECTIONS
A summary of the projections of nonre sidential development by land use is provided in Table

29. The retail growth projections fall within a relatively tight range , with the baseline and maximum scenarios projecting between 13.2 and 16.9 percent growth in the city’s non- automotive retail space inventory, although this reflects the disproportionally large amount of existing retail development in the city and changes in the retail marketplace . The same retail projection methodology applied to automotive retail shows the city would need to increase automotive-related retail space by between 23 and 30 percent by 2050 . As these projections are based on current conditions, the City should build flexibility into the planning for retail land uses, recognizing that the long-term impacts on the bricks and mortar retail industry from the pandemic and the last year’s shift towards e -commerce are not yet fully understood. For example, it is possible that shifts in shopping patterns may result in reduced demand for traditional retail space, but increased demand for pick -up and return hubs for online purchases.

The industrial projections range widely from an increase of 17.2 percent to as much as 71.0 percent from baseline to maximum, reflecting the fact that while ABAG has relatively modest industrial job projections for the city that reduce the need for new industrial space, trends in recent local development and the prospects for the industrial economy in t he city could drastically outpace the baseline ABAG estimate .

Finally, the range of office development projections start at baseline with an increase of 69.3 percent, which reflects ABAG’s relatively aggressive office job growth estimates for the city, and the city’s relatively small share of the region’s existing office space . Notably, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the real estate market is still unknown, although the recovery of the office market is likely to be a challenge given shifts towards teleworking. However, more suburban communities like Fairfield may see demand for local workspaces by employees who telework but require some office space away from their home . Given the uncertainty around the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on office trends, it is plausible that future office development would not meet even the baseline projections, suggesting the city should continue monitoring office demand trends, especially in other suburban Bay Area communities and re-calibrate office growth expectations if necessary.

Packet Page 315 of 390Attachment 27 Page 61 of 65

52 Table 29: Summary of Non-Residential Projections, 2020-2050

Notes:
(a) For Industrial and Office space, job growth in either category is projected using projections from ABAG for the City of Fairfield. Job growth is converted to an estimate of square footage using 1,000 SF per employee for industrial space, and 250 SF per employee for office space. For retail, per capita spending for automotive and non-automotive is applied to the baseline population forecast through 2050. (b) Industrial space is projected using the ABAG projection of Industrial jobs in Fairfield and converted into square feet using the existing average industrial square feet per industrial job in the city of 2,752. Office jobs are projected at the average annual rate of growth in the ABAG region (0.8 percent annually). For retail, per capita spending for automotive and non-automotive is applied to the accelerated population forecast through 2050.
(c) Industrial space is projected based on the average annual growth in industrial inventory in Fairfield since 2007 (3.8 percent). Office space is projected using the fastest growth rates at five-year intervals from either Fairfield or the ABAG region, based on ABAG projection data. For retail, per capita spending for automotive and non-automotive is applied to the maximum population forecast through 2050. (d) Industrial and office projections assume a 10 percent vacancy rate in 2050, while both retail categories assume a 5 percent vacancy rate.

Sources: Association of Bay Area Governments; Esri; BAE, 2020.

Historic Growth Projected Growth (d)Growth (2020-2050)
City of Fairfield 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Number Percent Baseline Projections (a)
Industrial SF 12,473,713 15,595,777 16,335,891 17,278,656 18,283,484 2,687,707 17.2% Office SF 2,585,386 2,705,519 3,376,367 3,914,792 4,579,247 1,873,728 69.3% Retail
Non-Automotive (SF)5,928,640 5,801,861 6,235,086 6,462,805 6,566,112 764,251 13.2% Automotive (Acres)-62 70 74 76 14 23.1%
Accelerated Projections (b)
Industrial SF 12,473,713 15,595,777 17,632,596 20,227,117 22,992,438 7,396,661 47.4% Office SF 2,585,386 2,705,519 3,419,604 4,190,528 5,022,815 2,317,296 85.7% Retail
Non-Automotive (SF)5,928,640 5,801,861 6,235,086 6,572,137 6,678,148 876,287 15.1% Automotive (Acres)-62 70 77 79 16 26.5%
Maximum Projections (c)
Industrial SF 12,473,713 15,595,777 18,661,645 22,315,757 26,670,979 11,075,202 71.0% Office SF 2,585,386 2,705,519 3,496,024 4,352,158 5,197,310 2,491,791 92.1% Retail
Non-Automotive (SF)5,928,640 5,801,861 6,235,086 6,672,875 6,781,378 979,517 16.9% Automotive (Acres)-62 70 78 80 18 29.6%
Packet Page 316 of 390Attachment 27 Page 62 of 65

53 9.3 Key Takeaways for General Plan Update
To estimate the future demand for residential development in the City of Fairfield throughout the General Plan time horizon (2050), BAE developed three growth scenarios, including a baseline, accelerated and maximum scenarios of population and household projections .

These were based predominantly on projection data provided by ABAG . Baseline projections suggest Fairfield will add approximately 25,500 residents by 2050, and up to 31,500 new residents under the maximum projection scenario . Household projections by 2050 range from just over 7,000 net new households to just over 9,300. Household projections were used to derive housing unit projections, which range from just under 7,500 to just under 10,000 new units. However, given the 1,911 units currently in the development pipeline, the range the city may consider as it evaluates the future demand for housing in terms of available land to develop, redevelop, or annex is approximately 5,500 to 8,000.

If Fairfield wishes to maintain its existing, disproportionately high share of single -family units compared to the ABAG region, then of the 5,500 to 8,000 new units, approximately 76 percent, or 4,000 to 6,000 units, would need to be single -family, while 1,300 to 1,900 units would need to be in multifamily structures. However, the city would need to add more multifamily units if it seeks to shift its housing profile towards the split in single-family and multifamily units regionwide, where single family units account for approximately 64 percent of the housing stock. If the 5,500 to 8,000 units are delivered based on the share of single - family to multifamily units in the region, Fairfield would add between 3,500 and 5,000 new single-family units, and 2,000 to 2,900 new multifamily units . Nonetheless, given the predominance of single-family units in the city, even realizing the maximum scenario of 8,000 new housing units where all units are multifamily, the city would only barely reach the existing share of multifamily units in the broader region . The availability and price point of single-family homes is one of the fundamental appeals of the city to new residents, so it is unlikely that the overall profile of housing unit types will shift dramatically towards multifamily units.

In terms of non-residential demand, industrial space is projected to experience the most robust increase in demand, ranging from 2.7 million to 11.1 million square feet of new industrial space by 2050. Although the city currently contains a limited inventory of office space, projected job growth in the city within office -demanding industries is anticipated to create demand for between 1.8 and 2.5 million square feet of new office space by 2050, potentially doubling the inventory of existing office space . Non-automotive retail demand, driven by population growth, is projected to increase by between 764,000 and 980,00 square feet, while spending growth at automotive -related retail businesses is projected to drive demand for an additional 14 to 18 acres of retail land by 2050.

Packet Page 317 of 390Attachment 27 Page 63 of 65

54 Fairfield’s growth projections are intertwined with the City’s regional position. For example, the City captures housing demand from commuters on the basis of its relative affordability and the availability of housing compared to inner Bay Area locations further to the west. At the same time, the cost of housing in Fairfield is expensive relative to many of the jobs for people who are employed in Fairfield. These factors lead to both out -commuting by local residents and in-commuting by from local workers, highlighting the need for the City to maintain and expand regional transportation options .

Packet Page 318 of 390Attachment 27 Page 64 of 65

Packet Page 319 of 390Attachment 27 Page 65 of 65

SolanoCommunityCollege NORTHTEXAS STCEMENT HILL RD

DOVER AVED IC K S ONHILL
RD

MANUE L C A M POS PKWY

P A RADISEVALLEY DR

HILBORN RD

WATERMAN BLVDRANCHOSOLANOPKWYMANKASCORNERRD

ABERNATHY RDSUISUN VALLEY RDROCKVILLE R
D

SUISUNPKW Y

ROCKVIL
L
E
R
D
GR
E
EN
VA
L
L
E
Y

M A N G E L S B LVDBUSINES S C E N TERDRAIR BASE PKWY

ETABOR AVE

TRAVIS BLVD

TABOR AVE

PENNSYLVANIA AVETEXAS STGATEWAYBLVD
O
L
I
V
E
R

DSANDREWS RD

CEMENT HILL RD PEABODY RDVANDENRDTRAVIS AVE

HANGAR AVECLAYBANKRD
WE
B
S
T
E
R

S
T

SUNSETAVERAILROADAVEVILLAGE DRPINTAIL DR WALTERS RDRAGSDALE STLAWLERRANCH P KW Y PETERSON RDHWY 12
HWY 12 UNION AVEBECK AVECORDELIA R D

CORDELIA
R
D

CORDELI
A
R

DPITTMANRD SUISUNVA
L
L
EY

RDDRSEPOLLOPES
RDCHADBOURNE RDMAIN STTravis Air Force Base
SuisunCity
Suisu n
Mars h Linear

P
ark
Linear

R&D, business park,
Transitionalretail to connect to Suisun City’s
Potential gateway
Portion of Mall
becomes mixed use
Additionalmixed usenodes
Additional activity nodes
to connect Transportation
Center to Pennsylvania
Nelson Hill becomes
a City park with trailsand vista points
Emphasis on mixed-use, high density,
transit-oriented development
Emphasize
transit-oriented development
around new Cordelia Station
Bus rapid transit line
Alternatives
Report
City of Fairfield
General Plan Update
October 2021
Packet Page 320 of 390Attachment 28 Page 1 of 8

Report prepared by
With assistance from
Packet Page 321 of 390Attachment 28 Page 2 of 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose ..............................................................................................................2

1.2 Fairfield Forward 2050 ......................................................................................3

1.3 Report Organization ........................................................................................4 2 APPROACH AND BASELINE ASSUMPTIONS .......................................5

2.1 Regional Location and Planning Area .............................................................6

2.2 Public Input ......................................................................................................8

2.3 Existing Land Use Pattern ...............................................................................9

2.4 Environmental Conditions and Constraints ..................................................12

2.5 Growth Projections .........................................................................................14

2.6 Current Development Activity .......................................................................15

2.7 Opportunity Sites ...........................................................................................18 3 ALTERNATIVES ......................................................................................19

3.1 Draft Land Use Classifications ......................................................................20

3.2 Common Characteristics ................................................................................21

3.3 Alternative 1: New Neighborhoods and Connections ...................................22

3.4 Alternative 1: Details ......................................................................................24

3.5 Alternative 2: Transformed Corridors and Transit-Oriented Development ..26

3.6 Alternative 2: Details ......................................................................................28

3.7 Alternative 3: Community Centers .................................................................30

3.8 Alternative 3: Details ......................................................................................32 4 COMPARISONS .....................................................................................35

4.1 Comparison of Major Components ...............................................................36

4.2 Developmental Potential ...............................................................................37

4.3 Traffic Impacts ................................................................................................38

4.4 Infrastructure Impacts ...................................................................................51

4.5 Fiscal Impacts ..................................................................................................56 Packet Page 322 of 390Attachment 28 Page 3 of 8

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1: Planning Area .........................................................................................................7 Figure 2-2: Existing Land Use ................................................................................................10 Figure 2-3: Environmental Conditions and Constraints ........................................................13 Figure 2-6: Pipeline Projects ..................................................................................................17 Figure 2-7: Opportunity Sites................................................................................................19 Figure 3-1: Alternative 1, New Neighborhoods and Connections........................................23 Figure 3-2: Alternative Two: Transformed Corridors and Transit-Oriented Development 27 Figure 3-3: Alternative 3 Community Centers .......................................................................31 Figure 4-1: Fairfield Year 2050 (AM) Roadway Volume-to-Capacity Ratio .........................40 Figure 4-2: Fairfield Year 2050 (PM) Roadway Volume-to-Capacity Ratio .........................41 Figure 4-3: Fairfield Year 2050 Alternative I (AM) Roadway Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ....42 Figure 4-4: Fairfield Year 2050 Alternative I (PM) Roadway Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ...43 Figure 4-5: Fairfield Year 2050 Alternative 2 (AM) Roadway Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ...44 Figure 4-6: Fairfield Year 2050 Alternative 2 (PM) Roadway Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ...45 Figure 4-7: Fairfield Year 2050 Alternative 3 (AM) Roadway Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ...46 Figure 4-8: Fairfield Year 2050 Alternative 3 (PM) Roadway Volume-to-Capacity Ratio ...47 Figure 4-9: City of Fairfield General Fund Revenue, Fiscal Year 2021/22 ...........................56 Figure 4-10: City of Fairfield General Fund Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2021/22 ..................57

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Pipeline Development Projects .............................................................................15 Table 3-1: Land Use Classifications for Alternatives ............................................................20 Table 3-1: Alternative One Development Potential .............................................................24 Table 3-2: Alternative Two Development Potential ............................................................28 Table 3-3: Alternative Three Development Potential ..........................................................32 Table 4-1: Comparison of Major Components ....................................................................36 Table 4-2: Development Potential ........................................................................................37 Table 4-3: Fairfield VMT Metrics ...........................................................................................50 Table 4-5: Annual Fiscal Impact by Land Use Alternative at Full Buildout (2050) (a) ....... 59 Table 4-4: Infrastructure Comparison ................................................................................. 51 Packet Page 323 of 390Attachment 28 Page 4 of 8

Introduction
Chapter 1
Packet Page 324 of 390Attachment 28 Page 5 of 8

Existing Conditions
Research
Vision and
Guiding Principles
Fiscal
Infrastructure
Preferred Alternative
Alternative 3
Alternative 1
Alternative 2 Draft Plan
Land UseTransportationGeneral Plan Development Process
Alternatives Analysis
2 What will Fairfield be like in 30 years? The Fairfield Forward 2050 project provides an exciting opportu-
nity to define the vision and goals for the city, plan
for growth and change, and create a policy frame-
work that will help to improve the city’s quality of life.

Fairfield Forward 2050 consists of a comprehensive
General Plan Update encompassing all elements of
the city’s General Plan that was last comprehensively
updated more than 20 years ago.

This Alternatives Report represents a key step in
the update process, where the community will con-
sider and evaluate the best path to achieve Fairfield’s vision for the future. Each alternative contains var-
ious concepts that represent different options for
future growth and preservation in Fairfield, address-
ing goals for housing, conservation, economic devel-
opment, and bikeable/walkable neighborhoods that
have been outlined as some of the key priorities by
the community. These Alternatives build on existing
conditions and assessment of planning challenges
and opportunities, and input from the community
through workshops, stakeholder meetings, and a city-
wide survey conducted in early 2021. The City’s Plan-
ning Commission and the City Council have also pro-
vided their input on what they see as key challenges
and priorities for the city.

Feedback from community members on these Alter-
natives will lead to the formulation of a Preferred
Plan, which will serve as the foundation of the new
General Plan. The Preferred Plan does not have to be
just one of the Alternative scenarios presented here;
rather, it will likely consist of the most desirable char- acteristics of the different Alternatives, infused with new ideas generated during public discussions.

While the Alternatives vary in the extent and distri-
bution of development, they all focus on central con-
cepts, highlighted during the visioning phase of the
update process:
•Improving connections between neighborhoods
to enhance community identity and sense of
place, and to promote bike- and walkability;
•Incorporating a range of housing options to meet
the needs of current and future Fairfield resi-
dents;
•Balancing the need for additional housing and
amenities for residents with the need to preserve
open space, the environment, and agricultural
lands;
•Promoting climate resilience and reducing green-
house gas emissions; and
•Ensuring that future businesses are able to thrive
in Fairfield and support a diverse economic base.

Because of the conceptual nature of these Alterna-
tives, it is important to consider them relative to these overarching goals. More specific planning, including
details on land use classifications, precise locations
of parks and schools, key roadway connections, and
other development policies will occur once consensus
is reached on concepts for the Preferred Plan.

1.1 Purpose
Packet Page 325 of 390Attachment 28 Page 6 of 8

Summary of Community
Visioning Survey
February 3 - March 15, 2021
3 In January 2021, the City of Fairfield began the pro- cess to prepare a comprehensive update to its Gen-
eral Plan to reflect current community conditions and
priorities, and to facilitate its ongoing transforma-
tion to a vibrant 21st century community. The State
of California requires each city and county to have a
comprehensive General Plan that outlines the com-
munity’s long-term policies related to growth and
development. As noted above, Fairfield’s current Gen-
eral Plan was last comprehensively updated over 20
years ago. The updated General Plan will address a
spectrum of topics including land use, housing, trans-
portation, public services, environmental quality,
safety, and other topics.

In conjunction with the General Plan Update, the City
of Fairfield is also preparing an update to its Hous-
ing Element as well as its first ever Climate Action
Plan (CAP). The CAP will contain measures to reduce
Fairfield’s greenhouse gas emissions over the next
30 years, and outline adaptation and resiliency strat-
egies. The Housing Element, which is the only ele-
ment of the General Plan required by the State to be
updated on an eight-year cycle, will ensure that Fair-
field is doing its part to meet the housing needs of the region. The Housing Element will contain policies and
programs to comply with regional and state regula-
tions and to promote a variety of housing options to
meet the needs of residents of all income levels. The
land use Alternatives presented here will work along-
side the policies and programs of the CAP, Housing
Element, and other General Plan elements to pro-
mote their shared vision.

Public Involvement
and Participation
The process of drafting a new General Plan enables
the community to assess opportunities and chal-
lenges, establish a vision for the city’s future, and
outline a systematic process to achieve the vision.

Preparation of the General Plan is far more than a
legal formality – it is an opportunity for community
members to define Fairfield’s future, and to ensure a
high quality of life for themselves and for subsequent
generations. Key outreach efforts in the General Plan
process to date that have informed the development
of the Alternatives discussed here include:

1. Fairfield Forward Visioning Survey (Febru-
ary-March 2021)

2. Virtual Community Workshops (February 2021)

3. Interviews with Key Stakeholders (February
2021)

4. Fairfield Student Outreach (March 2021)

5. In-Person Pop-Up Outreach (Summer 2021)

6. General Plan Advisory Committee Meetings
(March-June 2021)
For summaries of the key takeaways from these out-
reach efforts and other information regarding the
General Plan Update, visit www.FairfieldForward.com .

1.2 Fairfield Forward 2050
Packet Page 326 of 390Attachment 28 Page 7 of 8

4 1.3 Report Organization
This report presents the Alternatives in four chapters:
2 1
3 Introduction: Report purpose and Fairfield Forward
2050 project background.

Approach and Baseline Assumptions: Description of
the process for development of the Alternatives, includ- ing results from the community outreach process, and
presentation of existing baseline conditions and develop- ment assumptions.

Alternatives: Text, statistics, and maps of potential
options for land use changes to describe the three devel- opment strategies contained within the Alternatives.

Comparisons: Major components of the Alternatives,
including their development potential, traffic impacts, infrastructure impacts, and fiscal impacts, are presented side-by-side for comparison.
4 Packet Page 327 of 390Attachment 28 Page 8 of 8

Approach
and Baseline
Assumptions
This chapter presents an overview of the Planning Area, and key General Plan issues, challenges, and opportunities that Fairfield faces. More detail on each of the topics discussed here can be found in the reports located on the project website at https://www.fairfieldforward.com/reports-products .

Chapter 2
Packet Page 328 of 390Attachment 29 Page 1 of 15

0 10 20
MILES
5 Lodi
Stockton
OaklandSan
Francisco
Richmond
Vallejo
WalnutCreek
SanRamon
Livermore
Tracy
Pittsburg
ConcordSanPablo
Antioch
Brentwood
Napa Fairfield
Vacaville
Davis
Woodland
Sonoma
Dublin
Hayward
Milpitas
SanJose
Fremont
PaloAlto
MountainView
Winters
Dixon
RioVista
Martinez
Benicia
SanBruno
South San
Francisco
Emeryville
Berkeley
Sacramento
Pleasanton
505
12 121
29 680
80 80
680
580
580
880
280 680
580
205
5 5
101
99 37
4 160
24 16
16 113
128
4 92
84 80
580
5 50
80 99
113
160
1 12
121
128
84 NAPA
SONOMA
MARIN

CONTRA COSTA

ALAMEDA
SAN

MATEO SANTACLARA

STANISLAUS

SAN JOAQUIN

SACRAMENTO
SOLANO
YOLO
Figure 1-1: Regional Location
includes the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan area (225
square miles), so as to reinforce the City’s commit-
ment to its conservation and to ensure cohesive, in-
tegrated planning. Although Fairfield does not have
jurisdiction in areas outside of its city limits, what
happens in those areas bears a relation to the city’s
planning and must be considered in the General Plan.

The Planning Area is bounded by Napa County, the
Vacaville Mountains, and Cement Hill grazing lands to
the north; the Travis Reserve and unincorporated So-
lano County to the east; the City of Suisun, the Union
Pacific Railroad tracks, the Suisun Marsh, and I-680
in the southern portion; and unincorporated Solano
County open space to the west.
6 Regional Location
Fairfield is located in central Solano County in the
Bay Area within the California Coastal Ranges at the
southwestern edge of the Sacramento Valley, just
north of the Suisun Bay and salt marsh. The city is
situated at strategic transportation crossroads at
the convergence of interstates 680 and 80 (I-680 and
I-80), two of the Bay Area’s principal freeways, and at a mid-point between Sacramento and San Francis-
co (each 45 miles away). Fairfield also provides the
eastern gateway to Napa Valley, which lies 15 miles
to the west and is easily accessed via Highway 12. In
addition, Fairfield is accessible via public transporta- tion, including Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) and SolanoExpress bus lines, and two Capital Corridor
train stations that connect Fairfield to Auburn and
San Jose via Sacramento and Oakland. The city is also
home to Travis Air Force Base, which is located four
miles east of downtown. Known as the “Gateway to
the Pacific,” Travis handles more cargo and passenger
traffic through its airport than any other military air terminal in the United States.

The city is surrounded by undeveloped hills on its
western and northern borders. To its east and north-
east are grazing and prairie grasslands. To the south,
beyond the neighboring city of Suisun City, is the larg- est remaining wetland around San Francisco Bay, the
Suisun Marsh. Suisun Valley, one of the county’s most
productive agricultural regions, adjoins Fairfield and
separates the central city from the Cordelia area.

Planning Area
The General Plan Planning Area (Planning Area),
shown in Figure 2-1, is defined as the land area ad-
dressed by the General Plan Update. The Planning
Area encompasses 278 square miles including the
City of Fairfield (approximately 41 square miles) and
its Sphere of Influence (SOI) (approximately 11 square
miles) which is generally coterminous with City
boundary but includes a handful of areas surround-
ing the city limits. The largest SOI section, known as
the Travis Reserve, is located in the northeast area of the city limits, adjacent to Travis Air Force Base. The Planning Area also includes the surrounding unincor-
porated areas in Green Valley and Suisun Valley, as
in the current General Plan. The Planning Area also

2.1 Regional Location and Planning Area
Packet Page 329 of 390Attachment 29 Page 2 of 15

R o c kv ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sin essC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
Pk
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park Southbrook
Park
Gary
Falati
Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

N
L
I
M
I
T
L
I
N

E
UR

I
M

I
T

I
N
E
Cement
Hill
Elkhorn
Peak
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Okell
Hill
Suisun
Hill
Sulphur
Springs
Mountain
Twin
Sisters
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\PlanningArea.mxd Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 3/10/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
Figure1-2: Planning Area
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 AÝ
Figure 2-1: Planning Area
R o c kv ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
ey
RdWaltersRdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Red TopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
BusinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
Pk
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park Southbrook
Park
Gary
Falati
Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

N L
I
M
I
T
L
I
N
E
UR

I
M

I
T

Draft Vision
and Guiding
Principles
May 2021
The Vision reflects the community’s aspirations for Fairfield’s future. It is a summary of the shared goals to be achieved by the General Plan. The Guiding Principles elaborate upon the Vision and will provide guidance to detailed policies. The Vision and Guiding Principles are based on input from the community gained through community workshops and pop-up outreach, an online community survey, stakeholder interviews, General Plan Advisory Committee meetings, and a focused joint City Council and Planning Commission workshop.
3/24 School Activity: one big group
8 Considerable input from community members and
stakeholders has been collected through the commu-
nity outreach process. Many community members
expressed how diversity is Fairfield’s strength, but
that the city lacks a cohesive identity. These residents noted that building a strong sense of place is critical to attracting businesses, residents, and visitors. To
do this, participants at outreach events suggested
maintaining Fairfield’s small-town feel while building
on its agricultural reputation within the Bay Area.

There was broad agreement among participants at
outreach events that addressing housing needs and
homelessness is one of the top priorities for ensur-
ing that Fairfield remains a livable community into
the future. A key issue for many stakeholders and
residents was the lack of a variety of housing options
in Fairfield. Some noted that Fairfield has come to
be seen as a “bedroom community” from which res-
idents commute out of to reach jobs in other parts
of the Bay Area. These participants felt that Fairfield is lacking in housing options outside of homeowner-
ship of single-family homes and recommended that
the city focus on diversifying its housing market to in- clude more rental family housing, smaller and more
affordable live-work units, and workforce housing.

Many community outreach participants felt that the
Fairfield should focus its new housing on infill devel- opment—that is, building on underutilized or vacant
parcels within its existing neighborhoods.

Other priorities expressed through the community
outreach process included preserving agriculture
and open space by emphasizing a compact develop-
ment pattern; expanding the desirability of alterna-
tive transportation options by promoting a bikeable/
walkable land use pattern and adding supportive
infrastructure for pedestrians, bicycles, and transit
riders; making origins or destinations on either end
of a transit trip easier to complete without a car; revi- talizing and improving upon Downtown Fairfield; and
promoting innovative economic development that
capitalizes on Fairfield’s strengths, such as its location on the Capital Corridor, access to infrastructure, and
access to high quality water.

2.2 Public Input
Packet Page 331 of 390Attachment 29 Page 4 of 15

9 Examining the city’s existing land use pattern is a valu- able starting point for assessing opportunities for the type, location, and amount of future development. A
detailed analysis of existing conditions regarding land use is documented in the Existing Conditions Report
Chapter 2: Land Use. Figure 2-2 shows the existing
(on the ground) land uses in Fairfield. As shown in the figure, Fairfield is primarily made up of single-fam-
ily neighborhoods with commercial uses limited to
major corridors and in highway-serving commercial
centers. Residential areas, particularly those in Cord-

2.3 Existing Land Use Pattern
elia, those in Central Fairfield west of I-80 and east of North Texas Street, and in the developing Northeast
Fairfield tend to be far from commercial and retail
services. This land use pattern contributes to making
Fairfield a mostly suburban, auto-oriented communi-
ty – one in which a car or other automobile is needed
to complete most trips. The exception to this general
pattern is in Downtown and central Fairfield, where
the city’s older neighborhoods include a mix of single- and multi-family residential uses in close proximity to the pedestrian-oriented Texas Street corridor.

Packet Page 332 of 390Attachment 29 Page 5 of 15

RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
BusinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
Pk
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
Park
Meadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park
Rancho
Solano
Park
Gary
Falati
Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

R
B

A
N

L
I

M
I

T
L
I

E
U

R
B

E
Cement
Hill
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Suisun
Hill
Twin
Sisters
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\EXLU.mxd
Rural Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential - Attached
Multi-family Residential
Mobile Home Park
Service Stations
Hotel, Motel, Lodging Commercial
General Commercial
Office
Mixed-use
Light Industrial
Heavy Industrial
Residential Care/Assisted Living Facility
Hospital
School/Educational Facility
Church/Religious Facility
Public/Government Owned
Public Transit
Utilities
Parks and Recreation
Open Space, Greenways, Trails and Protected Areas
Agriculture
Agriculture/Conservation
Travis Air Force Base
Vacant
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Water
Marsh Land
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 #
Map Date: 4/30/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
C o u rageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
BusinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
Pk
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
Park
Meadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park
Rancho
Solano
Park
Gary
Falati
Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

R
B

A
N
L
I

M
I

T L
I

E
U

R
B

11 Fairfield has seen a significant growth in its stock of single-family housing over the past ten years. Howev-
er, there has not been a similar increase in the number of multifamily units and condominiums that might be
affordable to a wider range of households, including
some of the city’s workforce. One of the fundamen-
tal appeals of Fairfield is the relative affordability of single-family homes compared to the inner Bay Area.

Thus, the Alternatives propose several options that
attempt to balance these competing needs between
single-family and multi-family housing: some options
focusing more on infill development, while others
identify large swathes of land of the type needed for
new single-family housing development.

Other key takeaways from Fairfield’s existing land
use pattern include the following:
•Fairfield is separated into three distinct areas by
its current land use pattern. These three areas
are: the Cordelia neighborhood to the west, Cen-
tral Fairfield, and Northeast Fairfield. Between
Cordelia and Central Fairfield, the City bound-
ary is a narrow area parallel to the train tracks
south of I-80. While future completion of the
Linear Trail would provide a full connection, cur-
rently a lack of connectivity between these areas
encourages dependence on automobiles, while
also making it difficult for Fairfield to develop a
singular identity as a City.
•Travis Air Force Base, located in the northeast
portion of the city, represents 18.4 percent of the
city’s total land, making it tied with single-fami-
ly housing for the two most common land use
types in the city. Surrounding Travis is the Travis
Reserve, which contains open space and agricul-
tural uses that are important to protecting the
Base from encroachment of incompatible uses.
•Open space and agricultural uses generally sur-
round the city, with the Suisun and Green valleys
to the north and the Suisun Marsh to the south.

These areas provide space for agricultural uses,
for protection of important habitats, and for
active and passive recreation. They also serve
to provide a greenspace buffer between urban
development in some areas, such as the Vacav-
ille-Fairfield-Solano County Greenbelt. The pur-
pose of the Greenbelt is to preserve open space
land and prevent urban sprawl between cities.
•Industrial uses are concentrated in three main
areas: south of Highway 12 just north of the Su-
isun Marsh (where the Jelly Belly and Anheus-
er-Busch factories are located), along Hunting-
ton Drive west of Peabody Road in northeast
Fairfield, and between Interstates 80 and 680 at
Cordelia Junction.

Packet Page 334 of 390Attachment 29 Page 7 of 15

12 The Existing Conditions Report goes into detail on
a wide range of environmental conditions and con-
straints in Fairfield, summarized here. Figure 2-3
shows the location of constraints present in Fairfield.

Constraints include the following:
•Geologic faults. Major fault lines running
through the Planning Area are the Green Valley
Fault and the Cordelia Fault, both of which run
through the western portion of the city in the Cor-
delia area. If an earthquake would occur along
either of these fault lines, surface fault rupture
could occur causing serious damage or failure to
buildings atop these faults. Thus, these two faults
are both covered by Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones,
which restrict the construction of buildings used
for human occupancy on the surface trace of ac-
tive faults.
•Open space protection. Fairfield is surround-
ed by open space and agricultural land that is
important for the agricultural economy, for the
protection of critical wildlife habitats and eco-
systems, and for the enjoyment and education
of residents and visitors. The Suisun Valley 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 sever-
al critical habitats.
•Flooding. There are several areas across the
Planning Area that have been known to flood
and/or exist in a floodplain. Flooding has oc-
curred 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 adjacent
to the city since the 1970s. Fairfield is at a 38 per-
cent 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 Hazard Severity Zones by the State.
•Airport hazards. The Planning Area is governed
by development restrictions laid out in the Tra-
vis AFB Land Use Compatibility Plan (LUCP). Most
of the Planning Area is designated as Zone D by
the LUCP, which prohibits any land uses that are
considered hazards to flight and requires that
any proposed development over 200 feet under-
goes 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.

When considering alternatives, it is important to keep
in mind that each of the Alternatives concepts contain
tradeoffs. For example, more single-family residential
growth and more industrial jobs growth requires larg-
er vacant parcels, which largely occur outside of City
limits, and at times, in areas currently designated for agricultural use. The value of agricultural land, future economic trends, and the need to accommodate fu-
ture growth are all considerations to be evaluated.

While some areas of the plan may be impacted by an
environmental constraint, that does not necessarily
mean that no development may occur there. Devel-
opment in these areas must be planned carefully, with
consideration for the constraints to enable protection
of resources and minimize threat and risks from haz-
ards. For example, Alternative One includes some de-
velopment in Rancho Solano, which is an area with a
high fire risk. When considering this option, one must
weigh the benefits of allowing new housing develop-
ment in a desirable area against the potential risks or added costs of development in this area.

2.4 Environmental Conditions and Constraints
Packet Page 335 of 390Attachment 29 Page 8 of 15

NORTH TEXAS STCEMENT HILL RD

DOVER AVED IC K S ONHILL
RD

MANUE L C A M POS PKWY

P A RADISEVAL L EY DR

HILBORN RD

WATERMAN BLVDRANCHOSOLANOPKWYMANKASCORNERRD

ABERNATHY RDSUISUN VALLEY RDROCKVILLE
R
D

SUISUNPKW Y

ROCKVILL
E
R
D
GR
E
EN
VA
L
L
EY

M A N G E L S B LVDBUSINES S C E N TERDRAIR BASE PKWY

E TABOR AVE

TRAVIS BLVD

TABOR AVE

PENNSYLVANIA AVEW TEXAS STGATEWAYBLVD
O
LI
V
E
R
R

DSANDREWS RD

CEMENT HILL RD PEABODY RDVANDENRDTRAVIS AVE

HANGAR AVECLAYBANKRD
WE
B
S
T
E
R

S
T

SUNSETAVERAILROADAVEVILLAGE DRPINTAIL DR WALTERS RDRAGSDALE STLAWLERRANCH P K WY PETERSON RDHWY 12
HWY 12 UNION AVEBECK AVECORDELIA R D

CO RD ELIA R D

CORDELI
A
R

DPITTMANRD SUISUN
VALLEY

RDLOPES RDL
OPES
RDCHADBOURNE RDMAIN STTravis Air Force Base
SuisunCity
SuisunMarshLinear P
ar
k Linear
P
ark
Train StationSpecific Plan
Heart of FairfieldSpecific Plan
SolanoCommunityCollege
80 80
680
12 T
T
T
ZONE C
ZONE C
B2
B1
A
A
B1
A B1
B1
B2
B2
B1
A
A
0 2 41
MILES
100-year Flood Zone
CPUC Wildfire Hazard
Tier 2-Elevated
Alquist Priolo Zone
Steep Slopes
Airport Land Use
Compatibilty Zones
CNEL 65 Airport Noise Contour
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Specific Plans
Railroad
Development
Constraints
65 dB
65 dB65 dBNORTH TEXAS STCEMENT HILL RD

DOVER AVED IC K S ONHILL
RD

MANUE L C A M POS PKWY

P A RADISEVALL EY DR

HILBORN RD

WATERMAN BLVDRANCHOSOLANOPKWYMANKASCORNERRD

ABERNATHY RDSUISUN VALLEY RDROCKVILLE R
D

SUISUNPKWY

ROCKVIL
L
E
R
D
GR
E
EN

VA
L
L
E
Y

MANGELSBLVD

BUSINESSCENTERDR AIR BASE PKWY

E TABOR AVE

TRAVIS BLVD

TABOR AVE

PENNSYLVANIA AVEW TEXAS STGATEWAYBLVD
O
LI
V
E
R
R

DSANDREWSRD

CEMENT HILL RD PEABODY RDVANDENRDTRAVIS AVE

HANGAR AVECLAYBANKRD
WE
B
S
T
E
R

S
T

SUNSETAVERAILRO ADAVEVILLAGE DRPINTAIL DR WALTERS RDRAGSDALE STLAWLERRANCH PKW Y PETERSON RDHWY 12
HWY 12 UNION AVEBECK AVECORDELIARD

CORDELIA RD

CORDELI
A
R

DPITTMANRDSU
ISUN
VA
L
L
EY

RDLOPES RDLOPES
RDCHADBOURNE RDMAIN STTravis Air Force Base
Suisun
City
Suisun
MarshLinear
P
ark Linear
P
ark
Train StationSpecific Plan
Heart of FairfieldSpecific Plan
SolanoCommunityCollege
80 80
680
12 T
T
T
ZONE C
ZONE C
B2
B1
A
A
B1
A B1
B1
B2
B2
B1
A
A
0 2 41
MILES
100-year Flood Zone
CPUC Wildfire Hazard
Tier 2-Elevated
Alquist Priolo Zone
Steep Slopes
Airport Land Use
Compatibilty Zones
CNEL 65 Airport Noise Contour
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Specific Plans
Railroad
Development
Constraints
65 dB
65 dB65 dBNORTH TEXAS STCEMENT HILL RD

DOVER AVED IC K S ONHILL
RD

MANUE L C A M POS PKWY

P A RADISEVAL LEY DR

HILBORN RD

WATERMAN BLVDRANCHOSOLANOPKWYMANKASCORNERRD

ABERNATHY RDSUISUN VALLEY RDROCKVILLE R
D

SUISUNPKWY

ROCKVIL
L
E
R
D
GR
E
EN
VA
L
L
E
Y

MANGELSBLVD

BUSINESSCENTERDR AIR BASE PKWY

E TABOR AVE

TRAVIS BLVD

TABOR AVE

PENNSYLVANIA AVEW TEXAS STGATEWAYBLVD
O
LI
V
E
R
R

DSANDREWS RD

CEMENT HILL RD PEABODY RDVANDENRDTRAVIS AVE

HANGAR AVECLAYBANKRD
WE
B
S
T
E
R

S
T

SUNSETAVERAILRO AD AVEVILLAGE DRPINTAIL DR WALTERS RDRAGSDALE STLAWLERRANCH PK WY PETERSON RDHWY 12
HWY 12 UNION AVEBECK AVECORDELI A R D

CORDELIA RD

CORDELI
A
R

DPITTMANRDSUISUN
VALLEY

RDLOPES RDLOPES
RDCHADBOURNE RDMAIN STTravis Air Force Base
Suisun
City
SuisunMarshLinear
P
ark Linear
P
ark
Train StationSpecific Plan
Heart of FairfieldSpecific Plan
SolanoCommunityCollege
80 80
680
12 T
T
T
ZONE C
ZONE C
B2
B1
A
A
B1
A B1
B1
B2
B2
B1
A
A
0 2 41
MILES
100-year Flood Zone
CPUC Wildfire HazardTier 2-Elevated
Alquist Priolo Zone
Steep Slopes
Airport Land Use
Compatibilty Zones
CNEL 65 Airport Noise Contour
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Specific Plans
Railroad
Development
Constraints
65 dB
65 dB65 dBNORTH TEXAS STCEMENT HILL RD

DOVER AVEDICKSONHILL
RD

MANUELCAMPOSPKWY

PARADISEVALLEYDR

HILBORN RD

WATERMAN BLVDRANCHOSOLANOPKWYMANKASCORNERRD

ABERNATHY RDSUISUN VALLEY RDROCKVILLE R
D

SUISUNPKWY

ROCKVIL
L
E
R
D
GR
E
EN

VA
L
L
E
Y

MANGELSBLVD

BUSINESSCENTERDRAIR BASE PKWY

E TABOR AVE

TRAVIS BLVD

TABOR AVE

PENNSYLVANIA AVEW TEXAS STGATEWAYBLVD
O
LI
V
E
R
R

DSANDREWSRD

CEMENT HILL RD PEABODY RDVANDENRDTRAVIS AVE

HANGAR AVECLAYBANKRD
WE
B
S
T
E
R

S
T

SUNSETAVERAILROADAVEVILLAGE DRPINTAIL DR WALTERS RDRAGSDALE STLAWLERRANCH P K WY PETERSON RDHWY 12
HWY 12UNION AVEBECK AVECORDELIARD

CORDELIA RD

CORDELI
A
R

DPITTMANRDSU
ISUN
VA
L
L
EY

RDLOPES RDLOPES
RDCHADBOURNE RDMAIN STTravis Air Force Base
SuisunCity
Suisun
MarshLinear
P
ar
kLinear
P
ark
Train Station
Specific Plan
Heart of FairfieldSpecific Plan
SolanoCommunityCollege
80 80
680
12 T
T
T
ZONE C
ZONE C
B2
B1
A
A
B1
A B1
B1
B2
B2
B1
A
A
0 2 41
MILES
100-year Flood Zone
CPUC Wildfire Hazard
Tier 2-Elevated
Alquist Priolo Zone
Steep Slopes
Airport Land Use
Compatibilty Zones
CNEL 65 Airport Noise Contour
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Specific Plans
Railroad
DevelopmentConstraints
65 dB
65 dB65 dB13
Figure 2-3: Environmental Conditions and Constraints
Packet Page 336 of 390Attachment 29 Page 9 of 15

14 To estimate the future demand for residential devel- opment in Fairfield through the General Plan time
horizon of 2050, three residential growth projec-
tion scenarios were developed. The Market Analysis
chapter of the Existing Conditions Report—found
on the project website—provides an in-depth analy-
sis of these projections and market forces, summa-
rized here. The three scenarios are referred to as the
baseline, accelerated, and maximum population and
household growth projections. These projections are
based on projection data provided by the Association
of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the regional gov-
erning body charged with providing projection data
for the entire Bay Area. As seen in Figure 2-4, the to- tal number of households in Fairfield is projected to
range from roughly 45,200 to 47,550 by 2050, which
would translate to between approximately 7,000 and
9,400 new households over the General Plan time
horizon. In terms of total citywide population, Fair-
field is projected to grow to between 142,940 and
150,130 total residents by 2050, or between 25,530
to 32,720 new residents. To accommodate the future
population and household growth, the number of
housing units in Fairfield is projected to grow by be-
tween roughly 7,500 and to 10,000 new units. These
numbers are inclusive of approximately 1,960 units
that are already under construction or approved.

Figure 2-5 displays the city’s non-residential growth
projections, including industrial, office, and retail de- mand over the General Plan time horizon. Industrial
square footage has the greatest range in its projected
growth between the baseline, accelerated, and max-
imum projections, and it also maintains the largest
square footage in the city compared to office and re-
tail spaces. The General Plan Alternatives must also
be responsive to the changing nature of work, how-
ever. The Alternatives consider that demand for of-
fice space may change in the future, especially as the
continued effects of the COVID-19 pandemic play out,
and that flexible office uses may be needed to meet
this demand.

2.5 Growth Projections
Packet Page 337 of 390Attachment 29 Page 10 of 15

TABLE 2-1: PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Map
Ref #
Project Name Address or Location Development Type Building Area (square feet)
Units
Non-Residential
Under Review
1 CB Lining Contractors Yard 780 Link Road Industrial -- 2 Float Glass and Mirror 2600 Industrial Drive Industrial 15,000 - 3 Innova Chadbourne 510 Chadbourne
Road
Industrial 432,500 -
Approved
Huntington and Air Base Huntington Drive Industrial 497,000 - Gateway 80 Building C 2950 Cordelia Road Office/Industrial 356,000 - 4 PDC Building A Business Center
Drive
Industrial 162,000 -
5 PDC Buildings B & C Business Center
Drive
Industrial 219,400 -
7 Storage360 1245 Horizon Drive Storage facility 70,000 - 6 Pittman Road Self Storage 555 Pittman Road Storage facility 114,000 - 10 Fairfield Toyota Expansion 2575 Auto Mall
Parkway
Car dealership 13,500 -
11 Nippon Industries Expansion 2340 S Watney Way Industrial 10,200 - 12 Storage Pro Lopes Road Storage facility 137,000 -
Train Station Specific Plan -Various 1,289,000 -
Heart of Fairfield Specific
Plan
-Various 140,000 -
15 The Alternatives and development projections re-
flect pipeline development activity. Currently, there
are 19 residential development projects underway in
Fairfield, approved or under construction. These proj-
ects will add a total of 3,130 units to the city’s housing stock. In line with the city’s existing land use and mar- ket trends, the vast majority (84.5 percent) of these
new units will be single-family homes. Most of this
development is occurring in Northeast Fairfield and in
the Cordelia neighborhood. Major projects are shown
in Figure 2-7, keyed to the map reference number col-
umn.

In addition, both the Train Station Specific Plan (TSSP) and the Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan (HOFSP) have
added significant housing capacity in Northeast Fair-
field and Downtown Fairfield, respectively. The TSSP,
which covers a significant portion of Northeast Fair-
field close to Travis Air Force Base, has capacity for
over 3,500 new units in addition to the housing units
that are already underway within the Specific Plan
area. The TSSP authorizes that approximately 44 per-
cent of these additional units are intended for sin-
gle-family homes. The HOF, which applies to Down-
town Fairfield along the West Texas Street and Texas
Street corridors, includes capacity for approximately

2.6 Current Development Activity
Packet Page 338 of 390Attachment 29 Page 11 of 15

Residential
Approved
13 Bella Vita Phase II Via De Bella Single-family -13
14 Cooper’s Landing Cement Hill Road Single-family -169 15 Estaire Pittman Road at Link
Road
Mixed-use -25
16 Fieldcrest Red Top Road Single-family -394
19 Hawthorne Mill Cement Hill Road
and Peabody Road
Single-family -550
18 Villas at Havenhill Red Top Road Multi-family -324
17 Gold Hill Village III Gold Hill Road at
Lopes Road
Single-family -79
20 Train Station Specific Plan -Single and
multifamily
-3,527
20 Heart of Fairfield Specific
Plan
-Single and
multifamily
-1,600
Under Construction1
21 Eastridge Green Valley Road Single-family -15
22 Enclave at Red Top Red Top Road Single-family -65
23 Gardenstone at Tabor Ave Gardenstone Place at
Tabor Avenue
Single-family -10
24 Gold Hill Village II Red Top Road at
Lopes Road
Single-family -6
25 Gold Ridge Peabody Road Single-family -32
29 Green Valley II Business Center
Drive/ Suisun Valley
Road
Multifamily -281
26 Ivy Crossing E Tabor Avenue Single-family -111
27 Village Oaks Suisun Valley Road Single-family -10
28 Villages at Fairfield Gulf Drive at Clay
Bank Road
Single-family -1,048
Total 3,455,600 8,260
(1) Units in “Under Construction” represent units remaining in projects that are currently undergoing construction Source: City of Fairfield, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021.
17Packet Page 339 of 390Attachment 29 Page 12 of 15

R o c k v ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u rageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l CamposPk
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park
Gary
Falati
Park
Rancho
Solano
Park
¬«28
¬«7
¬«18

N A PA C O U N T Y

N
L
I

M
I

T
L
I

E
U

E
Cement
Hill
Elkhorn
Peak
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Okell
Hill
Suisun
Hill
Sulphur
Springs
Mountain
Twin
Sisters
¬«23
¬«27
¬«3
¬«26
¬«24
¬«1
¬«2
¬«11
¬«21
¬«10
¬«17
¬«25
¬«8
¬«9
¬«22
¬«14
¬«28
¬«19
¬«16
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\PipelineProjects.mxd Non-Residential Under Review
CB Lining Contractors Yard
Float Glass and Mirror
Innova Chadbourne
Non-Residential Approved
PDC Building A
PDC Buildings B & C
Pittman Road Self Storage
Storage 360
Huntington and Air Base Industrial
Gateway 80 Building C
Non-Residential Under Construction
Fairfield Toyota Expansion
Nippon Industries Expansion
Storage Pro
Residential Approved
Bella Vita Phase II
Cooper's Landing
Estaire
Fieldcrest
Gold Hill Village III
Villas at Havenhill
Hawthorne Mill
Residential Under Construction
Eastridge
Enclave at Red Top
Gardenstone at Tabor Ave
Gold Hill Village II
Gold Ridge
Ivy Crossing
Village Oaks
Villages at Fairfield (I, II, & III)
Green Valley II
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
Specific Plans
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Water
Map Date: 10/8/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
x-x Pipeline Projects
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: CalEnviroScreen 3.0, 2018; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 AÝ
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 Cordelia
N eitzelR dGreen
V
a
l
le
y
RdBusinessC enterD rSuisunValleyRdPittmanRdLopesRd¬«15
¬«1
¬«21
¬«6
¬«13
¬«12
¬«4
¬«5
¬«29 !"c$
%&p(
InsetNot to Scale
Figure 2-6: Pipeline Projects
20 1717Packet Page 340 of 390Attachment 29 Page 13 of 15

18 1,600 additional units in central Fairfield.

Opportunity sites are those that have the greatest po-
tential for land use or intensity change over the long
term. The purpose of mapping opportunity sites is to
understand where the greatest reuse or intensifica-
tion possibilities exist. The development of the three
Alternatives thus took into account opportunity sites
when considering where changes might be most likely
to occur. Figure 2-6 shows the location of opportunity
sites across the Planning Area. Sites were identified
as potential opportunity sites if they fell under one or more of the following three categories: vacant lots, a
low improvements to land assessed value (AV) ratio,
or low floor area ratio (FAR).

The AV ratio refers to the ratio of the value of existing buildings to the value of the land. Where this ratio is less than one, a lot may be considered underutilized.

A ratio of less than 0.5 indicates even greater poten-
tial for redevelopment, as it indicates that the value of that land is much higher than the value of the present
use. The FAR refers to the ratio of the building’s floor area to the overall site area. A low FAR indicates a low intensity use with potential for intensification in the future. Sites with an FAR of 0.3 or less were identified as having significant potential for redevelopment. In
Figure 2-6, sites where the property owner has indi-
cated interest in a land use designation change or
potential change in density or intensity are outlined
in yellow.

In Fairfield, approximately 1,925 acres of land are
vacant, while 1,077 acres are underutilized (either a
low AV ratio or low FAR, or both). Most of the city’s
vacant land is in Northeast Fairfield, much of which
is planned for development as part of the TSSP. Un-
derutilized parcels can be found along the city’s com-
mercial corridors and in its highway-oriented com-
mercial centers. Notably, the Solano Town Center
mall and the North Texas Street corridor are areas
of concentrated underutilized lots. This is due mainly
to the presence of large amount of land dedicated to
parking lots compared to land occupied by buildings
for use by people. The Alternatives consider these op-
portunity sites and how they may be transitioned to
better serve the community in the future.

2.7 Opportunity Sites
19Packet Page 341 of 390Attachment 29 Page 14 of 15

Red TopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad A vAbernathyRdOhio St
C o u rageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdO liv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl
S
ui
s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
R
d
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterD rClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
P
k
w
y
Travis Av

N A P A C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Solano
Community
College
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club

U R B A N LIM IT L IN EU R B A N L I M I T L I N E
C e m e n t
H i l l
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
T w i n
S i s t e r s
Train Station
Specific Plan
Heart of
Fairfield
Specific Plan
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\Potential Opportunity Sites_jc.mxd Potential Opportunity Sites
Undeveloped
Vacant
Underutilized Sites
Based on Land and Improvement Values
AV Ratio 0.0 - 0.50 (Low)
AV Ratio 0.50 - 0.99 (Medium)
Based on Floor Area Ratio
FAR 0.0 - 0.15 (Low)
FAR 0.15 - 0.30 (Medium)
Properties of Interest
Current Development Projects
Train Station Specific Plan
Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Water
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 *Note:Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the ratio of total building square foot to lot square foot. AV Ratio is the ratio of improvement value over land value. Map Date: 5/19/2021 0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
X-X Potential Development Oppor tunity Sites
Figure 2-7: Opportunity Sites
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
R o c k v ille R d
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdR ailroad A vAbernathyRdOhio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdO liv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Waterman BlSui
s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdNorth Gate RdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd
McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterD rClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
P
k
w
y
Travis Av

N A P A C O U N T Y

SO L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Solano
Community
College
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club

U R B A N LIM IT L IN E

U R B A N L I M I T L I N E
C e m e n t
H i l l
K i r b y
H i l l
L u c o
H i l l
S u i s u n
H i l l
Twin
Sisters
Train Station
Specific Plan
Hear t of
Fairfield
Specific Plan
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\Potential Opportunity Sites_jc.mxd Potential Opportunity Sites
Undeveloped
Vacant
Underutilized Sites
Based on Land and Improvement Values
AV Ratio 0.0 - 0.50 (Low)
AV Ratio 0.50 - 0.99 (Medium)
Based on Floor Area Ratio
FAR 0.0 - 0.15 (Low)
FAR 0.15 - 0.30 (Medium)
Properties of Interest
Current Development Projects
Train Station Specific Plan
Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Water
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 *Note:Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the ratio of total building square foot to lot square foot. AV Ratio is the ratio of improvement value over land value. Map Date: 5/19/2021 0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
X-X Potential Development Oppor tunity Sites
191819Packet Page 342 of 390Attachment 29 Page 15 of 15

Alternatives
The three Alternatives represent different options for achiev- ing the General Plan Update goals and for accommodating projected growth in Fairfield. There are three basic distinc- tions between the plans: (1) the overall amount of growth and balance between the various uses, (2) the geographic strategy for this growth, and (3) the variation in density and intensity of growth. This section describes the draft land use classifica- tion used in the Alternatives, and then discusses the elements unique to each Alternative scenario.

Chapter 3
Packet Page 343 of 390Attachment 30 Page 1 of 16

TABLE 3-1: LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR ALTERNATIVES
Land Use Description
Low Density Residential Detached single-family dwellings (2-8 dwelling units/acre) Medium Density Residential Attached or detached single-family, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, and town- houses (4-15 dwelling units/acre)
High Density Residential Townhouses and stacked multi-family housing (15-32 dwelling units/acre) Commercial Retail and commercial uses, including citywide shopping centers with off-street parking and neighborhood shopping with clusters of street-front stores, Mixed-Use Variety of medium- and high-density residential, office, and general commercial uses on the same lot.

R&D/Office Flex Research and development facilities and flexible office uses, including both tradi- tional and co-working office spaces.

Public Facility Government facilities, public and private schools, libraries, and colleges.

Industrial Mix of manufacturing, production, warehousing, general service, storage, and distribution activities. These categories will be broken down further in the Preferred Plan, likely into industrial flex space for small businesses, and high-tech industrial, with higher ceiling requirements, flexibility in design, and a focus on certain industrial uses.

Agrihood Low- or medium-density residential, agricultural land, community gardens, and retail or commercial uses supportive of agricultural business (called ‘agritourism’.) Park/Open Space Parks, recreation complexes, trails, and open space for ecological preservation. 20 In the Alternatives, development is depicted according to a set of draft land use classifications. These classifica- tions, described in Table 3-1, are generalized at this stage in the process and will be refined and further broken down in later stages.

3.1 Draft Land Use Classifications
Packet Page 344 of 390Attachment 30 Page 2 of 16

21 3.2 Common Characteristics
with new growth. The Preferred Plan will explore
strategies to address existing parkland gaps and
create a finer grained pattern of green space.
•Buildout of all major pipeline development proj-
ects will occur in all three Alternatives over the
next 30 years, including major projects such as
the Villages at Fairfield, Hawthorne Mill, Villas at
Havenhill Fieldcrest, and development estimated
in The Heart of Fairfield and Train Station specific
plans.
•Consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050, The Heart of
Fairfield and the Train Station Specific Plan areas
will develop as priority development areas (PDAs)
that will be rich in transit and job growth. The
industrial area between Highway 12 and Cordelia
Road will remain a Priority Production Area (PPA),
a place for job growth in middle-wage industries
like manufacturing, logistics or other trades.

The three Alternatives share several characteristics:
•Improvements recommended in the Linear Park
Trail Revitalization Plan will occur across all three
Alternatives. Additional “activity nodes” are rec-
ommended at other key locations based on some
of the Alternatives’ development patterns.
•The Alternatives assume completion of packages
1-4 of the I-80/I-680/SR-12 interchange, includ-
ing the I-680/Red Top Road interchange project.

Features of this project include the widening of
these freeways, a realignment of I-680, a direct
connector route between I-80 and Highway 12,
construction of new interchange overcrossings,
new entrance/exist ramps, bicycle and pedestrian
safety improvements, and the extension of some
local streets leading to I-80 and Highway 12.
•Each Alternative will require new parks and
schools. The approximate locations of these facili-
ties are shown with icons in areas that correspond
Packet Page 345 of 390Attachment 30 Page 3 of 16

22 Geographically, the City of Fairfield is divided into three parts: Cordelia, Central Fairfield, and Northeast Fairfield. New development to occur as part of the
Train Station Specific Plan, Hawthorne Mill, and com-
pletion of the Villages at Fairfield project will serve to enhance connections between Central Fairfield and
development to the Northeast. However, the area
between Cordelia and Central Fairfield—north and
south of I-80—presents an opportunity to establish a
new neighborhood that will help connect these two
parts of Fairfield.

North of I-80, single-family detached and attached
homes, a new 20-acre community park, neighbor-
hood-oriented shops, and a new high school are
oriented around an enhanced Linear Park Trail con-
nection that links the Transportation Center to Solano
Community College through the neighborhood. In
addition to the West Texas Gateway Improvement
and a future planned Solano Transportation Authority
project will improve connectivity to Central Fairfield
and the Transportation Center via direct bus-off
ramps and future bus stop, as well as added sidewalks
and landscaping.

This Alternative also continues to build on the desir-
ability of Fairfield as an affordable enclave for sin-
gle-family homes while providing more of a range of
housing options, such as townhouses and condos.

Alternative One also adds a new single-family neigh-
borhood in the Rancho Solano area, complete with
another neighborhood park. However, special atten-
tion must be paid to any potential wildfire risks in this area.

This Alternative emphasizes the importance of
Solano Community College as a “knowledge hub,”
with higher density student housing and compatible
retail clustered to the campus’s southwest corner.

Along Business Center Drive, an expanded medical,
research, and advanced manufacturing sector pro-
vides new jobs and a natural fit for hands-on technical education programs in partnership with the College.

In the Nelson Hill area, Alternative One envisions a
small portion developing with residential uses and the
remainder becoming a special park with hiking trails
and scenic vistas. To the west, additional housing and
a mix of neighborhood-oriented, smaller scale uses
support retail that better serves community needs.

This could potentially include a childcare center or
community-serving use, such as a youth center.

This Alternative adds the largest amount of land for
new industrial and manufacturing jobs, taking advan-
tage of the strong demand for warehousing and the
City’s desire to build upon advanced and specialty
manufacturing and food processing. Most of this new
industrial land is located south of I-80.

New connections also help to link new and existing
Fairfield neighborhoods:
•In the SOI to the west of the Cordelia junction,
low-density residential development is intended
to better connect Cordelia to Green Valley,
and a walk/bike trail is planned as part of the
Interchange project.

3.3 Alternative 1: New Neighborhoods and Connections
•The Linear Park Trail traverses the new neigh-
borhood north of I-80, connecting Solano
College with the Fairfield Transportation Center.

Enhanced onsite connections to these locations,
particularly to the College, will occur.
•Running through the southern portion of the
Cordelia neighborhood, Gold Hill Road is rebuilt
to accommodate all modes of transportation
between the Goldhill Interchange and south-
ern neighborhoods, including bicycles, in order
to better connect residents to the new Pacific
Flyway Center, an open space land preserve with
an interpretive nature center and educational
facility.
•Ingress and egress to the new Nelson Hill neigh-
borhood would be explored if selected as a
desired concept in the Preferred Plan.

Packet Page 346 of 390Attachment 30 Page 4 of 16

23NORTH TEXAS STCEMENT HILL RD

DOVER AVED IC K S ONHILL
RD

MANUE L C A M POS PKWY

P A RADISEVAL LEY DR

HILBORN RD

WATERMAN BLVDRANCHOSOLANOPKWYMANKASCORNERRD

ABERNATHY RDSUISUN VALLEY RDROCKVILLE R
D

SUISUNPKWY

ROCKVILL
E
R
D
GR
E
EN
V
A
L
L
E
Y

M A N G E L S BLVDBUSINES S C E N TERDRAIR BASE PKWY

E TABOR AVE

TRAVIS BLVD

TABOR AVE

PENNSYLVANIA AVEW TEXAS STGATEWAYBLVD
O
L
I
V
E
R

DSANDREWS RD

CEMENT HILL RD PEABODY RDVANDENRDTRAVIS AVE

HANGAR AVECLAYBANKRD
WE
B
S
T
E
R

S
T

SUNSETAVERAILRO AD AVEVILLAGE DRPINTAIL DR WALTERS RDRAGSDALE STLAWLERRANCH PKWY PETERSON RDHWY 12
HWY 12 UNION AVEBECK AVECORDELIA R D

CORDELIA
R
D

CORDELI
A
R

DPITTMANRD SUISUN
VA
L
LEY

RDOPES RDLLOPES

RDCHADBOURNE RDMAIN STTravis Air Force Base
SuisunCity
Suis u nMar s hLinear

P
ar
k Linear
P
ark
Train Station
Heart of Fair
SolanoCommunityCollege
80 80
680
12 T
T
T
0 2 41
MILES
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Mixed Use
Medical/R & D
Public Facility
Industrial
Park/Open Space
Linear Park
Bike/Pedestrian Connection
City Limits
Sphere of I ce
Railroad
Transit Center
Park
New School
Improvementsto Linear Park
Medium/high density,student housing, close to
commercial center
Pedestrian/bikeconnectionResearch and development/Medical jobs-focused center Mixed Use neighborhood
small-scale shops,community center
Industrial/
business park
Residential with parkconnects Cordeliawith Green Valley Expansion of industrialuse into unincorporated land
New interchangeI-80/I-680/SR12
T
Pedestrian/bikeconnection
New residentialon Nelson Hill
Improvementsto Linear Park
New residentialneighborhood
Figure 3-1: Alternative 1, New Neighborhoods and Connections Packet Page 347 of 390Attachment 30 Page 5 of 16

24 R o c kv ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
ey
RdWaltersRdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRd Air Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
BusinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
P
k
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park Southbrook
Park
Gary
Falati
Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

N L
I
M
I
T
L
I
N

E
UR

I
M

I
T

POTENTIAL
Land Use New Development Net1 Development
Residential (Units)3,970 12,23021
Single-family attached
and detached
3,115 7,290 (68.6%)
Multi-family 851 3,330 (31.4%)
Non-Residential
Industrial 6,195,390 8,000,241 SF
Office 2,937,000 3,020,000 SF
Retail 1,858,000 3,426,000 SF
Open Space 52 acres of neighborhood parks needed; 46
initially approved
Public/Schools Potential need for one high school and two elementary schools
Note: 1. Numbers may not add to total due to mobile homes and other types of homes not delineated here.

Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
New development in Alternative One will include a focus on single family detached and attached, such as townhomes or condos (1, 2, and 3). Research (4), medical (5), and advanced/food manu- facturing uses (6) will be emphasized.
1 ADDRESS: Suisun Valley Place
ACREAGE: 24 acres
residential + 15 acres
commercial = 39 acres
NEW UNITS: 205 single family +
77 townhomes = 282 new units
DENSITY: 12 du/ac
COMMERCIAL: 4,600 sq. ft
2 3
4 5 6
DEVELOPMENT EXAMPLE3.4 Alternative 1: Details
Existing Future Example
Packet Page 348 of 390Attachment 30 Page 6 of 16

Packet Page 349 of 390Attachment 30 Page 7 of 16

26 3.5 Alternative 2: Transformed Corridors and Transit- Oriented Development
potential sites for new SMART rail stations in Solano
County. The proposed rail line would connect Fairfield
to Napa, Sonoma, and Marin counties to the west. The
feasibility study identified four potential station areas at Cordelia Junction, west of Nelson Hill. However,
as these station possibilities are located at the inter- section of two highways (I-80 and I-680), they are not
highly conducive to transit-oriented development.

Thus, Alternative Two proposes another option for a
station location by planning a new, transit-oriented
neighborhood east of Nelson Hill.

This new neighborhood includes housing of all types,
a new school and community park, and neighbor-
hood-serving commercial areas. This neighbor-
hood will also provide good access to industrial and
manufacturing jobs just to the east. This Alternative
promotes the greatest balance of single-family and
multifamily housing, but the smallest amount of total
housing development among the Alternatives.

Under this Alternative, Pennsylvania Avenue will
redevelop into a mixed-use node at the Solano Town
Center mall. North Texas Street will develop several
mixed-use development nodes in amongst retail
strips, improved with urban design guidelines that
promote greater pedestrian and bicyclist comfort.

High density housing on these mixed-use sites will
also support green spaces throughout.

The Texas Street “curve,” where Texas turns into North
Texas, is converted into neighborhood-serving retail.

Gateway improvements could occur here, as well as
Community input has indicated strong support for
connecting places, spaces, and jobs through infill
(the practice of developing underutilized or vacant
lots within existing neighborhoods) and improved
connections. Alternative Two focuses most new hous-
ing and jobs along several key corridors, including
North Texas, Pennsylvania Avenue, and West Texas
streets. West Texas Street, the backbone of The
Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan, is already identified as a Priority Development Area for jobs and housing.

This Alternative emphasizes development within or in
close proximity to key transit locations, such as higher density housing at the Transportation Center, and the
Fairfield-Suisun Train Station.

These corridors, particularly North Texas, are pri-
oritized for public realm improvements, such as
pedestrian-scale street lighting; widened sidewalks
or footpaths; seating; and greenery, among others.

All of these contribute to the development of these
corridors into multi-modal streets, meaning that they
are accessible to those using various forms of trans-
portation, including walking, biking, or taking public
transportation. At this stage, the Alternatives do not
dictate exactly where specific improvements would be
made, but rather identify general areas (such as along
the North Texas Street corridor) where improvements
may be made at appropriate locations.

Alternative Two also plans for a transit-oriented neigh- borhood centered around a new SMART Rail Station
in Cordelia, south of I-80. The Solano Transportation
Authority conducted a feasibility study to identify
wayfinding to the Suisun-Fairfield Transit Station and
Suisun’s Waterfront District Specific Plan area. Higher density residential, which has already been included
in The Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan, would support
these uses. To balance need for single family homes,
Alternative Two also would convert some existing
commercial land to residential uses.

Interstate-80 and Business Center Drive would
become “jobs corridors” with expanded industrial
uses, research and development, and other flexible
office uses intended to support the changing needs
of workers and employers. Alternative Two envi-
sions Nelson Hill as a city park, with hiking trails and vista points. Nelson Hill is linked to the new com-
munity park in the planned transit-oriented neigh-
borhood, with additional facilities to serve this new
neighborhood.

New connections include the following:
•Fairfield Linear Park improvements occur across
all Alternatives, but another activity center con-
nects Pennsylvania Avenue to the Transit Center
with a bike path and other recreational uses.
•A bus rapid transit (BRT) line connects people
living along the West and North Texas corridors
to the Fairfield-Suisun Train Station. BRT refers
to roadways that typically have lanes exclusive or
semi-exclusive for buses as well as other features
that improve bus speed and efficiency.
•A new road, west of Hale Ranch Road, will ensure
connection between the new transit-oriented
development neighborhood around the Cordelia
Station and Interstate-80.

Packet Page 350 of 390Attachment 30 Page 8 of 16

SolanoCommunityCollege NORTH TEXAS STCEMENT HILL RD

DOVER AVED IC K S ONHILL
RD

MANUE L C A M POS PKWY

P A RADISEVAL LEY DR

HILBORN RD

WATERMAN BLVDRANCHOSOLANOPKWYMANKASCORNERRD

ABERNATHY RDSUISUN VALLEY RDROCKVILLE R
D

SUISUNPKW Y

ROCKVIL
L
E
R
D
GR
E
EN

VA
L
L
E
Y

M A N G E L S B LVDBUSINES S C E N TERDRAIR BASE PKWY

E TABOR AVE

TRAVIS BLVD

TABOR AVE

PENNSYLVANIA AVETEXAS STGATEWAYBLVD
O
L
I
V
E
R

DSANDREWS RD

CEMENT HILL RD PEABODY RDVANDENRDTRAVIS AVE

HANGAR AVECLAYBANKRD
WE
B
S
T
E
R

S
T

SUNSETAVERAILR O ADAVEVILLAGE DRPINTAIL DR WALTERS RDRAGSDALE STLAWLERRANCH PKW Y PETERSON RDHWY 12
HWY 12 UNION AVEBECK AVECORDELIA R D

CORDELIA

R
D

CORDELI
A
R

DPITTMANRD SU
ISUN
VALLEY

RDDR SEPOLLOPES

RDCHADBOURNE RDMAIN STTravis Air Force Base
SuisunCity
Suisu nMars h Linear
P
ar
k
Linear

P
ar
k
Train Station
80 80
680
12 T
T
T
T
0 2 41
MILES
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Mixed Use
Public Facility
Industrial
Park/Open space
Linear Park
City Limits
Railroad
Transit Center
Cordelia Train Station
Park
New School
New interchangeI-80/I-680/SR12 1/2 Mile
Improvements
to Linear Park
High densityhousing near
Transportation Center
Jobs corridor:R&D, business park,
Transitional
retail to connect to Suisun City’s
Potential gateway
Portion of Mall becomes mixed use
Additional
mixed use
nodes
Additional activity nodesto connect Transportation
Center to Pennsylvania
Nelson Hill becomes
a City park with trails
and vista points
Emphasis on mixed-use, high density,
transit-oriented development
Emphasizetransit-oriented developmentaround new Cordelia Station Bus rapid transit line
27 Figure 3-2: Alternative Two: Transformed Corridors and Transit-Oriented Development Packet Page 351 of 390Attachment 30 Page 9 of 16

28 TABLE 3-2: ALTERNATIVE TWO DEVELOPMENT

POTENTIAL
Land Use New Development Net Development1
Residential (Units) 3,470 11,7302
Single-family
attached and detached
1,785 5,970 (58.9%)
Multi-family 1,686 4,160 (41.1%)
Non-Residential
Industrial 4,178,000 5,982,851 SF
Office 2,253,000 2,336,000 SF
Retail 2,952,000 4,520,000 SF
Open Space 50 acres of neighborhood parks needed; 40 initially approved
Public/Schools Potential need for one high school and two elementary schools
Note: 1. Net development includes new development spurred by the changes made under the Alternative plus existing planned or approved units to be built out.

2. Numbers may not add to total due to mobile homes and other types of homes not delineated here.

Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
1 2 3
4 5 6
New development in Alternative Two will include a focus on multifamily (1) and mixed use development (2, 3). Flexible office (4), research and development (5),and industrial uses (6) will be emphasized.

ADDRESS: 252 N Texas
ACREAGE: 9.3
NEW UNITS: 9 single family +
12 townhomes + 79 multifamily
= 140 new units
DENSITY: 15 du/ac
COMMERCIAL: 4,600 sq. ft
DEVELOPMENT EXAMPLERockvilleRd
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvMangelsBl MainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
Courage D r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRd Air Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
BusinessCenterDr ClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
P
k
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
ParkSouthbrook
Park
Gary
Falati
Park
N

P
A

Y
S

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

N
L
I
M
I
T
L
I
N
E
UR

I
M

I
T

3.6 Alternative 2: Details
Existing Future Example
Packet Page 352 of 390Attachment 30 Page 10 of 16

Packet Page 353 of 390Attachment 30 Page 11 of 16

30 Many of the amenities, services, entertainment, shop- ping, and other things that contribute to a “complete”
neighborhood and high quality of life rely on a suffi-
cient number of people living in an area. Alternative
Three focuses on the development of several “com-
munity centers” to add the population needed to sup-
port these amenities, located at Cordelia, the Fairfield Transportation Center, the Solano Town Center,
and near Travis Air Force Base. This Alternative pro-
vides the greatest amount of housing out of all the
Alternatives. Mixed use development in these “cen-
ters” can occur vertically, meaning within existing
building lots, or horizontally with a mix of different
building types on larger blocks.

Another key feature of Alternative Three is a new
neighborhood north of I-80, similar to Alternative One.

This emphasizes a balance between agricultural pres-
ervation and provision of more housing. Near Solano
College south of Rockville Road, clustered residential
development co-located among agricultural lands
forms an ‘agrihood’. Agrihoods can be located in rural, suburban, or urban contexts, with housing built on, or
adjacent to, existing agricultural land. Typical features include on-site farms/community gardens, farm-to-ta-
ble restaurants, and connectivity between residential
and agricultural uses. Under this Alternative, to the
south of I-80, some agriculture is preserved, and some
is converted to industrial use.

A mixed-use node with residential, retail, a grocery
store, and flexible office space is planned for south
of Solano College, supporting Cordelia residents and
students. A new school is proposed north of Business

3.7 Alternative 3: Community Centers
Center Drive to serve new students. Residential devel-
opment at Nelson Hill provides added population to
support these uses.

Larger economic trends predict that 25 percent of US
malls are projected to close within the next five years.

While the Solano Town Center mall is still a major
community attraction, there is potential for redevel-
opment into a vibrant mixed-use center in the future.

The mall could redevelop with community uses (such
as a teen center, community center, or vocational
training center), a community green space with activ-
ities or an “urban forest”, high density housing, and
other recreational or experiential uses. A portion of
the mall may also develop as a logistics or fulfillment center.

Some of Fairfield’s main corridors also experience
mixed-use development. Similar to Alternative Two,
lots surrounding the Transportation Center are
planned for high density or mixed-use housing. Some
new residential development also occurs along North
Texas Street, though not to the same extent as under
Alternative Two.

Travis Air Force Base has indicated a desire to explore a mixed-use area east of Vanden High School and
Golden West Middle School, called an “Enhanced Use
Lease Area.” This area would allow for greater engage-
ment between the Base and the community and
would likely lead to moving the fence line around the
Base back. Near this area, other mixed-use develop-
ment could provide needed housing for the transient
military personnel or military families.

New connections include the following:
•The Travis Air Force Base node is connected by
a bicycle and pedestrian path to the Fairfield/
Vacaville Train Station. If this is selected as a
desired concept, provisions to create a third
access point via a Markley Lane connection/
extension would be explored.
•An additional Linear Park activity node connects
the Fairfield Linear park from Dover Avenue to the
Villages, which are currently under construction.
•Ingress and egress to the new Nelson Hill neigh-
borhood would be explored if selected as a
desired concept in the Preferred Plan.

Packet Page 354 of 390Attachment 30 Page 12 of 16

31NORTH TEXAS STCEMENT HILL RD

DOVER AVED IC K S ONHILL
RD

MANUEL C A MPOS PKWY

P A RADISEVALL EY DR

HILBORN RD

WATERMAN BLVDRANCHOSOLANOPKWYMANKASCORNERRD

DR YHTANREBASUISUN VALLEY RDROCKVILLE R
D

SUISUNPKWY

ROCKVILL
E
R
D
GR
E
EN

V
A
L
L
E
Y

M A N G E L S B LVDBUSINES S C E N TERDRAIR BASE PKWY

E TABOR AVE

TRAVIS BLVD

TABOR AVE

PENNSYLVANIA AVETEXAS STGATEWAYBLVD
O
L
I
V
E
R

DSANDREWS RD

CEMENT HILL RD PEABODY RDVANDENRD

TRAVIS AVE

HANGAR AVECLAYBANKRD
WE
B
S
T
E
R

S
T

SUNSETAVERAILROADAVEVILLAGE DRPINTAIL DR WALTERS RDRAGSDALE STLAWLERRANCH PKWY PETERSON RDHWY 12
HWY 12 UNION AVEBECK AVECORDELIA R D

CORDELIA

R
D

CORDELI
A
R

DPITTMANRD SUISUN
VA
L
LEY

RDLOPES RDLOPES

RDDR ENRUOBDAHCMAIN STTravis Air Force Base
SuisunCity
SuisunMarsh Linear
P
ar
k
Linear
P
ar
k
SolanoCommunityCollege
Train StationSpecic Plan
Heart of FaireldSpecic Plan
80 80
680
12T
T
T
0 2 41
MILES
Low Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Agrihood (Residential/Agriculture)
Mixed Use
Oce/Logistics Flex
Commercial
Public Facility
Park/Open Space
Industrial
Linear Park
City Limits
Sphere of Inuence
Specic Plans
Railroad
Transit Center
Park
New School
1/2 MileNew interchangeI-80/I-680/SR12
T
Improvementsto Linear Park
Mixed use withhousing nearTransit Center
Agriculture
remains
Mall as majormixed use center
Mixed use,
housing,
oce, retail
Mixed use,cater to college/residential “Agrihood”
Mixed use cateringto base part ofEnhanced Use Lease Area Bike connection to base,connect to Vanden HS
Much of North Texasremains commercial
Enhance connections
to neighborhoods
Additional activity node
Residential
Some newresidential
on Nelson Hill
Figure 3-3: Alternative 3 Community Centers
Packet Page 355 of 390Attachment 30 Page 13 of 16

32 TABLE 3-3: ALTERNATIVE THREE DEVELOPMENT

POTENTIAL
Land Use New Development Net1 Development
Residential (Units) 4,860 13,1202
Single-family attached and
detached
3,067 7,250 (62.3%)
Multi-family 1,793 4,270 (37.1%)
Non-Residential
Industrial 4,103,000 SF 5,907,851 SF
Office 2,378,000 SF 2,461,000 SF
Retail 2,527,000 SF 4,094,000 SF
Open Space 56 acres of neighborhood parks needed; 46
initially approved
Public/Schools Potential need for one high school and three elementary schools3
Note: 1. Net development includes new development spurred by the changes made under the Alternative plus existing planned or approved units to be built out.

2. Numbers may not add to total due to mobile homes and other types of homes not delineated here.

3. One elementary school is already proposed as part of the Train Station Specific Plan.

Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
1 2 3
4 5 6
New development in Alternative Three will include a focus on smaller-scale or community-ori- ented mixed uses (1, 2, 3), introduce an ‘agrihood’ (4), add community retail (5), and transform the mall into a community hub (6).

Existing Future Example

3.8 Alternative 3: Details
ADDRESS: Caltrans yard
ACREAGE: 4.5
NEW UNITS: 39 townhomes
+ 68 multifamily = 107 new
units
DENSITY: 24 du/ac
COMMERCIAL: 15,750 sq. ft
DEVELOPMENT EXAMPLERockvilleRd
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvMa n gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
ey
RdWaltersRdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u rageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRd Air Base Pkwy
Wat erman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
BusinessCenterDr ClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
P
k
w
y
Travis Av
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
ParkSouthbrook
Park
Gary
Falati
Park
N

P
A

Y
S

N L
I
M
I
T

L
I
N

E
UR

I
M

I
T

Packet Page 357 of 390Attachment 30 Page 15 of 16

This page intentionally left blank.

Packet Page 358 of 390Attachment 30 Page 16 of 16

Comparisons
Chapter 4
This chapter provides side-by-side comparisons of the key aspects and impacts of each Alternative, including a comparison of the major com- ponents, of their relative development potentials, their traffic impacts, infrastructure impacts, and fiscal impacts.

Packet Page 359 of 390Attachment 31 Page 1 of 28

36 4.1 Comparison of Major Components
TABLE 4-1: COMPARISON OF MAJOR COMPONENTS
Alternative 1: New Neighborhoods and
Connections
Alternative 2: Transformed Corridors and Transit-
Oriented Development
Alternative 3: Community Centers
Cordelia
Junction
Expanded medical, research, and advanced
manufacturing uses; medium/high density
student housing close to Solano College
Envisioned as a jobs corridor with expanded research and development, business park, and flexible office uses
Mixed-use housing, office, and retail develops south of I-80; mixed-use adjacent to Solano College
Nelson Hill A single-family residential development with the remainder becoming a city park; to the
west, a mix-used neighborhood
Becomes a city park with hiking trails and vista points, linked to the new community park to the east
Small amount of single-family residential development
with the remainder becoming a city park
I-80 North to
Rockville Road
Single-family detached and attached homes,
20-acre community park, neighborhood-ori-
ented shops, and a new high school
Existing agricultural uses remain “Agrihood” of single-family residential mixed with agri- cultural uses; agritourism uses that support economic
viability of farming
I-80 South to
Suisun Marsh
Expanded industrial use from Hale Ranch Road
west to Nelson Hill
Transit-oriented neighborhood with all housing types cen- tered around a new Cordelia Train Station
Agricultural uses remain north of Cordelia Road, industri- al uses expand to the south
Linear Park Linear Park connects through new neighbor-
hood north of I-80, linking Transportation
Center to Solano College
Additional activity node connects Pennsylvania Ave to the Transit Center with a bike path and recreational uses
Additional activity node connects the Linear Park from
Dover Avenue to the new Villages housing development
Downtown Development as envisioned in the Heart of
Fairfield Specific Plan continues
Higher density housing develops around the Transportation Center; retail and mixed-use develops close to the Suisun/ Fairfield Train Station. Some low-medium density housing occurs south of downtown
Mixed-use with housing develops near the Transporta-
tion Center, though less housing develops than Alterna- tive 2
Solano Town
Center Mall
Remains commercially-oriented A portion of the mall develops as mixed-use with retail and housing along Pennsylvania Ave
Redevelops into a mixed-use hub with community uses,
green spaces, and high-density housing
North Texas
Street
Corridor
Remains commercially-oriented, with some
public realm improvements
Several mixed-use development nodes occur along the
corridor from Cement Hill Road south to Travis Blvd; ex- tensive public realm improvements, and a rapid transit line connecting North and West Texas
Mixed-use development at Travis Blvd and at Tabor Ave;
public realm improvements focused from Travis Blvd to
West Texas
Rancho Solano Incorporate new single-family neighborhood north of current city boundary in the relatively
flat area west of I-80
No change - remains open space No change - remains open space Travis Air
Force Base
Travis AFB’s Enhanced Use Lease area remains
an area of future study
Travis AFB’s Enhanced Use Lease area remains an area of future study
The Enhanced Use Lease Area is expanded upon with
mixed-use development south and east of Vanden High
School; bicycle and pedestrian path connects Base to
Fairfield/Vacaville Train Station
Table 4-1 presents a side-by-side overview of what each Alternative envisions for the major potential change areas across Fairfield. This table provides a brief summary of these major components, while Chapter 3 provides a more in-depth discussion of the details and purpose behind these components.

Packet Page 360 of 390Attachment 31 Page 2 of 28

37 Table 4-2 provides a side-by-side comparison of the
projected growth resulting from each Alternative.

Alternative Three has the greatest potential for
residential growth due to the expansion of hous-
ing between I-80 and Rockville Road, in addition to
new mixed-use centers accommodating high-den-
sity housing across the Planning Area. Meanwhile,
Alternative One allows for the greatest potential
growth in industrial uses by expanding industrial
west from Hale Ranch Road all the way to Nelson
Hill—an area that is currently made up of agricultural
uses. This allows the city to capitalize on the strong
and growing demand for warehousing and fulfill-
ment, and to build upon its strengths in advanced
and specialty manufacturing and food processing.

Alternative Two promotes the greatest balance
between single-family housing and multi-family
housing through its emphasis on infill and transit-ori- ented development.

4.2 Developmental Potential
TABLE 4-2: DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
Residential
Dwelling Units Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Single-family Attached
and Detached
3,115 1,785 3,067
Multi-family 851 1,686 1,793
Subtotal Alternatives
Planned Units
3,970 3,470 4,860
Pipeline Units1 3,130 3,130 3,130
Units Remaining in Specif-
ic Plans2
5,130 5,130 5,130
Existing Units (2021) 40,220 40,220 40,220
Total Potential Dwelling
Units (2050)
52,450 51,950 53,340
Non-Residential
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Industrial (square feet) 6,195,390 4,178,000 4,103,000 Office (square feet) 2,937,000 2,253,000 2,378,000
Retail (square feet) 1,858,000 2,952,000 2,526,000
Notes: 1. Refers to units current in the development process, either under review by the City, approved, or under construction.

2. Refers to units planned for in either the Train Station Specific Plan or the Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan, but that are not yet in the development process.

Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
Packet Page 361 of 390Attachment 31 Page 3 of 28

38 Transportation Analysis
To help community members make informed deci-
sions, this conceptual level of magnitude comparison
discusses how each alternative will affect the trans-
portation network in the future. These metrics for
analysis include assessment of congestion locations
(assessed through volume-to-capacity, or v/c ratios)
to the local street system, and a comparative assess-
ment of vehicle miles travelled (VMT). This assess-
ment has been performed using the regional trans-
portation model. It should be note that the model has
limitations in terms of not being able to forecast tran- sit or walk and bike trips, or being sensitive to devel- opment that is transit-oriented. Once the Preferred
Alternative is chosen, the planning team will conduct
more detailed and thorough transportation analysis.

4.3 Traffic Impacts
Planned Improvements
There are already several transportation improve-
ments planned that are reflected across all alterna-
tives, including:
•The I-80/I-680/SR 12 West interchange is
expected to be substantially reconfigured and
widened as part of the Solano Transportation
Authority’s ongoing I-80/I-680/SR 12 inter-
change improvement project, with packages 1-4
expected to be substantially complete by 2040
(pending funding availability). Improvements at
this system interchange will also include addition
of missing ramps at the I-80/Green Valley Road
and I-80/Pittman Road-Suisun Valley Road inter-
changes. New interchanges are also proposed
at I-680/Red Top Road and SR 12/Red Top Road.
•Improvements to Air Base Parkway from North
Texas to I-80
•Widening of Manuel Campos Parkway, from Clay
Bank Road to Peabody Road
•Improvements to Peabody Road, from Air Base
Parkway to New Cannon Road
•Improvements to Vanderbilt Drive
•Widening of Cordelia Road to SR 12 to two lanes
•New roadways in northeast Fairfield
Packet Page 362 of 390Attachment 31 Page 4 of 28

39 Congestion Locations
Fehr & Peers modeled potential traffic impacts for
morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak-hour v/c ratios
for each of four scenarios: the 2050 base year, which
represents impacts to traffic in 2050 under the exist-
ing General Plan, and scenarios for land use changes
identified in Alternatives 1 through 3.

A v/c ratio between 0.9 and 1.0 is operating near or
at capacity with expected higher delays and zero to
minimal queueing. A v/c ratio above 1.0 indicates
demand exceeding available capacity with expected
excessive delays and queueing. It is important to
note that the model shows a conservative estimate
and is not the best tool for detailed roadway or
intersection analysis, but provides an estimate of
motor vehicle travel behavior. It does not account
for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements,
though many of these improvements have the
potential to reduce VMT and impacts to traffic. Fehr
& Peers will conduct a more nuanced analysis of
these impacts as part of the Preferred Alternative
and will explore roadway improvements or other
strategies to improve areas of congestion.

Figure 4-1 shows 2050 baseline morning peak hours
show various roadways at or over capacity. The road-
ways include:
•SR 12 west of I-80
•I-80 between Suisun Valley Road and Air Base
Parkway
•SR 12 east of I-80
•East Tabor Avenue between Dover Avenue and
Walters Road
•Air Base Parkway between the I-80 interchange
and Peabody Road
•Manuel Campos Parkway/Cement Hill Road
between the I-80 interchange and Peabody Road
As shown in Figure 4-2, roadways at or over capacity
for the 2050 baseline evening peak hours include:
•SR 12 west of I-80
•I-80 between Suisun Valley Road and Air Base
Parkway
•I-680
•Cordelia Road between Beck Avenue and SR 12
•Petersen Road between Walters Road and Travis
Air Force Base
•West Texas Street between I-80 and N Texas
Street
•Travis Boulevard between I-80 and Sunset
Avenue
•East Tabor Avenue between N Texas Street and
Walters Road
•Air Base Parkway between the I-80 interchange
and Travis Air Force Base
•Manuel Campos Parkway/Cement Hill Road/
Vanden Road between Dickson Hill Road and
Canon Road
•Walters Road between Air Base Parkway and SR
12 Packet Page 363 of 390Attachment 31 Page 5 of 28

R o c kv ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
ey
RdWaltersRdMankas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad
Av
Ohio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
BusinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l CamposPk
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

N L
I
M
I
T
L
I
N

E
UR

I
M

I
T

I
N
E
Cement
Hill
Elkhorn
Peak
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Suisun
Hill
Sulphur
Springs
Mountain
Twin
Sisters
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\Alternatives\Transportation_Base_AM.mxd V/C Ratio

0.9 - 1.0 (at capacity)
Greater than 1.0 (over capacity)
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
WaterMap Date: 10/7/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 AÝ
40 Figure 4-1: Fairfield Year 2050 (AM)
Roadway Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
Packet Page 364 of 390Attachment 31 Page 6 of 28

R o c kv ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
ey
RdWaltersRdMankas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u rageD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l CamposPk
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I
N
E
UR

I
M

I
T

I
N
E
Cement
Hill
Elkhorn
Peak
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Suisun
Hill
Sulphur
Springs
Mountain
Twin
Sisters
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\Alternatives\Transportation_Base_PM.mxd V/C Ratio

0.9 - 1.0 (at capacity)
Greater than 1.0 (over capacity)
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
WaterMap Date: 10/7/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 AÝ
41 Figure 4-2: Fairfield Year 2050 (PM)
Roadway Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
Packet Page 365 of 390Attachment 31 Page 7 of 28

R o c kv ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u rageD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
Pk
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I
N
E
UR

I
M

I
T

I
N
E
Cement
Hill
Elkhorn
Peak
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Suisun
Hill
Sulphur
Springs
Mountain
Twin
Sisters
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\Alternatives\Transportation_Alt1_AM.mxd V/C Ratio

0.9 - 1.0 (at capacity)
Greater than 1.0 (over capacity)
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
WaterMap Date: 10/7/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 AÝ
42 Figure 4-3: Fairfield Year 2050 Alternative I (AM)
Roadway Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
Packet Page 366 of 390Attachment 31 Page 8 of 28

R o c kv ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWaltersRdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u rageD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
Pk
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I
N
E
UR

I
M

I
T

I
N
E
Cement
Hill
Elkhorn
Peak
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Suisun
Hill
Sulphur
Springs
Mountain
Twin
Sisters
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\Alternatives\Transportation_Alt1_PM.mxd V/C Ratio

0.9 - 1.0 (at capacity)
Greater than 1.0 (over capacity)
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
WaterMap Date: 10/7/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 AÝ
43 Figure 4-4: Fairfield Year 2050 Alternative I (PM)
Roadway Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
Packet Page 367 of 390Attachment 31 Page 9 of 28

R o c kv ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
ey
RdWaltersRdMankas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u rageD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l CamposPk
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I
N
E
UR

I
M

I
T

I
N
E
Cement
Hill
Elkhorn
Peak
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Suisun
Hill
Sulphur
Springs
Mountain
Twin
Sisters
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\Alternatives\Transportation_Alt2_AM.mxd V/C Ratio

0.9 - 1.0 (at capacity)
Greater than 1.0 (over capacity)
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
WaterMap Date: 10/7/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 AÝ
44 Figure 4-5: Fairfield Year 2050 Alternative 2 (AM)
Roadway Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
Packet Page 368 of 390Attachment 31 Page 10 of 28

R o c kv ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
ey
RdWaltersRdMankas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u rageD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l CamposPk
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I
N
E
UR

I
M

I
T

I
N
E
Cement
Hill
Elkhorn
Peak
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Suisun
Hill
Sulphur
Springs
Mountain
Twin
Sisters
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\Alternatives\Transportation_Alt2_PM.mxd V/C Ratio

0.9 - 1.0 (at capacity)
Greater than 1.0 (over capacity)
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
WaterMap Date: 10/7/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 AÝ
45 Figure 4-6: Fairfield Year 2050 Alternative 2 (PM)
Roadway Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
Packet Page 369 of 390Attachment 31 Page 11 of 28

R o c kv ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
ey
RdWaltersRdMankas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u rageD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l CamposPk
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I
N
E
UR

I
M

I
T

I
N
E
Cement
Hill
Elkhorn
Peak
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Suisun
Hill
Sulphur
Springs
Mountain
Twin
Sisters
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\Alternatives\Transportation_Alt3_AM.mxd V/C Ratio

0.9 - 1.0 (at capacity)
Greater than 1.0 (over capacity)
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
WaterMap Date: 10/7/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 AÝ
46 Figure 4-7: Fairfield Year 2050 Alternative 3 (AM)
Roadway Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
Packet Page 370 of 390Attachment 31 Page 12 of 28

R o c kv ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
ey
RdWaltersRdMankas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u rageD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabodyRdOliv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l CamposPk
w
y
Travis Av

N A PA C O U N T Y

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I
N
E
UR

I
M

I
T

I
N
E
Cement
Hill
Elkhorn
Peak
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Suisun
Hill
Sulphur
Springs
Mountain
Twin
Sisters
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\Alternatives\Transportation_Alt3_PM.mxd V/C Ratio

0.9 - 1.0 (at capacity)
Greater than 1.0 (over capacity)
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
WaterMap Date: 10/7/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 AÝ
47 Figure 4-8: Fairfield Year 2050 Alternative 3 (PM)
Roadway Volume-to-Capacity Ratio
Packet Page 371 of 390Attachment 31 Page 13 of 28

48 Overview of Alternatives
Congestion Impacts
ALTERNATIVE 1
Improvements:
•Residential development is centered around
west Fairfield with needed bicycle and pedes-
trian connections between Cordelia and Green
Valley. The recently built Manual Campos
Parkway connection will provide additional
access to the new residential neighborhood
noted in the northern part of City.
•As part of new neighborhoods in the north and
industrial uses in the south develop, need for
any roadway additions or improvements and
freeway access will be analyzed.
•Gold Hill Road is rebuilt as a multimodal street
from its northern terminus with Lopes Road to
its southern terminus with Lopes Road, accom-
modating pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit
comfortably, and connecting to the Pacific
Flyway Center.

Congestion Locations:

Areas of congestion are shown in Figure 4-3 (AM
peak hours) and Figure 4-4 (PM peak hours.)
•Congestion increases at Cordelia Road between
Link Road and Hale Ranch Road in both peak
hours due to increased industrial use develop-
ment in the area
•Additional congestion to the I-80/Suisun Valley
Road and I-80/Manuel Campos Parkway due to
development near these interchanges
ALTERNATIVE 2
Improvements:
•With a focus on corridors, specifically North
and West Texas, this alternative provides resi-
dential and employment opportunities on infill
sites, and public realm improvements like trees,
improved sidewalks, benches, and bus shelters
can help to create a more pleasant environment
for walking and biking.
•High quality transit, including a bus rapid transit
(BRT) line, along these key corridors will help to
alleviate potential congestion on the corridor.

Adding housing in proximity to transit stops
and increasing microtransit options (transit that
provides flexible routing or scheduling options)
also can help reduce single-vehicle trips. There
is potential for improved multi-modal circula-
tion, particularly along mixed-use corridors and
transit-oriented development around Nelson
Hill, the new Cordelia Station, and around the
Fairfield Station.
•The 2018 California State Rail Plan, the state’s
strategic plan for creating a coordinated, state-
wide rail network, identified a “Solano County
Hub” to link Capitol Corridor, future Sonoma-
Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) trains, and
regional buses. The 2021 Solano Transportation
Authority (STA)’s SMART and SolanoExpress
Station Feasibility Study recommends the cur-
rent location of the Suisun-Fairfield Capitol
Corridor Station as the SMART-Capitol Corridor
station site. The report also provides a range of
station options for another station site in the
Cordelia area near I-680/I-80. This alternative
explores the possibility of a new station between
Cordelia and Central Fairfield, with a new tran-
sit-oriented neighborhood developing around
it. This location could serve workers in existing
industrial industries to the east and connect resi-
dents to employment elsewhere in the Bay Area.

A new roadway would also help to connect this
area with the freeway system.

Congestion Locations:

Areas of congestion are shown in Figure 4-5 (AM
peak hours) and Figure 4-6 (PM peak hours.)
•Suisun Parkway is expected to exceed capacity in
the evening peak hour
•Increase in congestion off of Clay Bank Road in
the evening peak hour
•Sections of Rockville Road and Abernathy Road
are predicted to reach capacity in the 2050 eve-
ning peak hour
•Increased congestion on Lake Trail off of Vanden
Road in the evening peak hour
Packet Page 372 of 390Attachment 31 Page 14 of 28

49 ALTERNATIVE 3
Improvements:
•The “community centers” will add housing
needed to support community services and
amenities. Residential and retail spaces in near
proximity to each other provide walkable areas
that may reduce VMT and promote walking, bicy-
cling, and use of transit.
•A bike and pedestrian connection will connect
Fairfield-Vacaville Train Station passengers trav-
eling to Travis AFB to the new mixed use area.
•To help connect centers, bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure will be added on Pennsylvania
Avenue and along North to West Texas streets.

Existing neighborhoods along Dover and
Union avenues will be linked with public realm
improvements to the Linear Park Trail.

Congestion Locations:

Areas of congestion are shown in Figure 4-7 (AM
peak hours) and Figure 4-8 (PM peak hours.)
•Increase in congestion on Suisun Parkway
between Russell Road and Abernathy Road,
Rockville Road, and Abernathy Road in the eve-
ning peak hour
•On East Tabor Avenue between Railroad Avenue
and Walters Road, there is an improvement to
congestion in v/c ratio in the evening peak hour
•Slight increase in congestion on Cement Hill
Road near Air Base Parkway. This increase in
congestion may be due to the industrial devel-
opment at the corner of Cement Hill Road and
Air Base Parkway.
•Slight increase in the evening congestion on
Cement Hill Road between Manuel Campos
Parkway and Peabody Road.

Packet Page 373 of 390Attachment 31 Page 15 of 28

50 is possible through other strategies, such as better bikeway connections, some of which are included in
the alternatives descriptions. Table 4-3 provides a
comparison VMT impacts of the alternatives.

VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
(VMT)
VMT is the total distance in miles that a driver
would travel between their origin and destination.

These are further presented by home-based work
trips, work trips for work-locations in Fairfield, and
total VMT, which included work and non-work trips.

Increases in VMT lead to various direct and indirect
impacts on the environment and human health,
including increases in greenhouse gas emissions as
well as air and noise pollutants. Transportation is a
major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in
California and Solano County.

California’s Senate Bill (SB) 743, passed in 2013,
enacted a historic shift in how the transportation
impacts of new projects must be evaluated and mit-
igated. SB 743 eliminates the requirement to count
traffic delay as an environmental impact under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SB 743
requires that a new metric be adopted when eval-
uating those impacts, to better align with State cli-
mate policy and sustainability goals. The new metric
recommended in State-level guidance is VMT. While
cities have flexibility in choosing the appropriate
approach to establishing a threshold, per capita or
per employee VMT that is 15% below that of existing
development be considered a reasonable threshold
of significance. It should be noted that this require-
ment applies only to CEQA, or the EIR on the General
Plan that will be prepared. Under State law, the City
cannot use traffic congestion as a criteria to evalu-
ated environmental impacts; however, other factors,
including congestion, can continue to be considered
as part of the planning process and for General Plan
policies.

To understand VMT impacts, Fehr & Peers modeled
existing VMT for the year 2020, impacts result-
ing from land use changes in each of the three
Alternatives, and a baseline 2050 condition, or how
growth in Fairfield would proceed until 2050 under
the existing General Plan. It is important to note that this model only accounts for vehicle trips.

All three alternatives result in lower VMT per capita
(resident), per worker, and per service population
than both existing conditions and the baseline 2050
scenario. Under CEQA, future VMT would need to be
15 percent below existing, which is met in this model
under some but not all alternatives. Most travel
forecasting models are not sensitive to strategies
that could potentially reduce VMT, such as increased
availability of transit, or trips made by walking.

Therefore some modest additional VMT reduction is
likely in Alternative 2, which places significant new
development proximate to a new Sonoma Marin
Transit rail station. Further additional VMT reduction
TABLE : FAIRFIELD VMT METRICS
HB VMT per Resident HBW VMT per Worker Total VMT per Service Population *
2020 Base 13.60 19.35 37.54
2050 Base 12.01 21.96 31.69
2050 Alt 1 11.11 19.34 28.50
2050 Alt 2 11.69 20.02 29.80
2050 Alt 3 11.26 18.82 28.35
(1) Note: A modest reduction in VMT would result in Alternative 2 with the addition of the SMART train stop, lowering VMT in each metric category to a level comparable to Alternatives 1 and 3. * Service population = residents + workers
Source: Dyett & Bhatia, 2021, Fehr & Peers, 2021
4-3
Packet Page 374 of 390Attachment 31 Page 16 of 28

51 4.4 Infrastructure Impacts
This section evaluates the potable water, recycled
water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure
that would be required for each of the Sketch Plans.

A summary of the significant relative differences
between the three Alternatives is then presented
at the end of the section. Each of the Alternative
analyses also includes the infrastructure needs for
the associated “pipeline” growth (approved and
proposed projects). Therefore, this analysis reflects
infrastructure impacts over and above the demands
from existing development and residents. The exist-
ing, additional, and buildout changes to the infra-
structure system is shown in Table 4-4.

For all Alternatives, infrastructure evaluations and
associated costs are preliminary and for compar-
ison only. These evaluations should be refined
and verified by preparing water, storm drain, and
wastewater master plans or updates that evaluate
Alternatives. Because the land uses evaluated for
each alternative were not known when the FSSD
Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update
(WCSMPU) was prepared, and because some of the
Infrastructure Planning Areas (IPAs) identified in the
alternatives were not included in the master plan
study boundary, the WCSMPU would need to be
updated to account for these changes to verify the
sewer capacity evaluation of each alternative.

TABLE : INFRASTRUCTURE COMPARISON
Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Potable Water
Total Daily Water Demand (million gallons per day [mgd])5.9 4.3 9.2 Does the City Have Adequate Capacity?Yes Yes Yes
Required Treatment Capacity (mgd)49.0 45.8 55.6
Does the WTP need to be expanded?No No No
Length of Transmission Mains Required (miles)6.2 1.1 5.2 Cost of Transmission Mains Required $7.86M $1.44M $6.61M Cost of Required Booster Pump Stations $6.44M $1.61M $3.22M Number of Storage Reservoirs Required 4 1 2
Cost of Required Storage Reservoirs $14.19M $3.64M $4.55M Total Cost (including 50% markup)$42.74M $10.04M $21.57M Sewer
Total Increase in Average Dry Weather Flow (mgd)5.9 2.4 4.1 Does the WWTP need to be expanded?No No No
Total Length of New Sewer Required (miles)3.9 1.6 4.5
Total Cost of New Sewer Required $7.5M $2.9M $8.1M
Is a New Sewer Pump Station Needed?No No No
Stormwater and Flood Control
Total Increase in Storm Drain Runoff (cubic feet per second)705 406 632 Total Increase in Storm Drain Runoff Volume (acre-feet)258 106 207 Length of Trunk Storm Drains Required (miles)3.3 0.9 2.3 Cost of Trunk Storm Drains Required $17.56M $4.98M $12M Detention Basin Cost $15.59M $6.41M $12.5M
Is Ledgewood Creek Flood Control Project Needed?Yes No Yes Total Cost (including 50% markup)$57.23M $17.09M $44.25M Sources: City of Fairfield; Dyett and Bhatia; West Yost, 2021. 4-4
Packet Page 375 of 390Attachment 31 Page 17 of 28

52 Alternative Comparisons
ALTERNATIVE 1
Potable Water
Alternative 1 results in a buildout water demand
of about 8,966 mg/yr. Currently, the City has a full
annual water supply of approximately 17,500 mg/
yr. Because the full supply is not always available, a
more conservative water supply estimate is approxi-
mately 17,000 mg/yr. Thus, the City has an adequate,
reliable water supply for Alternative 1.

While there is adequate capacity in the wastewa-
ter treatment plants that serve the city (a com-
bined capacity of 56.7 mgd) to meet 2050 capacity
requirement of 49 mgd, transmission mains would
need to be extended into the Sphere of Influence to
the west, Nelson Hill, north of Solano Community
College, south of Rockville Road, and in the Rancho
Solano Area. These same areas also have elevations
that may require a new booster pump station for
water. Total cost for transmission main expansion
is approximately $7.9 million, and costs for booster
pump station is approximately $6.4 million.

The City currently uses water storage tanks to sup-
port customers in many of its upper pressure zones.

Those areas that also require a booster pump may
require new storage tanks. Total costs for these addi-
tional tanks is $14 million. The estimated total cost
of all potable water infrastructure is approximately
$28.49 million. Assuming a 50 percent mark-up for
contingencies, this total increases to $42.7 million for this Alternative.

The water infrastructure evaluations and associated
costs are preliminary and for comparison of the land
use alternatives. These infrastructure evaluations
should be refined and verified by preparing a water
system master plan that evaluates this land use
alternative.

Sewer and Wastewater
Growth under Alternative 1 results in an average dry
weather flow (ADWF) of 5.9 mgd, increasing flow to
the Fairfield-Suisun Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) from 12.5 mgd to 18.4 mgd. There would be
remaining capacity of 5.3 mgd and thus, would not
require expansion.

The City of Fairfield’s 2020 Wastewater Collection
System Master Plan Update (WCSMPU) reflects the
most accurate information on projected growth,
wastewater flows, and collection system perfor-
mance. The WCSMPU identified several trunk sewers
within the City having capacity issues under peak wet
weather flow existing conditions. Specifically, along
West Texas and Empire streets from 5 th Street north
of West Texas Street to Empire Street at 1 st Street,
and Texas Street at Taft Street to Clay Street south of Texas Street.

In addition, the Lopes Road Lift Station and Cordelia
Pump Station were identified to have capacity defi-
ciencies under existing conditions. Capacity deficien-
cies were identified under future conditions along
Peabody Road north of Huntington Drive at Stanford
Court and Huntington Drive at Stanford Court to
Walters Road north of East Tabor Avenue.

With the exception of land currently under the juris-
diction of the County, including south of Rockville
Road and south of I-80, most of the future growth
is generally included in the WCSMPU, and identified
sewer improvements should be adequate. In the
excepted land, new sewer pipes would be needed, a
cost of approximately $7.5 million. Because the new
sewer would progress downslope to the WWTP,
it is probable no sewer pump station would be
needed. Costs of including in Fairfield’s middle would
cost approximately $300,000 to verify the sewer
evaluation.

Stormwater and Flood Control
Areas of development under Alternative 1, including
Nelson Hill, areas north and south of I-80 between
Cordelia and Central Fairfield, and the area west of
i_80 and north of Rollingwood Drive, are not cur-
rently served by the City’s storm drain system. Costs
of needed trunk storm drains is approximately $17.6
million. In some of these areas, detention basins
for runoff (approximately 258 acre feet) would cost
$15.59 million.

The area around Ledgewood Creek upstream of
I-80 has flooded Abernathy Road, Rockville Road,
and I-80 in the past, and in the event of a 500-year
Packet Page 376 of 390Attachment 31 Page 18 of 28

53 flood, could flood extending west Dan Wilson Creek.

Achieving 100-year flood protection with a flood con-
trol project would cost approximately $5 million.

ALTERNATIVE 2
Potable Water
Alternative 2 results in a water buildout demand of
8,390 mg/yr, less than Alternative 1. With the City’s
conservative water supply of 17,000 mg/yr, there
is adequate, reliable supply for Alternative 2. Like
Alternative 1, there is adequate combined wastewa-
ter treatment plant capacity to meet 2050 capacity
requirement of 45.8 mgd. Similar to Alternative 1,
Nelson Hill does not have a transmission main or
booster pump station. Costs to add this infrastruc-
ture is $1.4 and 1.6 million, respectively.

Water tank storage costs for this area are approx-
imately $3.6 million. The estimated total cost of all
potable water infrastructure is approximately $6.69
million. Assuming a 50 percent mark-up for contin-
gencies, this total increases to $10.04 million for this Alternative.

Sewer and Wastewater
Alternative 2 results in an increase of ADWF of

2.4 mgd, increasing flow to the Fairfield-Suisun
Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) from 12.5 mgd
to 16.6 mgd. There would be remaining capacity of

8.8 mgd and thus, like Alternative 1, the WWTP would
not require expansion.

Most of the future growth in Alternative 2 is generally included in the WCSMPU, and existing infrastruc-
ture and identified sewer improvements should be
adequate, with the exception of land south of I-80.

Here new sewer pipes would be needed, a cost of
approximately $2.9 million. Costs to verify sewer
evaluation of this Alternative could cost approxi-
mately $300,000.

Stormwater and Flood Control
The Nelson Hill area and south of I-80 proposed as
a new transit-oriented neighborhood are not served
by the City’s storm drain system. New trunk storm
drains to accommodate this development would cost
approximately $5 million. Detention basins needed
in this area would accommodate the 106 acre-feet
in stormwater runoff and cost approximately $6.4
million. Total cost of stormwater and flood control
infrastructure with a mark-up for contingency is
approximately $17 million.

Packet Page 377 of 390Attachment 31 Page 19 of 28

ALTERNATIVE 3
Potable Water
Alternative 3’s estimated buildout water demand is
10,171 mg/yr, adequately met by the City’s annual
supply of approximately 17,000 mg/yr. Thus, the City
has a sufficient, reliable water supply for Alternative 3.

Like Alternatives 1 and 2, there is adequate wastewa-
ter treatment plant capacity to meet 2050 demand
of 55.6 mgd, the largest treatment capacity require-
ment. Water treatment capacity would be 55.6 mgd.

Alternative 3 expands land uses into Nelson Hill,
north of Solano College, and south of Rockville Road,
and transmission mains will need to be extended
for a cost of approximately $6.6 million. Some of
these areas with higher elevation would require
booster pumps, a cost of $3.22 million. These areas
in upper pressure zones will require storage tanks,
an approximate cost of $4.5 million. The total cost
of the potable water infrastructure is approximately
$14.38 million. Assuming a 50 percent mark-up for
contingencies, this total increases to $21.57 million.

Sewer and Wastewater
Growth under Alternative 3 results in an average
dry weather flow (ADWF) of 4.1mgd, increasing flow
to the Fairfield-Suisun Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP) from 12.5 mgd to 16.6 mgd. There would be
remaining capacity of 7.1 mgd and thus, would not
require expansion.

Implementation of Alternative 3 results in land
use changes to the Nelson Hill area, land south
of Rockville Road, and land south of I-80 is not
included in WCSMPU growth areas, nor have sewer
improvements been identified. New sewers, costing
approximately $8.1 million, would be needed, but
like the other Alternatives, no pump stations would
be necessary.

Like the other Alternatives, costs of verifying sewer
evaluation would be approximately $300,000.

Stormwater and Flood Control
Land identified for sewer improvements also are not
currently served by the City’s storm drain system,
and the total cost of these storm drains is approxi-
mately $12 million. Needed detention basins in these
areas would accommodate the increase of 207 acre
feet and cost approximately $12.5 million.

Like Alternative 1, development in Alternative 3
is within the Ledgewood Creek floodplain, and a
implementation of a flood control project would
cost approximately $5 million. Total stormwater and
flood control costs for Alternative three with mark-up
for contingency would cost $44.3 million.

Packet Page 378 of 390Attachment 31 Page 20 of 28

55Packet Page 379 of 390Attachment 31 Page 21 of 28

56 4.5 Fiscal Impacts
Fiscal Impact Analysis
Summary

PURPOSE AND OVERVIEW
The following section estimates the fiscal impact
of the growth envisioned in the three proposed
land use Alternatives for the Fairfield General Plan
Update. The analysis projects the total revenue
increases that will flow to the City of Fairfield General Fund driven by the new residential and non-residen-
tial development supported by each Alternative. The
analysis also projects the increased expenditures in
various City departments driven by the new popula-
tion and employees associated with the Alternatives’
new residential and non-residential development.

The following section includes an abbreviated sum-
mary of the complete fiscal impact analysis.

EXISTING FISCAL CONDITIONS
To project the future costs and revenues driven by
new growth within the City of Fairfield, the City’s exist- ing fiscal conditions were analyzed first. According to the City of Fairfield Fiscal Year 2021/2022 Budget, the annual General Fund revenue is projected at roughly
$114 million. As seen in Figure 4-9, the largest share of General Fund revenue comes from Sales Tax,
amounting for nearly $47 million, or 41 percent of all
General Fund revenues. This includes both the base
one percent sales tax amount, as well as the addi-
tional sales tax generated by Measure P, a voter-ap-
proved one-percent additional sales tax measure
set to sunset in 2033. The second largest source of
General Fund revenue comes from property taxes,
accounting for roughly $24 million, or 21 percent of
all General Fund revenue. Other major General Fund
revenue sources include Motor Vehicle Taxes/Fees,
Utility and Franchise Taxes, as well as direct Charges
for Service.

As seen in Figure 4-10, the largest source of General
Fund expenditures is the Police Department,
accounting for approximately $50 million or 41 per-
cent in FY 2021/22. The Fire Department accounts
for the second largest source of General Fund expen-
ditures at roughly $25.5 million, or 21 percent of
total operating expenditures. This budget amount
includes staffing for five fire stations throughout
the City of Fairfield. Other major expenditures
come from Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and
Community Development.

IMPACTS OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE

GENERAL FUND
To project future revenue and expenditures driven
by new growth envisioned in the three land use
Alternatives, the fiscal impact analysis assumes the
majority of existing costs and revenue sources will
grow commensurate with population and job growth
Figure 4-9: City of Fairfield General Fund
Revenue, Fiscal Year 2021/22
Source: City of Fairfield Fiscal Year 2021/22 Budget, 2021.

Sales Tax,
$46,927,000
Property Tax,
$24,290,000
Motor Vehicle Taxes
/ Fees, $12,146,000
Utility and Franchise Taxes,
$9,530,000
Charges for Services,
$6,813,617
Other Taxes,
$14,255,921
Packet Page 380 of 390Attachment 31 Page 22 of 28

57 Alternative 1: New Neighborhoods and
Connections
At full buildout, Land Use Alternative 1 would gen-
erate a fairly robust annual fiscal surplus to the City of Fairfield General Fund. As seen in Table 4-5, new
revenue is projected to outweigh the required City
expenditures to provide services to these growth
areas by roughly $4.5 million per year at buildout.

Similar to the existing City budget, the major
increases in projected revenue for this alterna-
tive would come from property tax and sales tax,
accounting for nearly half of the new General Fund
revenue. Other property-related revenue sources
account for a significant share of the projected rev-
enue increase, with Property Tax In-Lieu of Vehicle-
License Fee revenue (ILVLF) and Community
Facilities District 2012-2 (CFD 2012-2) revenue
generating between $3.4 and $4.2 million in
annual General Fund revenue. Other projected
revenue increases would come from Utility and
Franchise Taxes, Charges for Service, and
Licenses, Permits, and Fines, among others,
accounting for the remaining $4.5 mil-lion in annual
General Fund revenue.

In terms of expenditures, Land Use Alternative 1 is
projected to generate demand for roughly $20 mil-
lion of new annual General Fund costs. The largest
share of these costs is associated with police
service, accounting for nearly $8 million of new
police costs. According to the Fairfield Fire
Department, this land use alternative would
require the staffing of one new fire station
located near the Suisun Valley Road exit of
Interstate-80. In addition, due to the existing call
volume of the station in the central portion of
Fairfield (Station #37), BAE also assumes this alter-
native will require an additional fire station in
central Fairfield. In total, the projected cost to staff the two
Figure 4-10: City of Fairfield General Fund
Expenditures, Fiscal Year 2021/22
Source: City of Fairfield Fiscal Year 2021/22 Budget, 2021. within the City. For certain revenue sources, includ-
ing property and sales tax revenue, new revenue
generation was calculated based on the projected
increase in property values and local retail spending
from the growth in each land use alternative. Note
that this analysis does not include revenue gener-
ated by the one-percent sales tax measure (Measure
P), given the sunset date is prior to the projected full buildout of the General Plan. However, discussion
of the implications of excluding Measure P revenue
from the analysis is included in the Summary of
Findings section below. In terms of expenditures,
the project team conducted interviews with various
City departments to better understand future costs.

This included representatives of the Police and Fire
departments, as well as the Finance department, to
understand how existing costs would increase due
to the new development in each land use alternative.

Police, $50,090,969
Fire, $25,491,219
Public Works,
$14,890,598
Parks and Recreation,
$8,077,519
General Expenses,
$5,802,081
Community Development,
$5,162,890
Administration,
$4,387,289
Transfers Out,
$3,391,606
Human Resources,
$1,855,426
Finance,
$1,726,852
Packet Page 381 of 390Attachment 31 Page 23 of 28

58 new fire stations would amount to roughly $6.3
million in new annual General Fund costs. Other
major increases in costs, driven by population and
job growth, include Public Works ($2.4 million of new
costs), General Expenses ($1.0 million of new costs),
Parks and Recreation ($840,000 of new costs), and
Community Development ($818,00 of new costs).

Alternative 2: Transformed Corridors and
Transit-Oriented Development
Given the more modest growth envisioned in Land
Use Alternative 2, the projected General Fund reve-
nue from new development is below the other alter-
natives. However, due to various factors discussed
below, the expenditures associated with providing
services to the new population and jobs in this alter-
native are only marginally below those in the other
alternatives. Despite these findings, the growth in
Land Use Alternative 2 is still projected to generate
an annual fiscal surplus of $1.3 million. This surplus, however, would be modestly lower than the surplus
projected in the other two land use alternatives,
which range from $4.5 million to $5.5 million.

As seen below in Table 4-5, Land Use Alternative 2
is projected to generate roughly $18.4 million in
new annual General Fund revenue at buildout.

The majority of this revenue would be
generated by property taxes and sales tax,
accounting for roughly half of the projected
increase in revenues, followed by ILVLF revenue
and CFD 2012-2 revenue, generat-ing between $2.5
million and $3.0 million annually.

As noted above, despite the more modest growth
in this alternative, the General Fund expenditures
are projected to align with the more robust growth
alternatives, at roughly $17 million in annual costs.

The major reason for this is the similar need for
two fire stations. Similar to the other alternatives,
the growth envisioned in this scenario will require
one station in the southwest portion of the City
as well as one station in the central portion of the
City. The costs of providing this service, despite the lower amount of new development in this land use
alternative, are the same as the other alternatives, at $6.3 million in annual expenditures. The other major
increase in expenditures is associated with the Police
Department, at roughly $6.2 million in new yearly
General Fund costs, though these costs grow com-
mensurate with population and job growth, rather
than the disproportionate Fire service cost increase.

All other costs, including Public Works, General
Services, and Parks and Recreation, among others,
are projected to grow with the projected service pop-
ulation, resulting in between $115,000 to $2.0 million
in new annual costs.

Alternative 3: Community Centers
Land Use Alternative 3 contains elements similar to
both of the alternatives previously discussed, includ-
ing a significant amount of new development in the
southwestern portion of the City as well as a modest
amount of infill development along Texas Street and
Travis Boulevard. In total, this alternative accommo-
dates more residential units throughout the City,
with a slightly reduced amount of non-residential
square feet. Due to the increased development envi-
sioned in this alternative, the resulting fiscal surplus is the highest of the alternatives, at $5.5 million.

Driven by the largest amount of new development
among the three alternatives, this alternative would
generate the most significant amount of new General
Fund revenue - roughly $26 million per year at build-
out. Similar to the other alternatives, roughly half
of the projected new revenue would be generated
by property and sales taxes, accounting for between
$5.0 and $8.1 million of new annual General Fund
revenue. Similarly, the projected ILVLF and CFD
2012-2 revenue increases would be higher than the
other alternatives, at between $3.6 and $4.6 million
in annual General Fund revenue. All other revenues,
including Utility and Franchise Taxes, Charges for
Services, and Licenses, Permits, and Fines, among
others, account for the remaining $4.6 million of new
projected revenues annual revenues at buildout of
this alternative.

General Fund expenditures are projected to increase
by roughly $20.6 annually million at full buildout of
Land Use Alternative 3. Police service costs would
account for the largest share of these expendi-
tures, driven by the significant population and job
growth. Similar to the other alternatives, Alternative
3 requires two additional fire stations, one in the
southwest and one in the central portion of the
City. As such, the total increase in Fire Department
expenditures amounts to $6.3 million annually. The
remaining new service expenditures under this alter-
native are projected to grow with population and job
growth, ranging between $150,000 and $2.5 million
per year at buildout.

Packet Page 382 of 390Attachment 31 Page 24 of 28

59 Comparison of Alternatives
As seen in Table 4-5, the three land use alternatives
are projected to increase the City’s General Fund rev-
enue by $18 million to $26 million, or an increase of
between 16 and 23 percent above the City’s existing
General Fund revenue of $114 million. General Fund
expenditures are projected to increase by $17 million
to $21 million, or an increase of between 14 and 18
percent above existing General Fund expenditures of
$121 million. In terms of the projected fiscal impact, Land Use Alternative 3 would generate the highest
fiscal surplus, of $5.5 million per year at buildout,
driven by the largest amount of residential growth.

Land Use Alternative 1 would generate a fairly robust
surplus as well, at an estimated $4.5 million. Due
to the costs of providing fire service to the growth
envisioned in Alternative 2, combined with the more
modest residential and non-residential growth, the
fiscal surplus generated by Alternative 2 would be
more modest, at $1.4 million per year by buildout.

This analysis assumes all three alternatives require
two new fire stations. Fire Department staff noted
that they may not need a new station in the central
portion of the City if there is minimal growth in that
portion of the City. Given all Alternatives do have
some growth in central Fairfield, combined with the
growth in the Heart of Fairfield Plan, the consultant
team assumed all three alternatives would require
two new stations. This should be confirmed by the
Fire Department.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The fiscal impact analysis results provide several
critical conclusions regarding the fiscal impact of the various Alternatives. These include findings regard-
ing the proposed land use mix, location of develop-
ment, as well as existing revenue sources that are
integral to the projected fiscal surplus.

TABLE : ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACT BY LAND USE ALTERNATIVE AT FULL BUILD- OUT (2050) (a)
General Fund Revenues and Expenditures
Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Revenues
Property Tax
Secured $6,617,781 $4,999,667 $7,728,675
Unsecured $252,079 $190,443 $294,395
ILVLF $3,588,031 $2,542,192 $3,613,014
CFD 2012-2 Revenue $4,134,501 $3,080,156 $4,507,509
Property Transfer Tax $252,381 $158,097 $244,222
Sales Tax (b)
Bradley Burns $4,262,263 $3,207,280 $4,131,024
County Pool $1,001,334 $753,486 $970,502
Prop. 172 $51,147 $38,487 $49,572
“Other Revenues”$4,454,410 $3,454,859 $4,581,460
Sub-total revenues $24,613,926 $18,424,669 $26,120,372
Expenditures
Administration $347,421 $269,462 $357,331
Community Development $817,680 $634,196 $841,002
Finance $136,746 $106,061 $140,647
Fire Department (c)$6,272,306 $6,272,306 $6,272,306
Human Resources $293,856 $227,916 $302,237
Parks and Recreation $837,836 $685,876 $954,202
Police $7,933,226 $6,153,045 $8,159,500
Public Works $2,358,319 $1,829,122 $2,425,584
General Expenses $1,010,804 $783,984 $1,039,634
Transfers Out (d) $147,290 $114,239 $151,491
Sub-total expenditures $21,155,484 $17,076,206 $20,643,933 NET ANNUAL FISCAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)$4,458,442 $1,348,464 $5,476,438 Notes:
(a) Revenues and expenditures are presented in 2021 dollars. (b) This analysis does not include future Measure P revenue, given the sunset date of 2033. (c) This analysis assumes all three alternatives require full staffing of two new fire stations. (d) Only includes projected reoccurring expenses based on input from the Fairfield Finance Department. This includes transfers for Street Maintenance, Maintenance Districts, and the Cordelia Library.

Sources: City of Fairfield; Dyett and Bhatia; BAE, 2021. 4-5
Packet Page 383 of 390Attachment 31 Page 25 of 28

60 Land Use Mix
The City of Fairfield is currently home to roughly
120,000 residents and 45,000 jobs, yielding a ratio
of 0.37 jobs-per-resident. In contrast to the City’s
existing jobs/housing balance, which reflects a higher
proportion of residents relative to jobs, all three
Land Use Alternatives for the General Plan Update
yield significantly more new jobs than residents, at
ratios ranging from 1.25 to 1.65 jobs-per-resident.

Based on the fiscal impact model, the non-residen-
tial land uses generate a higher fiscal surplus, due
to the reduced demand for services from employ-
ees. These non-residential land uses also generate
fairly robust revenues, primarily from property
taxes, CFD payments, and sales tax revenues. As
a result, the fiscal impact model, and projected
annual fiscal surpluses for the land use alternatives
at buildout, are particularly sensitive to ensuring the new non-residential development is delivered as
envisioned. For example, if the amount of non-res-
idential space accommodated by each alternative
is reduced by half, the projected fiscal surpluses
would fall by roughly 25 percent. Albeit unrealistic
and not in the City’s interest, if none of the non-res- idential space is delivered but full residential build- out occurs, Alternatives 1 and 3 would still generate
fiscal surpluses at residential buildout, although at
lower levels of between $2.9 and $3.0 million per
year, while Alternative 2 would yield an annual fiscal
deficit at buildout. Given that the non-residential
space plays an integral role in the projected fiscal
surpluses, the City should ensure that new non-res-
idential development is delivered concurrently with
residential development to the greatest extent possi-
ble as the General Plan Update is implemented.

Fire Department Costs
As discussed in the summaries above, BAE assumed
each Land Use Alternative would require staffing two
complete new fire stations, one in the southwest and
one in the central portion of the City, with a total cost of $6.3 million annually across all alternatives. Given the lower amount of development in Alternative 2,
this increase in expenditures is disproportionately
higher in this alternative, thus reducing the total pro- jected fiscal surplus. In addition, Fire Department
staff suggested the department may be able to
reduce the need for a full new fire station in the cen- tral portion of the city if the final land use alterna- tive minimizes growth in central Fairfield. However,
given the existing Heart of Fairfield specific plan,
and other projects that will increase density in the
central portion of the city, this new fire station may
be required regardless of the growth accommodated
by the General Plan land use scenario. As the City
finalizes the preferred General Plan land use alter-
native, it will be critical to ensure the Fairfield Fire Department is able to efficiently provide service to
the growth envisioned as part of the General Plan.

Packet Page 384 of 390Attachment 31 Page 26 of 28

61 CFD Revenue
According to the Finance Department, any new
residential or non-residential development will pay
an annual special tax levy into Community Facilities
District 2012-2 (CFD 2012-2) to support increased
public safety, open space maintenance, and park
maintenance citywide. For residential units, this fee
ranges from $626 per unit for a high-density devel-
opment to $943 per unit for a single-family devel-
opment, per year. For non-residential space, the
fee ranges from $0.02 to $0.27 per square foot per
year, depending on the land use type. The revenues
generated by CFD 2012-2 are important for the pro-
jected fiscal surplus in each alternative. For example, if new development was not required to pay into CFD
2012-2, Alternative 2 would generate a fiscal deficit
of $1.7 million annually at buildout, while the fiscal
surpluses projected in the other alternatives would
be cut in half. In order to maintain the existing levels of service, this CFD is a critical source of revenue to offset the increased service expenditures associated
with new development.

Measure P Revenue
Set to sunset in 2033, Measure P currently generates
a significant amount of revenue to support the City
of Fairfield budget. This special sales tax of 1.0 per- cent of local taxable sales is projected to generate
roughly $22 million in Fiscal Year 2021/22. Because
this measure will sunset before the full buildout
of the General Plan, it was excluded as a source of
revenue. However, the existing service expenditures
funded by Measure P were maintained and commen-
surate increases in associated service costs for each
Alternative were projected. Although the baseline
fiscal model currently projects net fiscal surpluses
for each of the land use alternatives without the
inclusion of Measure P revenue the revenues gen-
erated by this measure before the 2033 sunset date
will support citywide service delivery and may also
aid in balancing any fluctuations in cost and/or reve-
nues that could occur before that date. The City will
likely want to explore the Measure’s importance in
supporting citywide services prior to the 2033 sunset
period and determine if it is important to undertake
steps to seek and obtain voter approval to extend
the measure beyond 2033. If this sales tax measure
is renewed in its current form beyond 2033, the pro-
jected fiscal surpluses generated by these land use
alternatives would increase by between $3.2 and
$4.3 million annually.

Packet Page 385 of 390Attachment 31 Page 27 of 28

Packet Page 386 of 390Attachment 31 Page 28 of 28

Attachment 5: Summary of Community Input on
Land Use Alternatives

Focus Area Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Summary of Community Input Cordelia Junction
(area around
Business Center
Drive, southwest
of Solano College)
• Knowledge
hub
• Medical,
research,
technology-
oriented jobs
• Mixed-use east
of Pittman
• Jobs corridor
• Flexible office,
light
industrial/rese
arch and
development,
advanced
manufacturing
jobs
• Industrial east
of Pittman
Road
• Mixed-use to
add population
needed to
support
commercial
uses and
services
• Survey: 34% preferred neighborhood centers
• Workshop: Mixed-use nodes
• GPAC: Slight preference for jobs corridor
• Property owners/stakeholders: Medium or
high/density residential
• Solano College: Knowledge hub
• 11/2/21 Study Session: Opposed new
housing
I-80 North to
Rockville Road
(Suisun Valley area
above cherry stem)
• New walkable,
bikeable
neighborhood
to connect
Cordelia with
central
Fairfield

• Remains the
same

• “Agrihood” –
residential
with
agricultural use

• Survey: 40% preferred Alternative 3; 22% did
not want any development in Suisun Valley
• Workshop: Low level of support for
“agrihood”; even less for a new
neighborhood
• GPAC: Divided between no expansion and
“agrihood”
Packet Page 387 of 390Attachment 32 Page 1 of 4

PAGE 2

Focus Area Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Summary of Community Input • Property owners: Open to annexation for
services; farmers did not want any
development or annexation
• 11/2/21 Study Session: Opposed annexation
and development in Suisun Valley
• City Council: Opposed annexation and
development; supported collaboration with
Solano County
I-80 South to
Suisun Marsh
(Suisun Valley area
below cherry stem)
• Industrial
expansion

• Transit-
oriented
neighborhood

• Some
agricultural
preservation;
some industrial
expansion

• Survey: 40% preferred Alternative 3; 22% did
not want any development in Suisun Valley
• Workshop: Low level of support for
“agrihood”; even less for even less for a new
neighborhood.
• GPAC: Agreement that development south of
I-80 could take pressure off north of I-80
• Property owners: Preference for area to
remain agricultural/open space; support for
agritourism and live/work community;
Farmers oppose development and
annexation
• Planning Commission: No strong preference
• 11/2/21 Study Session: Opposed annexation
and development in Suisun Valley
• City Council: Opposed annexation and
development; supported collaboration with
Solano County
Packet Page 388 of 390Attachment 32 Page 2 of 4

PAGE 3

Focus Area Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Summary of Community Input Downtown • Minimal
change
• High density
residential
around
Transportation
Center
• Medium/high
density south
of Heart of
Fairfield area
• Mixed use near
Station
• Mixed use near
Transportation
Center
• Clear support for change across engagement
activities
• Survey: 28% selected Alternative 2; 26%
selected Alternative 3
• Workshop: High level of support for mixed
use nodes (Alternative 3)
• GPAC: Stressed importance of downtown
redevelopment
• Planning Commission: Support for Alternative
2 with aspects of Alternative 3
• City Council: Mix of Alternative 2 and 3;
supported higher densities and mixed-use
Solano Town
Center
• Minimal
change

• Some mixed
use, higher
density
housing

• Major
transformation
: mix of
housing types,
jobs,
community
uses, and
green space
• Survey: 42% would like to keep mall as is;
37% would like to see major transformation;
51% of youth participants would like to see
major transformation
• Workshop: High level of support for mall
redevelopment
• Planning Commission: Support for Alternative
2 • City Council: Alternative 3; major
transformation and new uses including high-
density housing, mixed-use, and multi-modal
transportation
Packet Page 389 of 390Attachment 32 Page 3 of 4

PAGE 4

Focus Area Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Summary of Community Input North Texas
Corridor
• “Knowledge
hub”
• Medical,
research,
technology-
oriented jobs
• Mixed use east
of Pittman
Road

• Major
transformation
, includes
residential,
commercial,
and
community
service uses
• Public realm
improvements
• BRT
• Nodes of
activity with
some mixed
use
development,
but less than
Alternative 2

• Survey: 44% supported major redevelopment
• Workshop: Redevelopment popular among
attendees
• GPAC: Support for major redevelopment, BRT
• Planning Commission: Slight preference for
Alternative 2; some desired mix of
Alternative 2 and Alternative 3
• City Council: Several members supported
Alternative 2; agreement on need for major
transformation

Packet Page 390 of 390Attachment 32 Page 4 of 4

Fairfield City CouncilApril 11, 2023

Fairfield City Council
April 11, 2023