Agenda — Fairfield City Council, April 11, 2023 (part 1 of 2)

PRESENTATIONS

1.City Council Listening Tour Debrief
Contact:David Gassaway, (707) 4287400
a

2.Parks & Recreation Open Space Master Plan
Contact:Kristina Kaunzinger, (707) 4287470
a

3.Overview of the General Plan Update Process
Contact:Jessie Hernandez, (707) 4287450
a

4.Capital Improvement Project Update
Contact:Paul Kaushal, (707) 4287477
a

ADJOURN
Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the City of Fairfield to all or a majority of the Fairfield City Council less than 72 hours Packet Page 1 of 390

CITY OF FAIRFIELDSPECIAL MEETINGSTUDY SESSIONTUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2023; 6:00 PMPOLICE TRAINING FACILITY, 1717 REX CLIFT DRIVE,FAIRFIELD, CA 94533AGENDACALL TO ORDER 6:00 PMROLL CALLCouncilmember Doug CarrCouncilmember Doriss PanduroCouncilmemberScott TonnesenCouncilmember Rick VaccaroCouncilmember K. Patrice Williams Vice Mayor Pam BertaniMayor Catherine "Cat" MoyPUBLIC COMMENTS PROCESS FOR PUBLIC COMMENTSPersons wishing to address the City Council on subjects not on the agenda but within the jurisdictionof the council may do so at this time. The council cannot discuss or take action on matters not on theagenda for this meeting, but councilmembers may briefly respond to statements made or questionsraised by the public, ask for clarification from staff, refer the matter to staff, request staff to report backto the council at a subsequent meeting, or place the matter on a future agenda. To speak on anagenda item please submit a speaker card to the city clerk. Speakers are limited to three minutes peritem.PRESENTATIONS1.City Council Listening Tour DebriefContact:David Gassaway, (707) 4287400a2.Parks & Recreation Open Space Master PlanContact:Kristina Kaunzinger, (707) 4287470a3.Overview of the General Plan Update ProcessContact:Jessie Hernandez, (707) 4287450a4.Capital Improvement Project UpdateContact:Paul Kaushal, (707) 4287477aADJOURN Any disclosable public records related to an open session item on a regular meeting agenda and distributed by the City of Fairfield to all or a majority of the Fairfield City Council less than 72 hours prior to that meeting are available for public inspection at City Hall, in the 4th floor lobby, 1000 Webster Street, Fairfield, California during normal business hours.

The City of Fairfield does not discriminate against any individual with a disability. City publications will be made available upon request in the appropriate format to persons with a disability. If you need an accommodation to attend or participate in this meeting due to a disability, please contact the City Clerk's Office, in advance of the meeting at (707) 4287400 or (707) 3995623 (TTY).

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
I, Esther Beavers, Deputy City Clerk, do hereby certify that I have caused a true copy of the above notice and agenda to be delivered to each of the members of the Fairfield City Council, at the time and in the manner prescribed by law and that this agenda was posted at City Hall, 1000 Webster Street, Fairfield, California on Wednesday, April 5, 2023.

Packet Page 2 of 390

Agenda Item No: 3.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:April 11, 2023
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, City Manager
SUBJECT:Overview of the General Plan Update Process
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive report, open discussion, and provide direction to staff.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The City is updating its General Plan, which was last updated in 2002. The project, called Fairfield Forward 2050, will set the vision and goals for growth in Fairfield for years to come. The purpose of this City Council Study Session is to reintroduce Fairfield Forward 2050 and prepare the council to provide direction at the June 2023 council meeting.

DISCUSSION
Process Overview
Fairfield Forward 2050 kicked off in December 2020 by launching an ongoing outreach and engagement program to identify and understand community concerns and establish a coordinated direction for the future founded on a communitybased strategic vision. The General Plan Update Draft Vision and Guiding Principles (Attachment 1) was developed based on community input to identify shared goals and provide guidance for developing detailed policies. As outreach and engagement activities were underway, staff evaluated the city’s existing land use characteristics, economic position, circulation network, and environmental resources and constraints; and assessed likely growth and development capacity. This assessment was compiled into an Existing Conditions Report (Attachment 2) in May 2021. Separately from the Existing Conditions Report, staff developed a Market Analysis (Attachment 3) to provide 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.

The project is now in the “Land Use Alternatives” phase. In this phase, staff formulated three alternative land use strategies and scenarios (Attachment 4) to achieve the city’s vision based on the community’s preferences. These land use alternatives were presented to the council on November 2, 2021.

Participating community members expressed concerns regarding the land use alternatives for North Cordelia and the unincorporated Suisun Valley. In response, the council directed staff to go back to the community and collect additional input from key Cordelia and Suisun Valley stakeholders, including residents, property owners, business owners, Solano County staff, and representatives of the Packet Page 3 of 390

Land Use Alternatives
The project is now in the land use alternatives phase, which focuses on working with the community to prepare, evaluate, and ultimately develop a preferred land use alternative that will be the basis for the updated General Plan. Staff developed three land use alternatives based on community input and the Draft Vision and Guiding Principles. Alternatives are different options for achieving growth and priorities used to help community members evaluate tradeoffs and think about what they feel is the best path forward. Land use alternatives are also a requirement of the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan. Each alternative includes concepts, which can be mixed and matched to create a preferred alternative. The preferred alternative can also contain ideas not shown in any of the three prepared alternatives.

An “Alternatives Report” (Attachment 4) detailing these land use alternatives and their tradeoffs was published in October 2021. Public input and council comments on the three Alternatives are summarized by focus area in Attachment 5.

Next Steps
At the upcoming study session in June 2023, the council will be asked to identify a preferred land use scenario for the General Plan, which will form the basis of the General Plan Update, Environmental Impact Report, and Climate Action Plan. The council can provide direction by indicating their support for aspects of any of the land use alternatives, or other concepts that are not already included in the land use alternatives. Staff will return to the council with a draft preferred alternative for final approval.

Following the selection of a preferred alternative, staff will begin working on the Environmental Impact Report and Climate Action Plan and collaborate with departments and divisions across the City to update the General Plan Elements. These Elements will consist of goals, objectives, and detailed policies to address needs and achieve the community’s shared vision.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
N/A
PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
This study session was duly noticed in the Daily Republic on Friday, March 31st, 2023.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
N/A
STAFF CONTACT
Jessie Hernandez, Associate Planner
(707) 4287450
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
City Manager's Office, Fire Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Public Works Department, Housing Services Department
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Packet Page 4 of 390

Agenda Item No: 3.AGENDA REPORTDATE:April 11, 2023 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, City ManagerSUBJECT:Overview of the General Plan Update ProcessRECOMMENDED ACTIONReceive report, open discussion, and provide direction to staff.STATEMENT OF ISSUEThe City is updating its General Plan, which was last updated in 2002. The project, called FairfieldForward 2050, will set the vision and goals for growth in Fairfield for years to come. The purpose of thisCity Council Study Session is to reintroduce Fairfield Forward 2050 and prepare the council to providedirection at the June 2023 council meeting. DISCUSSIONProcess OverviewFairfield Forward 2050 kicked off in December 2020 by launching an ongoing outreach andengagement program to identify and understand community concerns and establish a coordinateddirection for the future founded on a communitybased strategic vision. The General Plan Update DraftVision and Guiding Principles (Attachment 1) was developed based on community input to identifyshared goals and provide guidance for developing detailed policies. As outreach and engagementactivities were underway, staff evaluated the city’s existing land use characteristics, economic position,circulation network, and environmental resources and constraints; and assessed likely growth anddevelopment capacity. This assessment was compiled into an Existing Conditions Report (Attachment2) in May 2021. Separately from the Existing Conditions Report, staff developed a Market Analysis(Attachment 3) to provide an overview of the existing demographic and economic conditions, local realestate market conditions and trends, and factors that will drive demand in various land use categoriesover the General Plan planning horizon. The project is now in the “Land Use Alternatives” phase. In this phase, staff formulated three alternativeland use strategies and scenarios (Attachment 4) to achieve the city’s vision based on the community’spreferences. These land use alternatives were presented to the council on November 2, 2021.Participating community members expressed concerns regarding the land use alternatives for NorthCordelia and the unincorporated Suisun Valley. In response, the council directed staff to go back to thecommunity and collect additional input from key Cordelia and Suisun Valley stakeholders, includingresidents, property owners, business owners, Solano County staff, and representatives of theagricultural sector. The findings of this additional outreach were presented to the council at three studysessions conducted in the spring of 2022. Due to the extended timeframe and upcoming councilelections, staff concluded that decisions should be made by the incoming council. Land Use AlternativesThe project is now in the land use alternatives phase, which focuses on working with the community toprepare, evaluate, and ultimately develop a preferred land use alternative that will be the basis for theupdated General Plan. Staff developed three land use alternatives based on community input and theDraft Vision and Guiding Principles. Alternatives are different options for achieving growth and prioritiesused to help community members evaluate tradeoffs and think about what they feel is the best pathforward. Land use alternatives are also a requirement of the Environmental Impact Report for theGeneral Plan. Each alternative includes concepts, which can be mixed and matched to create apreferred alternative. The preferred alternative can also contain ideas not shown in any of the threeprepared alternatives. An “Alternatives Report” (Attachment 4) detailing these land use alternatives and their tradeoffs waspublished in October 2021. Public input and council comments on the three Alternatives aresummarized by focus area in Attachment 5. Next Steps At the upcoming study session in June 2023, the council will be asked to identify a preferred land usescenario for the General Plan, which will form the basis of the General Plan Update, EnvironmentalImpact Report, and Climate Action Plan. The council can provide direction by indicating their support foraspects of any of the land use alternatives, or other concepts that are not already included in the landuse alternatives. Staff will return to the council with a draft preferred alternative for final approval.Following the selection of a preferred alternative, staff will begin working on the Environmental ImpactReport and Climate Action Plan and collaborate with departments and divisions across the City toupdate the General Plan Elements. These Elements will consist of goals, objectives, and detailedpolicies to address needs and achieve the community’s shared vision.FINANCIAL IMPACTN/APUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATIONThis study session was duly noticed in the Daily Republic on Friday, March 31st, 2023.ALTERNATIVE ACTIONN/ASTAFF CONTACTJessie Hernandez, Associate Planner(707) 428[email protected] WITHCity Manager's Office, Fire Department, Parks and Recreation Department, Public WorksDepartment, Housing Services Department ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Draft Vision and Guiding Principles
Attachment 2.1. Fairfield Existing Conditions Report TOC and Introduction Attachment 2.2 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Land Use Community Design Attachment 2.3 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Circulation_A Attachment 2.3 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Circulation_B Attachment 2.4 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Air Quality Greenhouse Gases and Energy_ Geology and Soils
Attachment 2.5 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Biological Resources_A Attachment 2.5 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Biological Resources_B Attachment 2.5 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Biological Resources_C Attachment 2.5 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Biological Resources_D Attachment 2.6 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Hydrology and Water Quality_A Attachment 2.6 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Hydrology and Water Quality_B Attachment 2.6 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Hydrology and Water Quality_C Attachment 2.6 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Hydrology and Water Quality_D Attachment 2.6 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Hydrology and Water Quality_E Attachment 2.6 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Hydrology and Water Quality_F Attachment 2.6 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Hydrology and Water Quality_G Attachment 2.7 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Hazardous Materials Attachment 2.8 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Airport Hazards Attachment 2.9 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Wildfire_A Attachment 2.9 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Wildfire_B Attachment 2.9 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Wildfire_C Attachment 2.10 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Public Facilities and Services Attachment 2.11 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Wet Utilities_A Attachment 2.11 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Wet Utilities_B Attachment 2.12 Fairfield Existing Conditions Report Public Health and Equity Attachment 3. Market+Analysis
Attachment 4. Fairfield Alternatives Report_A
Attachment 4. Fairfield Alternatives Report_B
Attachment 4. Fairfield Alternatives Report_C
Attachment 4. Fairfield Alternatives Report_D
Attachment 5. Summary of Community Input on Land Use Alternatives REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Feinstein, David Approved 3/30/2023 4:00 PM
Beavers, Esther Approved 3/30/2023 6:10 PM
Beavers, Esther Approved 3/30/2023 6:11 PM
Packet Page 5 of 390

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.

Packet Page 6 of 390Attachment 1 Page 1 of 8

2 Fairfield builds upon its strengths—a charming downtown, thriving and diverse neighbor- hoods, economic assets, and inviting, attractive natural surroundings and agricultural and ecological riches—to blossom into a complete, vibrant city, a place renowned for walk- able, affordable, and pleasant neighborhoods with ample open space amenities; economic prosperity and opportunity; social stability and equity; and cultural, entertainment and recreation possibilities.

In 2050, Fairfield has evolved into a distinctive Bay Area community, renowned for its setting amidst productive ag- ricultural land, open space, and intact natural areas such as the Suisun Marsh. Fairfield’s downtown and corridors are revitalized as community-centered spines, with enjoyable things to do and places to spend time. Neighborhoods provide the full spectrum of housing options to meet the needs of all residents. Walkable and bikeable connections integrate communities with places to meet people’s daily needs for education, work, shopping, recreation and en- tertainment, enjoyment of nature, safe parks and green space, and relaxation.

The city’s competitive, dynamic, and forward-thinking business environment and strategic regional location at the crossroads of I-680 and I-80 and at the mid-point between the Bay Area and Sacramento metropolitan regions support economic opportunity. Fairfield builds on its existing strengths, such as food and advanced manufacturing, logistics and distribution, healthcare, and military industry, and lays the groundwork for the future economy through investments in infrastructure, job training, and education. The City continues its support for the mission of Travis Air Force Base, which remains a major driver of local economic activity. Small and community-oriented businesses enrich downtown Fairfield and the North and West Texas corridors with a unique atmosphere and experience.

The beating heart of Fairfield is the diversity of its people. Fairfield’s inclusive environment means all its residents see and feel their culture, identities, and interests celebrated and reflected in community events and celebrations, businesses and gathering places, and all forms of civic life. Community health is prioritized, with every neighborhood having what it needs for its residents to thrive. Residents and visitors find it easy, convenient, and pleasant to get to their destinations by walking and biking, enhanced transit, and other new transportation technology. The city has built resilience to the environmental, social, and economic challenges of years beyond 2050.

Draft Vision Statement
Packet Page 7 of 390Attachment 1 Page 2 of 8

3 Draft Guiding Principles

1. PROMOTE FAIRFIELD AS A COMMUNITY OF VIBRANT, DIVERSE,

CONNECTED NEIGHBORHOODS, WITH EASY ACCESS TO
SHOPPING, ENTERTAINMENT, AND RECREATION.

Fairfield’s future growth will see a new focus on strategic infill development with limited outward expansion, emphasizing development in existing job centers, and enhancing neighborhoods with everyday amenities within easy distances. ■Encourage a mix of uses including flexible office space, retail, neighborhood grocery stores, coffee shops, childcare, dining and entertainment, and other compatible uses mixed with housing to create enjoyable, complete neigh- borhoods.
■Focus development in areas that are already served by city infrastructure and services, such as sewers, roads, and fire protection, to promote sustainable growth patterns.
■Strategically add smaller parks, such as tot lots or pocket parks, within neigh- borhoods across the city to provide more park space that is accessible by walking.
■Designate land use intensities that stimulate investment, while ensuring that development scale and design are appropriate to neighborhood context and contribute to Fairfield’s visual identity.

2. IMPROVE FAIRFIELD’S TRANSPORTATION NETWORK WITH SAFE

AND CONNECTED WALKING AND BIKING FACILITIES, ACCESSIBLE

AND RELIABLE PUBLIC TRANSIT, AND NEW TRANSPORTATION
TECHNOLOGY.

Many of Fairfield’s streets and neighborhoods are primarily auto-oriented, requir- ing residents and visitors to travel by car to reach most destinations. In the fu- ture, Fairfield will increase travel options across the city to ensure roadway safety, promote sustainability, ensure access to resources for those who do not drive, and create lively, pedestrian-scale streetscapes. Fairfield will also plan ahead for new transportation technologies, such as electric vehicle charging, autonomous vehicles, and other changes.
■Design complete streets to accommodate a variety of transportation modes and prioritize convenient and comfortable walking, biking, and transit access to key destinations such as schools, employment centers, commercial areas, parks, and medical services.
■Enhance connectivity across the city and to other surrounding areas by completing trails (such as the Linear Park Trail), creating new paths, and strengthening neighborhood links to transportation hubs, such as the train station or transportation center.
■Integrate new transportation technologies, such as automated driving and electric vehicles, and intelligent traffic management systems that move people and goods efficiently to and from their destinations.

Packet Page 8 of 390Attachment 1 Page 3 of 8

4 3. ACHIEVE A RESILIENT, DYNAMIC, AND COMPETITIVE LOCAL ECONOMY THAT OFFERS OPPORTUNITIES ACROSS THE ECONOMIC SPECTRUM.

Fairfield’s location adjacent to prime agricultural land and open space, as well as major trans- port connections such as Interstates 80 and 680 and two Capital Corridor railway stations, has made the city an attractive place for businesses over the years. The General Plan will promote economic resilience in Fairfield by building on its existing economic strengths and diversifying into other industries that are a good fit.
■Promote economic resilience in Fairfield by bolstering its existing strengths in food manufacturing (as well as other advanced manufacturing), agriculture and linkages to agritourism, logistics and distribution, and life sciences/healthcare. ■Attract and incubate a variety of businesses, including those that are climate- and ener- gy-conscious, and that provide job opportunities to local residents. ■Proactively plan for the future of business, including physical and digital infrastructure such as high-speed internet, adequate and flexible land uses, and employee housing and transportation needs.
■Create an environment that is supportive of continued operation and needs of Travis Air Force Base, recognizing and leveraging Travis as an asset for recruiting military- connected industry.
■Develop partnerships with economic development centers such as local chambers of commerce, educational institutions such as Solano College, the Workforce Development Board of Solano County, and large private employers to provide job readiness and local hire programs that promote employment opportunities.
■Encourage economic diversity and equitable opportunities for Fairfield’s diverse residents through strategic investments in new industries, pathways for small businesses and entrepreneurship, and job training programs/educational partnerships.

Packet Page 9 of 390Attachment 1 Page 4 of 8

5 4. PROMOTE HOUSING AND SUPPORT A DIVERSE ARRAY OF

HOUSING TYPES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF ALL SEGMENTS OF THE
POPULATION.

The need for housing affordable to residents across the income spectrum in Fairfield is pressing. Entry-level and middle-income workers in Fairfield, including teachers and some Travis Air Force Base employees, require housing options beyond single-family homeownership. Affordable housing designated for low- income residents is needed as home prices and rental costs continue to rise across the Bay Area.
■Increase the supply of housing to support existing and future needs as Fairfield’s population grows, ages, and becomes more diverse. ■Encourage development of a mix of housing types that provide current and future Fairfield residents with access to a full range of housing opportunities.

Housing will be available across the spectrum so that aging residents, entry- level workers, first-time homeowners, transient military families, students and young people, unhoused residents, and children who grow up in Fairfield may all have access to quality and affordable housing that matches their needs. ■Promote housing in a diversity of amenity-rich locations: along corridors, in existing neighborhoods, and in downtown, for those desirous of living in integrated mixed-use environments.
■Prioritize a range of housing and shelter options that meet needs of Fair- field’s unhoused populations.

5. PRESERVE FAIRFIELD’S STATUS AS A DISTINCTIVE COMMUNITY

SURROUNDED BY AND CONNECTED TO OPEN SPACE AND
AGRICULTURE.

Few Bay Area cities can lay claim to the extent and diversity of natural resources and productive agricultural land that surround Fairfield, which define Fairfield’s identity as a distinctive city and provide key amenities to residents and visitors.

The planned Pacific Flyway Center—a wetland preserve with an educational cen- ter and immersive marsh walkway network—will be a significant resource for both residents and visitors. The General Plan envisions Fairfield’s outward growth to be limited while continuing the expansion of connections to open space and regional park space.
■Preserve Fairfield’s natural, agricultural, and open space surroundings, which contribute to its visual identity, biodiversity, and economic strength. ■Expand connections to open space and regional park space and strategi- cally develop Fairfield’s existing trail system, including the Linear Park Trail. ■Increase opportunities for residents and visitors to experience and learn about the importance of the surrounding area’s ecological benefits and note- worthy agricultural output.
■Promote connections between local growers and the local food system to both support farmers’ economic viability and expand access to healthy locally grown produce among all Fairfield residents.

Packet Page 10 of 390Attachment 1 Page 5 of 8

6 6. EMPHASIZE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY.

Climate change and the ensuing extreme weather it brings are an imminent threat to Fairfield, as evidenced by recent wildfires at the city’s edges. Fairfield will be a leader in sustainability and proactively and aggressively address the causes and effects of climate change. ■Strive toward a zero-carbon footprint by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from energy use and transportation, and by expanding use of renewable energies across the city. ■Promote climate adaptation strategies that improve the urban environment and socioeconomic opportunity, such as tree planting, adaptive community facilities, green job training, addressing urban heat islands, wildfire preparation and resiliency, and others. ■Decrease reliance on automobile use through climate-conscious land use and growth patterns that ensure a healthy jobs-housing balance, increased access to public and active transportation, and improved infrastructure that supports pedestrian mobility, operation of bicycles, autonomous vehicles, and electric or other zero-emissions vehicles.

7. ACHIEVE A HEALTHY AND SAFE COMMUNITY FOR ALL.

Fairfield will become a place where everyone can live a long, healthy, and opportunity-filled life. Fairfield residents’ health and opportunity are shaped by multiple factors called the social determinants of health, which include access to parks, safe and affordable places to live, good jobs and high-quality schools, and stores that meet basic needs. The General Plan will seek to promote equitable environments so that all Fairfield residents, no matter where they live, have what they need to thrive.
■Support development patterns that promote active living through walking and biking, connected paths, green space and open space networks, access to fresh, local healthy food, and amenities and services within walking distance. ■Improve public safety and effective emergency responsiveness, including police, fire, and medical response, and plan for adaptation and resiliency in the face of increased risks for wildfires and flooding.
■Prioritize community investments and resources, such as park maintenance, street trees, or other infrastructure improvements, in areas of Fairfield with the greatest socio- economic need.

Packet Page 11 of 390Attachment 1 Page 6 of 8

7 8. FOSTER REVITALIZATION IN THE CITY’S CORE AND ALONG

KEY CORRIDORS, BUILDING ON THE MOMENTUM OF RECENT

PLANNING EFFORTS, INCLUDING THE HEART OF FAIRFIELD AND
TRAIN STATION SPECIFIC PLANS.

Fairfield’s walkable central neighborhoods, downtown with unique local business- es and restaurants and historical buildings, and corridors with numerous devel- opment opportunities offer potential of a vibrant, walkable, mixed-use core, with access to a range of amenities and open spaces. The General Plan builds on the planning that has occurred for the Heart of Fairfield that encompasses cen- tral Fairfield, and the Train Station Specific Plan that creates a distinctive new neighborhood with a walkable commercial Town Center featuring a public plaza, a civic center with a new school and library, and over 150 acres of new park land in a transit-oriented locale, presenting the opportunity to create an aspirational community unparalleled in Solano County.

The General Plan builds upon recent planning efforts and outlines a spectrum of uses in the city’s core with expanded opportunities along North Texas Street, and envisions corridors as key community spines providing linkages. Broadening housing, entertainment, and small business opportunities in downtown Fairfield will make this neighborhood an asset to the whole community. More housing in downtown and along North Texas Street will simultaneously encourage business development and provide those preferring more mixed-use, urban lifestyles a place to live.
■Build on the planning that has occurred for the Heart of Fairfield by encour- aging small business development, green spaces, community environ- ments, and a variety of housing types, and promoting accessibility for all residents and visitors to downtown.
■Expand efforts to increase pedestrian-oriented land uses (including housing and mixed uses) along North Texas Street. Public realm improve- ments—to sidewalks and bikeways, as well as to landscaping and lighting— will continue to be emphasized for all streets.
■Connect transit-oriented development and amenities occurring within the Fairfield Train Station Specific Plan area to Central Fairfield through tran- sit, bicycle, and pedestrian infrastructure.

Packet Page 12 of 390Attachment 1 Page 7 of 8

8 9. CREATE COMMUNITY COHESION AND SENSE OF PLACE BY
CELEBRATING AND SHOWCASING FAIRFIELD’S DIVERSITY.

Fairfield residents represent a broad range of social and cultural backgrounds.

This diversity strengthens Fairfield as a community. The General Plan will work to celebrate this diversity by supporting events and programs, business en- claves, and transformative community spaces that provide safe, inclusive, inviting, and fun activities for residents of varying backgrounds. Events and places that bring together different segments of the population serve to build community by strengthening ties between neighbors and contributing to a shared sense of place, which contribute to a unified identity for Fairfield as a city. ■Celebrate Fairfield’s diversity by encouraging a range of programming and events that are culturally relevant, affordable, and attractive to community members of all ages, backgrounds, and abilities.
■Foster creation of gathering places and community resources that provide safe, attractive, and fun activities for residents of varying backgrounds. ■Partner with nonprofits, faith communities, and other community groups in planning for and delivering community services and events. ■Work with neighboring cities, Solano County, Solano Transportation Author- ity, and other local agencies to ensure that future planning processes are holistic and that Fairfield neighborhoods are well-connected physically, economically, and socially to the surrounding community.

To learn more about Fairfield Forward, visit the project website at www.FairfieldForward.com
Packet Page 13 of 390Attachment 1 Page 8 of 8

Existing
Conditions
Report
May 2021
City of Fairfield
General Plan Update
Packet Page 14 of 390Attachment 2 Page 1 of 16

PREPARED FOR

PREPARED BY
Fehr & Peers, Transportation Planners
WRA, Inc., Environmental Planners
West Yost Associates, Civil Engineers
Packet Page 15 of 390Attachment 2 Page 2 of 16

iii

4.AIR QUALITY, GREENHOUSE GASES, AND
ENERGY .................................................................4-1

4.1 Climate Conditions ..........................................................4-2

4.2 Air Quality Standards and Pollutants of Concern ..........4-3

4.3 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases .........................4-8

4.4 Key Findings and Planning Considerations ....................4-13

5. GEOLOGY AND SOILS .....................................5-1

5.1 Geology and Seismicity .....................................................5-2

5.2 Soils ..................................................................................5-10

5.3 Key Findings and Planning Considerations .....................5-15

6. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..............................6-1

6.1 Natural Communities, Special Status Species,
and Habitat .......................................................................6-2

6.2 Regulatory Setting .........................................................6-18

6.3 Key Findings and Planning Considerations ....................6-24

7. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY .............7-1

7.1 Hydrology ..........................................................................7-2

10.2 Water Quality ................................................................7-11

7.3 Regulatory Framework ....................................................7-13

7.4 Key Findings and Planning Considerations ....................7-17

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.INTRODUCTION ..............................................1-1

1.1 Introduction and Report Purpose .....................................1-2

1.2 General Plan Purpose & Process .......................................1-3

1.3 Planning Area ....................................................................1-4

1.4 Report Organization .........................................................1-7

2. LAND USE & COMMUNITY DESIGN ..............2-1

2.1 Existing Land Use .............................................................2-2

2.2 Curent Plans and Related Policies ...................................2-5

2.3 Existing Zoning ................................................................2-16

2.4 Pipeline Development Projects and Opportunity Sites 2-21

2.5 Community Design and Urban Form .............................2-26

2.6 Key Findings and Planning Considerations ...................2-36

3.CIRCULATION ..................................................3-1

3.1 Roadway Network .............................................................3-2

3.2 Existing Traffic Conditions ..............................................3-10

3.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities .....................................3-22

3.4 Public Transportation .....................................................3-28

3.5 Freight and Goods Movement .........................................3-31

3.6 Key Findings and Planning Considerations ....................3-32 Packet Page 16 of 390Attachment 2 Page 3 of 16

8. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...............................8-1

8.1 Hazardous Materials ........................................................8-2

8.2 Key Findings and Planning Considerations .....................8-6

9. AIRPORT HAZARDS .........................................9-1

9.1 Travis Air Force Base ........................................................9-2

9.2 Key Findings and Planning Considerations .....................9-6

10. WILDFIRE ......................................................10-1

10.1 Wildfire History ............................................................10-2

10.2 Wildfire Hazards ...........................................................10-5

10.3 Regulatory Framework .................................................10-8

10.4 Key Findings and Planning Considerations .................10-9

11. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ............11-1

11.1 Public Education ............................................................11-2

11.2 Community Facilities .....................................................11-5

11.3 Parks and Recreation ....................................................11-6

11.4 Emergency Services .....................................................11-13

11.4 Key Findings and Planning Considerations.................11-16

12. WET UTILITIES ..............................................12-1

12.1 Water Supply ..................................................................12-2

12.2 Sewer and Wastewater Treatment ...............................12-7

12.3 Stormwater Quality, Storm Drainage,
and Flood Control ...............................................................12-14

12.4 Key Findings and Planning Considerations ................12-21

13. PUBLIC HEALTH AND EQUITY ...................13-1

13.1 Environmental Justice ....................................................13-2

13.2 Public Health ..................................................................13-5

13.3 Key Findings and Planning Considerations .................13-18 Packet Page 17 of 390Attachment 2 Page 4 of 16

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Regional Setting ...................................................1-4 Figure 1-2: Planning Area .......................................................1-6 Figure 2-1: Existing Land Use .................................................2-4 Figure 2-2: General Plan Land Use and Specific Plan Areas .2-7 Figure 2-3: Pipeline Development Projects .........................2-24 Figure 2-4: Opportunity Sites ...............................................2-25 Figure 2-5: Historic Development Pattern ..........................2-28 Figure 2-6: Cordelia Existing Land Use ...............................2-29 Figure 2-7: Central Fairfield Existing Land Use ...................2-30 Figure 2-8: East Fairfield Existing Land Use .........................2-31 Figure 2-9: Existing Commercial Intensities ........................2-33 Figure 2-10: Existing Residential Densities .........................2-34 Figure 3-1: Roadway Network ................................................3-4 Figure 3-12: Fairfield Home and Work Flow .........................3-11 Figure 3-3: Fairfield Workers Home Locations ....................3-12 Figure 3-4: Fairfield Residents Work Locations ...................3-12 Figure 3-5: Fairfield Active Transportation Profile ..............3-13 Figure 3-6: Study Intersections and Segments ....................3-17 Figure 3-7: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities ...........3-25 Figure 3-8: Sidewalk Coverage ..............................................3-27 Figure 3-9: Transit Routes ....................................................3-30 Figure 4-1: Air Pollution: Stationary and Mobile Sources ....4-6 Figure 5-1: Farmlands ..............................................................5-4 Figure 5-2: Faults and Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation ...........................................................5-6 Figure 5-3: Liquefaction ..........................................................5-8 Figure 5-4: Landslides .............................................................5-9 Figure 5-5: Soils ......................................................................5-14 Figure 6-1: Planning Boundary ...............................................6-3 Figure 6-2: Natural Communities ..........................................6-5 Figure 6-3: Vegetation Cover .................................................6-8 Figure 6-4: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Critical Habitat 6-17 Figure 7-1: Watersheds ...........................................................7-3 Figure 7-2: Stream Network ..................................................7-4 Figure 7-3: Floodplains and Levees ........................................7-6 Figure 7-4: Projected Sea Level Rise Circa 2070 ...................7-8 Figure 7-5: Groundwater Basins ..........................................7-10 Figure 7-6: Impaired Waters ................................................7-14 Figure 8-1: Hazardous Materials ............................................8-3 Figure 9-1: Airport Compatibility Zones ...............................9-3 Figure 9-2: Noise Contours ....................................................9-5 Figure 10-1: Fire History ......................................................10-3 Figure 10-2: CAL FIRE and CPUC Wildfire Hazard Zones ..10-7 Figure 11-1: Schools and Educational Resources..................11-3 Figure 11-2: Existing Parks ....................................................11-8 Figure 11-3: Park Accessibility .............................................11-11 Figure 11-4: Park Walkshed .................................................11-12 Figure 11-4: Emergency Services ........................................11-15 Figure 12-1: Existing Water Facilities ....................................12-5 Figure 12-2: Existing Wastewater Collection System .........12-8 Figure 12-3: Wastewater Collection System Capacity
Deficiencies and CIP Projects (Based on Future PWWF ) .12-10 Figure 12-4: Existing Storm Drain Facilities .......................12-15 Figure 12-5: Known Flooding Locations .............................12-19 Figure 13-1: CalEnviroScreen Results....................................13-4 Packet Page 18 of 390Attachment 2 Page 5 of 16

vi
Figure 13-2: Asthma, Cardiovascular Disease, and Low
Birthweight Burden: Statewide Ranking .............................13-6 Figure 13-4: Linguistic Isolation: Statewide Ranking...........13-8 Figure 13-5: Housing Burden: Statewide Ranking ..............13-10 Figure 13-6: Groundwater Threats and Hazardous Waste
Sites: Statewide Ranking .....................................................13-13 Figure 13-7: Walkability .......................................................13-14 Figure 13-8: Internet Access ................................................13-15 Figure 13-9: Healthy Food Access .......................................13-17

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Existing Land Use ..................................................2-3 Table 2-2: General Plan Land Use Designations ...................2-8 Table 2-2: General Plan Land Use Designations ...................2-9 Table 2-3: LAFCO Approved Jurisdictional Changes
Involving Fairfield ..................................................................2-15 Table 2-3: Development Regulations ....................................2-16 Table 2-3: Development Regulations ....................................2-17 Table 2-4: Pipeline Development Projects ...........................2-21 Table 2-5: Potential Opportunity Sites ................................2-23 Table 3-1: Congestion Management Program Locations .......3-7 Table 3-2: Anticipated Near Term CIP Projects ...................3-8 Table 3-3: Existing Fairfield VMT Metrics ............................3-10 Table 3-4: Base Year Fairfield VMT Metrics Comparison ...3-11 Table 3-5: Analysis Zones ......................................................3-14 Table 3-6: Trips between Fairfield and External Zones........3-15 Table 3-7: Trips between Fairfield and External Zones
by Gateway ............................................................................3-15 Table 3-9: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria ..............3-18 Table 3-8: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria ...................3-18 Table 3-10: Existing LOS, 2020 ..............................................3-19 Table 3-11: Peak Hour Volume Thresholds .........................3-20 Table 3-12: Segment Daily Level of Service ........................3-20 Table 3-13: Transit Service in the City of Fairfield ..............3-29 Table 4-1: Attainment Status Designations
Applicable to the Planning Area ............................................4-4 Table 4-2: State and Local GHG Emissions Inventories ......4-11 Table 4-3: 2005 City of Fairfield Community GHG
Emissions Inventory ............................................................4-12 Table 5-1: Farmland Types and Acreages ...............................5-3 Table 5-2: Soils Information .................................................5-10 Table 6-1: Special-status plant species with potential
to occur in the Planning Area ................................................6-9 Table 6-2: Special-status wildlife species with
potential to occur in the Planning Area ..............................6-12 Table 7-1: Fairfield Vicinity Water Body Pollutants .............7-11 Table 8-1: Open LUSTs within the Planning Area .................8-4 Table 8-3: Solid Waste Facilities Within the Planning Area .8-4 Table 8-2: Open Cleanup Program Sites within the
Planning Area .........................................................................8-5 Table 10-1: Wildfires with Perimeters within Five
Miles of Fairfield (1878-2020) ...............................................10-4 Table 11-1: School Enrollment ...............................................11-4 Table 11-2: Existing and Planned Parks ...............................11-9 Table 11-3: Fairfield Police Department Full-Time
Staffing, 2020 .......................................................................11-13 Table 12-1: City of Fairfield Current and Projected
Water Supplies, Demand, and Supply Surpluses, mg/yr......12-3 Table 12-2: Capacity Deficiencies .......................................12-11 Packet Page 19 of 390Attachment 2 Page 6 of 16

vii
Table 12-3: Recommended Capacity Improvement
Projects ................................................................................12-11 Table 12-4: Collection System Flow Estimates, mgd .........12-13 Table 13-1: Census Tracts in Planning Area with
Environmental Burdens .........................................................13-3 Table 13-2: Year of Housing Structure Construction in the City of Fairfield .....................................................................13-9 Table 13-3: Rent Burden within the City of Fairfield...........13-9 Table 13-4: Means of Commuting Within the
Planning Area ......................................................................13-12 Packet Page 20 of 390Attachment 2 Page 7 of 16

viii
This page intentionally left blank.

Packet Page 21 of 390Attachment 2 Page 8 of 16

Introduction
Chapter 1
Packet Page 22 of 390Attachment 2 Page 9 of 16

1-2
The City of Fairfield is preparing an update of its Gener- al Plan which will establish the City’s overall approach to development, transportation, environmental quali-
ty, and other key topics through 2050. The City’s cur-
rent General Plan dates back to 2002 and needs to
be updated to reflect opportunities, challenges, and
approaches that have emerged in recent years. The
Housing Element, one of seven State-required general
plan elements, was last updated in 2014, and will be
updated as part of this process as well.

This Existing Conditions, Opportunities, and Challenges Report (ECR) represents the first major technical step
in the process of updating the City of Fairfield’s Gen- eral Plan. This report provides spatial information on
existing conditions in the city and surrounding areas
as well as an analysis of opportunities that will impact physical development. This report will subsequently be
used as a basis for:
•Facilitating community input on planning issues,
priorities, and visions for the future;
•Preparing alternative land use and transportation
planning scenarios;
•Formulating policies and implementation actions
for the General Plan; and
•Creating the environmental setting portion of the
Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan.

The focus of this report is on mappable resources,
trends, and concerns that will frame choices for the
long-term physical development of the city. Topics
addressed include land uses; sustainability; economic
and market conditions; public health; circulation; en-
vironmental conditions; public facilities; utilities; and public health and equity. Information on economic and
market conditions is available as a separate report.

This report provides information on conditions that
existed as of January 2021.

Separately from this ECR, a Market Analysis provides
an overview of the existing demographic and econom-
ic 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.

1.1 Introduction and Report Purpose
Packet Page 23 of 390Attachment 2 Page 10 of 16

10-3
Purpose Of The General Plan
A general plan is a statement of the community’s vision of its long-term or ultimate physical form and devel-
opment policies. The State of California mandates that
“…each county and city shall adopt a comprehensive,
long-term general plan for the physical development
of the county or city, and of any land outside its bound- aries which in the planning agency’s judgment bears
relation to its planning.” (Govt. Code 65300). A city’s general plan has been described as its development
constitution—the set of policies within which develop-
ment regulations and decisions must fit.

The State mandates that all general plans cover at least seven “elements”: land use, circulation, housing, con-
servation, open space, noise, and safety. In addition, a city or county may include other “optional” elements;
examples of these that jurisdictions have adopted
include air quality, health, sustainability, communi-
ty design, economic development, energy, water and
wastewater, and parks and recreation. All elements,
regardless of whether they are mandatory or optional,
carry equal weight.

The general plan must be “internally consistent;” that
is, it should “…comprise an integrated, internally con- sistent and compatible statement of policies for the
adopting agency.” (Govt. Code 65300.5). Furthermore,
all actions relating to physical development need to
be consistent with an adopted general plan. This re-
quirement implying “vertical consistency” means that
subdivisions, capital improvements, development
agreements, specific plans, zoning, and other land use
regulatory actions must be consistent with the general
plan.

The purpose of the Fairfield General Plan update is to:
•Establish a long-range vision that reflects the as-
pirations of the community and outlines steps to
achieve this vision;
•Establish development policies that will guide City
departments, as well as Planning Commission and
City Council decision-making;
•Ensure that the General Plan reflects the needs of
the community and reflects community priorities,
such as for housing and affordability, mobility/
transportation, and parks and recreation;
•Plan in a manner that meets future land needs
based on the projected population and job growth;
•Provide the basis for establishing and setting pri-
orities for detailed plans and implementing pro-
grams, such as the zoning ordinance, subdivision
regulations, specific and master plans, and the
Capital Improvement Program.

1.2 General Plan Purpose & Process
Packet Page 24 of 390Attachment 2 Page 11 of 16

0 10 20
MILES
5 Lodi
Stockton
OaklandSanFrancisco
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 SanFrancisco
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

SANMATEO SANTA
CLARA

STANISLAUS

SAN JOAQUIN

SACRAMENTO
SOLANO
YOLO
Figure 1-1: Regional Location
1-4

1.3 Planning Area
Figure 1-1: Regional Setting
Regional Location
Fairfield is located in central Solano County in the Bay Area within the California Coastal Ranges at the south- western edge of the Sacramento Valley, just north
of the Suisun Bay and salt marsh. The city is located
at strategic transportation crossroads at the conver-
gence of interstates 680 and 80 (I-680 and I-80), two
of the Bay Area’s largest freeways, and at a mid-point
between Sacramento and San Francisco (each 45 miles
away). Fairfield also provides the eastern gateway to
Napa Valley, which lies 15 miles to the west and is easily accessed via Highway 12. In addition, Fairfield is acces- sible via public transportation, including Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) and Solano Express bus lines,
and two Capital Corridor train stations that connect
Fairfield to Auburn and San Jose via Sacramento and
Oakland. 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 and intensive agricultural regions, adjoins
Fairfield and separates the central city from the Cor-
delia planning area. The regional setting is depicted in Figure 1-1.

Packet Page 25 of 390Attachment 2 Page 12 of 16

1-5
Planning Boundaries

PLANNING AREA
The General Plan Planning Area (Planning Area), as
shown in Figure 1-2, is defined as the land area ad-
dressed by the General Plan update. The Planning Area
for the General Plan update is the same as that used
for the 2002 General Plan, with the exception of the
addition of the Pacific Flyway Center in the southern
portion of the Planning Area, annexed in 2019. It en-
compasses 278 square miles including the City of Fair-
field (approximately 41 square miles) and its Sphere of Influence (SOI) (approximately 11 square miles) which
is generally coterminous with City boundary but in-
cludes a handful of areas surrounding the city limits,
with the largest section 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, and the Suisun Marsh Pro-
tection Plan area (225 square miles). 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, per California Government Code Section
65300. The Planning Area is bounded by Napa County,
the Vacaville mountains, and Cement Hill grazing lands to the north; the Travis Reserve and unincorporated
Solano County to the east; the City of Suisun, the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, the Suisun Marsh, and I-680 in the southern portion; and unincorporated Solano
County open space to the west.

URBAN LIMIT LINE
The current General Plan is based on a “Livable City” con- cept, which envisions the city developing in a relatively compact and efficient land use pattern. To implement
this concept, the City established an “Urban Limit Line.” The Urban Limit Line policy represents the ultimate limit of the city’s urban growth, but may also include certain open space areas over which the City wishes to have
direct control. The Urban Limit Line thus represents a
commitment on the part of Fairfield to respecting the
surrounding non-urban areas, which are integral to the
identity of Solano County. It helps to ensure the mainte- nance of the “greenbelt” buffers of open space between
Fairfield and other urbanized areas in the county and to protect the agricultural resources vital to the regional economy. The Urban Limit Line is generally coterminous
with the City’s designated Sphere of Influence, except
for the Rancho Solano North area.

In 2003, the voters of the City of Fairfield approved
Measure L, an Initiative which affirmed the Urban Limit Line established in the new General Plan until Decem-
ber 2020. Through this date, amendments to the Ur-
ban Limit Line generally required approval of the vot-
ers. In lieu of placing Measure L on the ballot again, the City Council proposed establishing a moratorium on
new land annexations until the completion of this Gen-
eral Plan update. Additionally, between Fairfield and
nearby Vacaville to the northeast is the Fairfield-Vacav- ille-Solano Greenbelt. The Greenbelt was established
in 1994 through a Joint Powers Authority between and
the two cities and the County, and it prohibits develop- ment in the open space designated between the two
cities’ boundaries. The purpose of the Greenbelt is to
limit urban sprawl and ensure continued separation
between rural and urban areas of Solano County.

Packet Page 26 of 390Attachment 2 Page 13 of 16

1-6
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
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 Southbrook
Park
Gary
Falati
Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

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

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
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 age D 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 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

1-7

1.4 Report Organization
The Existing Conditions, Opportunities, and Challenges Report is divid- ed into 14 chapters. Chapters in the report are organized by topic. Anal- ysis on each topic is communicated through text, tables, and maps. Key findings and planning implications are summarized at the end of each chapter. Chapters are as follows:
2 1
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
3 Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview explains the General Plan’s purpose and process; describes the Planning Area and regional setting; and provides an overview of the atlas’ organization.

Chapter 2: Land Use and Community Design discusses existing land uses in the Planning Area, describes the existing General Plan and other planning efforts, examines urban design and community charac- ter of the Planning Area, and gives an overview of major development projects and potential opportunity areas.

Chapter 3: Circulation discusses the Planning Area’s existing trans- portation infrastructure, including roadways, transit, railways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and planned transportation improvements.

Chapter 4: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases and Energy provides an overview of climate conditions in the Planning Area, linking land use, transportation, and air quality. Further detail on environmental condi- tions will be provided in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) of the General Plan.

Chapter 5: Geology and Soils discusses geology, seismicity, and soils. 4 5
Chapter 6: Biological Resources describes vegetation community types, special status species, sensitive biological communities, and spe- cial habitat types within the Planning Area.

Chapter 7: Hydrology and Water Quality discusses hydrology, hy- drogeology, and water quality within the Planning Area.

Chapter 8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials describes hazardous materials and hazardous waste within the Planning Area.

Chapter 9: Airport Hazards discusses airport hazards including noise, safety, and land use compatibility.

Chapter 10: Wildfires provides an overview of wildfire conditions and wildfire hazard ratings.

Chapter 11: Public Facilities describes key public services, including parks, recreation and trails; emergency services; libraries; and schools.

Chapter 12: Utilities and Flooding assesses water supply, wastewa- ter, storm water, flooding, and solid waste in the Planning Area.

Chapter 13: Public Health and Equity discusses environmental justice conditions in the Planning Area; health outcomes; social determinants of health including poverty, linguistic isolation, housing, and homelessness; physical and environmental determinants of health including pollution, walkability, internet access, and access to healthy food and healthcare services.

Packet Page 28 of 390Attachment 2 Page 15 of 16

1-8 Packet Page 29 of 390Attachment 2 Page 16 of 16

Land Use &
Community
Design
This chapter documents the Planning Area’s existing land use and regulatory context. It reviews the existing land use pat- terns, allowable building densities, and intensities and major development projects in the Planning Area. The chapter also discusses related existing plans, such as the current General Plan, specific plans, other development plans, the Zoning Ordinance, and the City’s structure.

Chapter 2
Packet Page 30 of 390Attachment 3 Page 1 of 37

2-2
This section describes the existing (on the ground) pat- tern of land uses in the Planning Area, as of December
2020. Sources of information for this analysis include
the City’s current General Plan and GIS data from the
City of Fairfield and Solano County Assessor. The total land acreage within Fairfield’s City limits is 26,761.4 acres. Outside the city limits, the Sphere of Influence (SOI) contains 7,193.7 acres of unincorporated land.

The remainder of Fairfield’s Planning Area—outside of
its City limits and SOI—contains 144,168.3 total acres.

As listed in Table 2-1, public/institutional land use types are the most common within the city. This is due in
large part to the land occupied by Travis Air Force Base (AFB). The Base accounts for 18.4 percent of total land area within Fairfield’s city limits, second only to sin- gle-family residential as the most common land uses in
the city. Other public/institutional uses within the city include public or government (5.0 percent), schools
or other educational facilities (1.9 percent), and public utilities (0.3 percent). Travis AFB resides entirely within the city’s incorporated boundary. Thus, outside of the
city, in the SOI and in the surrounding Planning Area
not included in the SOI, public/institutional land uses are much less common (0.4 percent and 0.6 percent,
respectively).

Agricultural and open space land uses occupy 21.8
percent of the land area within the city. The greatest
share of this land is in the agricultural/conservation
category (9.3 percent). These are land uses that are
mostly open land with some low-intensity agricultural
uses such as grazing. Most of these lands are located in Northeast Fairfield north of Travis AFB and in the hills around Rancho Solano. Other uses include open space
(7.3 percent), parks and recreation (3.1 percent), and
Suisun Marsh land (2.1 percent). Outside of the city,
the SOI and surrounding Planning Area are primarily
agricultural and open space land (92.0 percent and

79.6 percent, respectively). 40.7 percent of land within the SOI is agricultural/conservation land, while another

29.8 percent is more intensive agricultural uses and

21.5 percent is open space land. Most of this land is
located in the Travis Reserve around Travis AFB. The
majority of the surrounding Planning Area is Suisun
Marsh land (59.3), while agricultural conservation (10.6 percent), agriculture (4.4 percent), and open space (4.6 percent) make up smaller portions located in Green
Valley, Suisun Valley, and the Cordelia hills. Agricultural land in the Planning Area separates the Cordelia neigh- borhood from the rest of Fairfield, with Interstate 80
acting as the primary connection between these parts
of the city.

Residential land uses account for 21.4 percent of the
city’s land area. The vast majority of this is single-fam- ily residential at 18.4 percent, followed by multi-fam- ily residential (1.8 percent), rural residential (0.4 per- cent), residential care/assisted living (0.4 percent), and mobile homes (0.4 percent). The SOI and surrounding
Planning Area both have minimal residential uses (1.1
percent and 4.6 percent, respectively). Housing in the
surrounding Planning Area is primarily rural residential (4.1 percent) located in Green Valley and Suisun Valley.

Commercial and industrial land uses both account for
a small portion of the land area in the city at 4.0 per- cent and 4.8 percent, respectively. Most commercial
land is located in highway-serving commercial centers
along I-80, in primarily auto-serving general commer-
cial uses along North Texas Street, and in community
commercial uses along West Texas Street through
Downtown Fairfield. Residential areas, in particular
those in Cordelia, 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. Additionally, Fairfield has industrial cen- ters located at the I-80/680 junction in Cordelia, south of Highway 12 in Central Fairfield, and north of Air Base Parkway west of Peabody Road in Northeast Fairfield.

South of Highway 12 is the location of Fairfield’s large food manufacturing sector. Commercial and industrial
uses each make up less than one percent of the land
area in both the SOI and the surrounding Planning
Area.

About 9.0 percent of the land in the City of Fairfield
is currently vacant. The majority of this vacant land is located in Northeast Fairfield. A portion of this land has been planned for development as part of the Train Sta-
tion Specific Plan. Smaller portions of vacant land are located in Cordelia adjacent to I-80.

2.1 Existing Land Use
Packet Page 31 of 390Attachment 3 Page 2 of 37

TABLE 2-1: Existing Land Use
Existing Land Use Category
City of Fairfield Sphere of Influence Planning Area Remainder Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent
Commercial 1,128.7 4.0 3.7 0.1 98.5 0.1
General Commercial 659.9 2.3 0.4 0.0 82.2 0.1
Office Commercial 225.7 0.8 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0
Church/Religious Facility 120.7 0.5 0.0 0.0 14.5 0.0
Hospital 53.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Hotel, Motel, or Lodging 33.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Service Stations 31.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0
Mixed-Use 4.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0
Industrial 1,302.4 4.9 30.1 0.4 85.0 0.1
Light Industrial 1,059.8 4.0 30.1 0.4 85.0 0.1
Heavy Industrial 242.6 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Agriculture/Open Space 5,830.9 21.8 6,615.6 92.0 114,747.0 79.6 Agriculture/Conservation 1,604.0 6.0 2,925.7 40.7 15,285.3 10.6 Agriculture 875.6 30.30 2,142.7 29.8 6,312.4 4.4
Open Space 1,960.4 7.3 1,547.2 21.5 6,650.5 4.6
Parks and Recreation 829.6 3.1 0.0 0.0 947.8 0.7
Marsh Land 561.3 2.1 0.0 0.0 85,551.0 59.3
Public/Institutional 6,858.6 25.6 33.9 0.4 887.4 0.6
Travis Air Force Base 4,920.8 18.4 10.5 0.1 0.0 0.0
Public/Government 1,325.2 5.0 23.4 0.3 683.2 0.5
School/Educational Facility 503.9 1.9 0.0 0.0 204.2 0.1 Public Transit 24.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Utilities 84.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Residential 5,714.3 21.4 77.3 1.1 6,473.7 4.6
Single-Family Residential 4,928.3 18.4 25.2 0.4 418.4 0.3 Multi-Family Residential 470.3 1.8 1.3 0.0 73.4 0.1
Rural Residential 112.0 0.4 43.2 0.6 5,902.9 4.1
Residential Care/Assisted Living 107.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 Mobile Home Park 96.7 0.4 7.6 0.1 78.2 0.1
Other 5,92649.41 22.13 432.9 6.0 21,876.5 15.2
Street Right of Way 3,371.6 12.6 91.7 1.3 81.3 0.1
Vacant 2,37799.18 89.90 265.9 3.7 697.8 0.5
Railroad Right of Way 177.7 0.7 75.3 1.0 24.4 0.0
Miscellaneous 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 21,073.0 14.6
TOTAL 26,761.64 100 7,193.7 100 144,168.3 100
Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

Sources: City of Fairfield, 2020; County of Solano Assessor, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021. 2-3
Commercial
Open Space
Residential
Packet Page 32 of 390Attachment 3 Page 3 of 37

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 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
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

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 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 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 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
U

R
B

A
N
L
I

M
I

T L
I

E
U

R
B

E
Cement
Hill
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Suisun
Hill
TwinSisters
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
01 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
RedTopRd
Tr avis Bl
RockvilleRd
East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad Av
AbernathyRdOhio St
Courage D r
Dickson Hil l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvMangelsBl 2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Water man 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
BusinessCenterDr ClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l CamposPkwy
Travis Av
Paradise ValleyGolf CourseRancho SolanoGolf Course DunnellNature Park
Meadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park
RanchoSolanoPark GaryFalatiParkN 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
SunrisePark
Meadow
Park
Rolling HillsPark
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
U

R
B

A
N
L
I

M
I

T L
I

N
E
U

R
B

2-5
Existing General Plan
Adopted in 2002, the current Fairfield General Plan
provides goals, policies, and programs that guide the
future character of the city. The General Plan includes all seven General Plan elements required by Califor-
nia State law, including Land Use, Circulation, Open
Space, Conservation, Noise, Safety, and Housing. For
Fairfield’s General Plan, the Open Space and Con-
servation elements are combined, and the require-
ments of the Noise element are contained within the
Health and Safety element. The Housing element is
the only element required to be updated on an eight-
year cycle. The current Housing element addresses
the years 2014-2022 and will be updated as a part of
this General Plan Update process. In addition to the
required elements, the General Plan also includes sev-
eral optional elements: Agriculture, Economic Develop-
ment, Public Facilities and Services, Urban Design, and Travis Protection. The General Plan reflects the com-
munity vision developed through a series of commu-
nity meetings and input from City Council.

The existing General Plan is divided into ten elements
organized by subject area. The major objectives of
each element are summarized below:
•Land Use: The primary land use
objective is to plan for Fairfield as
a “Livable City,” which envisions
development that promotes a
more compact and efficient land use pattern, and
places less emphasis on development that neces-
sitates use of the automobile. The City is commit-
ted to protection of agricultural areas outside the
designated “Urban Limit Line.” Furthermore, the
City is committed to encouraging concentrated
development through incentives for infill devel-
opment, emphasis on pedestrian-oriented and
transit-oriented development, and connecting
disparate areas of the city through a common city
identity. Lastly, the city’s land use policies aim to
achieve a balance of jobs and housing, with an
emphasis on diversity in jobs and housing options.
•Circulation: The primary goal of the
Circulation Element is to create and
maintain an efficient, safe, and coordi-
nated multi-modal circulation system
that reduces environmental and social impacts
of transportation systems, serves the needs of a
variety of users, and meets the social, economic
development, and urban design needs of the com-
munity. This Element also emphasizes the City’s
commitment to “Complete Streets,” which are
those that accommodate all users and encourage
walking, bicycling, and public transit use. Complete
Streets policies and programs are included to help
the City reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
•Open Space, Conservation, and
Recreation: The primary goal of
the Open Space, Conservation, and
Recreation Element is to designate,
preserve, and protect agricultural, ecological,
recreational, and scenic lands in Fairfield and its
surrounding areas for current and future gener-
ations.
•Health and Safety: The City of Fair-
field’s primary objective regarding
health and safety is to minimize the
public’s exposure to harmful impacts caused by
seismic, geologic, flooding, fire, aircraft, and waste
hazards, as well as noise.
•Housing: The Housing Element is
the only element of the General Plan
reviewed and certified by the State
of California. As such, this Element must meet spe-
cific requirements established in State law. The
primary objective of the Housing Element is help
ensure that there is an adequate supply of safe,
affordable housing for existing and future resi-
dents. The Element addresses the special hous-
ing needs of individuals requiring assistance, such
as elderly residents, single mothers with children,
low-income and large families, military personnel,
the homeless, and mobility-impaired residents.

The Element also addresses preservation of exist-
ing affordable housing. The City is committed to
ensuring a balance of diverse housing types to
match the amount of commercial and industrial
development planned. A new requirement explic-
itly addressed in this Housing Element is affirma-
tively furthering fair housing.

2.2 Curent Plans and Related Policies
Packet Page 34 of 390Attachment 3 Page 5 of 37

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

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\GPLU.mxd
Agriculture
Intensive Agriculture
Extensive Agriculture
Open Space
Recreation
Conservation
Residential
Very Low (up to and including 2.5 du/acre)
Low (2.5 - 4.5 du/acre)
Low Medium (4.5 - 8.0 du/acre)
Medium (8 - 15.0 du/acre)
High (15.0 - 22.0 du/acre)
Very High (22.0 - 32.0 du/acre)
Commercial
Neighborhood
Community
Service
Highway & Regional
Office
Industrial
Business & Industrial Park
Technology Park
Limited
General
Other
Public Facilities
Travis Reserve
Mixed Use
Master Plan/Special Study Area
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
Travis Air Force Base and Travis Reserve, in aqua.
•Agriculture: The primary objectives
of the Agriculture Element is to pre-
serve agricultural and grazing lands,
which define the visual setting of Fairfield; and to
recognize the economic importance of agriculture
in Solano County by directing the City’s growth
away from important farmlands and prime agri-
cultural soils. This Element emphasizes working
with Solano County on issues affecting agriculture
in the area surrounding Fairfield.
•Economic Development: The pri-
mary objective of the Economic Devel-
opment Element is to maintain and
enhance the high quality of life for the city’s res-
idents by developing and sustaining a strong and
diverse economic base.
•Public Facilities and Services: The
primary objective of the Public Facili-
ties and Services Element is to provide
superior levels of public facilities and services,
based upon timely planning and adequate fund-
ing.
•Urban Design: The primary urban
design objective of the City is to
enhance Fairfield’s image as a unique community
and retain that image in attractive and orderly
development which preserves the beauty of the
natural setting.
•Travis Protection: The purpose of
the Travis Air Force Base Protection
Element is to demonstrate the City’s
strong support for the Travis Air Base and to
emphasize the City’s commitment to ensuring the
continued operation of the Travis AFB. The City of
Fairfield recognizes the Base as vitally important
to Fairfield’s and Solano County’s overall economic
health. The primary objective of the Travis Protec-
tion Element is to protect the mission and oper-
ation of the Travis AFB. The 2002 General Plan
saw the area north and east of Travis AFB redesig-
nated as “Travis Reserve” to protect the base from
encroachment and to prevent incompatible resi-
dential land uses in the area.

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
The Land Use Element of the General Plan contains
goals and policies related to future development, as
well as a diagram of the land use designations. The
Land Use Element represents a strategy for land use
development and does not necessarily reflect land
uses that exist on the ground as of 2021. General Plan
land use designations are mapped in Figure 2-2 and
described in Table 2-2. In general, community com-
mercial uses are designated for the city’s corridors –
primarily West Texas and North Texas Streets – while
I-80 is lined with highway and regional commercial
designations. Multi-family residential uses are simi-
larly located along major corridors, while single-family residential land uses make up the majority of the city’s neighborhoods between these corridors. Travis AFB is
located in the northeast portion of the city, while other public uses are scattered across the city. Recreation
uses are located across the city, while open space
lands are designated in more outlying areas such as
in Northeast Fairfield near Travis AFB and in the hills near Rancho Solano. Outside the city limits and SOI,
the Planning Area is primarily designated for intensive and extensive agricultural uses.
10-2-6 Packet Page 35 of 390Attachment 3 Page 6 of 37

2-7
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

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

H
il l Rd
North Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM angelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base Pkwy
Wat erman 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

R
B

A
N
L
I

M
I

T
L
I

E
U

R
B

A
N
L
I

M
I

T
L
I

N
E
U

R
B

A
N
L
I

M
I

T L
I

N
E
U

R
B

TABLE 2-2: General Plan Land Use Designations
General Plan Land Use Description Maximum Density
Residential
Very Low Density (RVL)
Large estate lot residential development. Lot sizes typically >15,000 sq ft. Cluster single family homes on smaller lots with significant permanent open space may also apply. Hillside areas and transition areas between agriculture and more intense residential development may also apply.

2.5 dwelling units/
acre (du/ac)
Low Density (RL)Single-family development on large lots, and standard single-family subdivisions. Lot sizes from 7,500-15,000 sq ft.4.5 du/ac Low Medium Density
(RLM)
Single-family subdivisions and nontraditional designs such as zero lot lines, patio homes, and townhomes. Lot sizes from 4,500-7,500 sq ft. 8.0 du/ac
Medium Density (RM)
Attached units, such as duplexes, townhouses, rowhouses, condominiums, and apartments. Detached units must provide affordable housing opportunities or substantial public benefit. Lot sizes from 3,000-4,500 sq ft for each unit. 15.0 du/ac High Density (RH)
Multi-family apartment and condominium development. Located in close proximity to major arterial streets, commercial and recreational facilities, and employment centers.22.0 du/ac Very High Density (RVH)Multi-family apartment and condominium development in high-intensity areas.32.0 du/ac Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
(CN)
Convenience commercial and neighborhood shopping centers which provide for a range of necessary day-to-day retail goods and services. Residential uses may be permitted.0.275 FAR Community Commercial
(CC)
Shopping centers that serve a larger market than the immediate neighborhood. Also includes strip commercial shopping areas along North Texas and Texas Streets. Residential uses may be permitted.1.5 FAR Service Commercial (CS)
Commercial service activities such as auto repair, building material supply, warehousing, wholesale trade, contractors, suppliers, equipment yards, and other similar uses.0.5 FAR Highway and Regional
Commercial (CHR)
Regional shopping centers, highway-oriented retail and service uses, and commercial recreation. These are large shopping centers with a variety of large department stores and specialty shops that serve a market area that exceeds the planning area. Residential uses may be permitted in some areas.1.0 FAR Office Commercial (CO)Non-retail, business, and professional offices. Residential uses may be permitted.1.0 FAR Industrial
Business and Industrial
Park (IBP)
Light industrial and office uses such as office and administration facilities, research and development, and support business and commercial facilities. High employment density.0.6 FAR Technology Park (ITP)
Large parcels of land with high technology uses including light industrial, office and administration facilities, research and development, and support business and commercial facilities. Job density standard of 10 jobs/acre.0.5 FAR Limited Industrial (IL)
Light and medium industrial uses such as research and development, warehouse, wholesale distribution, manufacturing, assembling, fabrication, office uses, and support uses.0.5 FAR General Industrial (IG)
Wide range of industrial activities including heavy industrial uses such as manufacturing, assembling, fabrication, and other similar uses.0.5 FAR
2-8 Packet Page 37 of 390Attachment 3 Page 8 of 37

TABLE 2-2: General Plan Land Use Designations
General Plan Land Use Description Maximum Density
Open Space
Recreational Open Space
(OSR)Land that has been improved for active recreational uses including regional, community, and neighborhood parks.N/A Conservation Open Space
(OSC)Areas that have significant open space value that are not used for active recreation (such as the Suisun Marsh).N/A Agriculture
Intensive Agriculture (AI)
Land that has the potential for the highest productive yield (usually for row crops and orchards). Generally, have soil classes I and II (prime soils).N/A
Extensive Agriculture (AE)Land that has a relatively lower productive yield and are primarily used for grazing.N/A Other
Travis Reserve (TR)
Applies to certain unincorporated land located north and east of Travis AFB. Land that is set aside for future expansion of Travis AFB only.Not specified
Public Facilities (PF)Includes civic, government, institutional, and utility uses.Not specified Mixed Use (MU)
Designation has been applied to several areas throughout the city. Each area has a unique mix of specified permitted uses and FAR.Varies
Source: City of Fairfield General Plan, 2016; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021. 2-9
Specific Plans
The City of Fairfield has adopted two specific plans per- taining to focused geographic areas in the city. Specific Plans implement the General Plan through the estab-
lishment of more detailed policies, regulations, and
actions specifically focused on their areas of concern.

The boundaries of Fairfield’s Specific Plans are shown
in Figure 2-2 and are described below:

HEART OF FAIRFIELD SPECIFIC PLAN (2017)
The Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan was adopted in
2017 following a community-based process to develop
a vision for the revitalization and transformation of the city’s Downtown and West Texas Street areas. The Plan
covers approximately 513 acres and contains Fairfield’s historic Downtown, the Solano County Government
Center, the Fairfield Transportation Center regional
bus and transit hub, diverse commercial and residen-
tial properties, and numerous amenities that serve
both the local community and the wider region. The
area is also served by the Suisun-Fairfield train station, which provides access to the national Amtrak network.

The Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan sets out a vision for the Plan’s neighborhood as a social, economic, and
cultural center of Fairfield, that attracts the commu-
nity through thoughtful design, desired shopping and
dining, lively activities, a range of housing options, and convenient access to regional transit.

The Plan includes objectives that are focused on both
the near term (2017-2021) and long term (2022-2040+)
life of the Plan, as well those implemented through
ongoing City operations. Short term objectives of the
Plan include creating a vibrant downtown core through
pedestrian-oriented policies, facilitating and incentiviz- ing the right kind of development on eight highly visi- ble sites, increasing the mix of uses throughout down-
town, improving key streetscapes and multi-modal
safety, and improving Alan Witt Park, among others.

Long term objectives include transforming West Texas
St into an urban mixed-use corridor, creating both
public and private neighborhood recreation oppor-
tunities Downtown, implementing more Complete
Streets improvements, and relocating the city’s Corpo-
ration Yard outside of the Plan area, among others.

Packet Page 38 of 390Attachment 3 Page 9 of 37

2-10
TRAIN STATION SPECIFIC PLAN (2011)
The City of Fairfield Train Station Specific Plan was
adopted in 2011 and amended in 2012. The Plan rep-
resented an important step in the introduction of tran- sit-oriented planning and design in Solano County. The
Plan covers approximately 2,972 acres in the north-
eastern portion of the City of Fairfield, north of the
Travis AFB. Within the Plan area is the Fairfield-Vacav- ille Train Station, industrial uses that provide opportu- nity for redevelopment, significant natural open space
area, and the North Bay Water Treatment Plant. The
Train Station Specific Plan focuses on creating a tran- sit-oriented community, a model of walkable, multi-
modal, mixed-use living for the region based around
the opening of the Fairfield-Vacaville Train Station.

Additionally, the Plan focuses on providing a range of
housing opportunities for various income levels, pro-
viding jobs to promote economic balance, conserving
open space areas in perpetuity, and incorporating rec-
reation and sports amenities.

As part of this planning effort, the Plan established
a new Town Center, adjacent to the train station, to
act as the Downtown activity center of the Fairfield
Train Station community. Residential, commercial,
and mixed-use land use designations were applied to
the Town Center area, though as of 2020, the land’s
existing use remains industrial. The Plan also estab-
lished the Lake District, a mixed-use district organized around a 22-acre Lake Park. The Lake District area
now houses a developing planned community of sin-
gle-family homes, a multi-unit apartment building, a
retail center, a linear park, and the Lake Park. The first residential units of the Lake District community, along with a sales center and café, opened in 2020.

Other Development Plans
Master Plan Areas in the City of Fairfield are special
study areas that have the potential for urban devel-
opment, but are presently constrained by a variety of
existing factors. Policies guiding any future uses in Fair- field’s Master Plan Areas are set out in the Land Use
Element of the General Plan and are described below:

RANCHO SOLANO NORTH MASTER PLAN
The Rancho Solano North Master Plan covers an approx-
imately 2,150-acre area north of the city and west of
I-80. The area is located immediately west of I-80, north of the Rancho Solano and Rolling Hills neighborhoods.

All of this land is unincorporated and undeveloped,
though it is within the City’s currently designated Urban Limit Line. None of the land is currently served by sewer or water infrastructure, and most of the land is charac- terized by steep hills. There are 12 parcels within the Plan area. As of 2006, a land development company
had expressed interest developing two of the parcels
that directly fronted I-80 and having the City prepare a Master Plan for the area. Planning staff initiated discus- sions with landowners to determine if there was broad
interest in seeing an areawide plan prepared, however
no such plan was ultimately drafted or approved.

The General Plan provides broad policy directions
for future uses in the Rancho Solano North Master
Plan area. Such policies include physical separation
of future development from farmland and agricul-
Packet Page 39 of 390Attachment 3 Page 10 of 37

2-11
tural uses in Suisun Valley, development design that
blend with the natural environment, and creation of a
regional nature park (similar to Rockville Hills Park) in the Plan area, among other policies.

NELSON HILL MASTER PLAN
The Nelson Hill Master Plan Area covers 230 hilly,
wooded acres just east of the 1-680/I-80 interchange. A City water reservoir is located on the northeast corner of the hill. The land is unincorporated. The hill’s significance comes from its 100-year history as a quarry. Though the quarry is not presently in operation, the quarry rights are permanent. If and when the quarry eventually
closes, the land is intended to become primarily open
space. The General Plan’s policy directives for the area call for any future development on Nelson Hill to be
limited to protect permanent open space and views of
the Hill. Specifically, as part of the master development planning process, the General Plan calls for land to be dedicated as a City park, for a system of publicly acces- sible trails to be designated, and for any low-density
residential development to be integrated with adjoining residential properties to the west. Any development on
the hilltop shall not be visible from surrounding areas.

No areawide plan has ever been drafted or approved
for the Nelson Hill Master Plan area.

PEABODY WATERS MASTER PLAN (1994)
The Peabody-Walters Master Plan was adopted in
1994 and covers the area east of Claybank Road and
north of Air Base Parkway in Fairfield. This Plan set a framework for suburban growth in northeast Fairfield.

The Master Plan emphasized a balanced community
with public, residential, commercial, and industrial
development supported by comprehensive infrastruc-
ture, including new east-west roads. Approximately
4,000 homes have been or will be developed in neigh-
borhoods within the Master Plan Area. The Train Sta-
tion Specific Plan now provides an updated vision for
the development of northeast Fairfield. The Peabody
Walters Master Plan was subsequently repealed upon
adoption of the Train Station Specific Plan.

CORDELIA AREA POLICIES AND URBAN

DESIGN PLAN
The City adopted the Cordelia Area Specific Plan in
1982, which included the Cordelia Area Design Com-
patibility Guidelines to implement the Specific Plan’s
design policies. The Specific Plan was repealed in 1999 and replaced by policies in the General Plan Land Use
Element. These policies guide potential development in
the area and include: limiting development to protect
open space areas around the Suisun Marsh, limiting
commercial development to projects less than 10,000
square feet, and requirements for the architecture of
any new buildings in Old Town Cordelia to reflect the
area’s historic character. The policies also call for a development plan for entire area of Old Town Cord-
elia to be approved by the City before the City should
annex or rezone any portion of Old Town Cordelia.

Furthermore, the policies included in the Land Use
Element call for an Urban Design Plan to be prepared
for the Cordelia area. The Land Use Element described
interim policies to apply to the area previously within the Cordelia Specific Plan Area until the adoption of the Cordelia Urban Design Plan. The policies encourage
organized street tree planting, minimal signage, land-
scaping for noise barriers, and architectural design ele- ments for any buildings abutting or highly visible from I-80 or I-680.

Suisun City General Plan
Much of Central Fairfield is bordered to its south by the Suisun City. In most places along their border, the two cities are divided by the Capitol Corridor railway track.

The Suisun-Fairfield train station is located in Down-
town Suisun City, which is separated from Downtown
Fairfield both by the railway tracks and by State High- way 12. The main connection between the two down-
towns is a pedestrian bridge over the railway tracks link- ing Fairfield to the train station area. Other connections to Suisun City happen at Pennsylvania Avenue and Cor-
delia Street, and at Sunset Avenue, Railroad Ave, and
Walters Road all off of East Tabor Avenue. The Suisun
City General Plan acknowledges the rail line as both a
great asset for the cities, while also constituting a bar- rier to connectivity between Suisun City and Fairfield.

Packet Page 40 of 390Attachment 3 Page 11 of 37

2-12
Suisun City updated its General Plan and Housing
Element in 2015, covering the periods through 2035
and 2023, respectively. All seven of the State-required Elements (land use, circulation, housing, conserva-
tion, open space, noise, and safety) are encompassed
in its nine chapters. The Plan also includes an option
Community Character and Design Element, as well as
an Economic Development Element. The Suisun City
General Plan places an emphasis on development of
lands near the train depot for transit-oriented use, as well as on pedestrian-scale commercial and entertain-
ment assets in its downtown. Several General Plan pol-
icies focus on City support for the construction of new pedestrian bridges, roadways, trails, and other connec- tions to increase connectivity between Suisun City and
Fairfield, particularly between the two downtowns.

County Plans
SOLANO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN (2008)
The Solano County General Plan applies to all lands
outside the jurisdictional boundaries of the seven
incorporated cities of Solano County (including City of Fairfield), which composes the unincorporated Solano
County. The Plan guides land development and con-
servation in the unincorporated portions of the county
throughout the Plan lifespan to 2030. The General Plan
is the primary document used by the County to regu-
late land use under California law. Zoning and devel-
opment codes, specific plans, and individual public and private development proposals must be consistent
with General Plan goals, policies, and standards.

The Solano County General Plan contains ten chap-
ters, including Land Use; Agriculture; Resources; Public Health and Safety; Economic Development; Transpor-
tation and Circulation; Public Facilities and Services; Housing; Park and Recreation; and Tri-City and County
Cooperative Plan. All seven of the State-required Ele-
ments (land use, circulation, housing, conservation,
open space, noise, and safety) are encompassed in the
ten General Plan chapters.

The County General Plan establishes a land use map
and policies for unincorporated land. However, in most
cases, the County defers to City designations within the City’s established sphere of influence. The land use pol- icies of the County General Plan emphasize protecting
the current development pattern of distinct and iden-
tifiable cities and communities; encouraging the main-
tenance of existing communities by developing vacant
and adjacent lands first; creating sustainable communi- ties with a mix of land uses; and encouraging land use
patterns that promote health and minimize adverse
environmental effects. The General Plan also follows
the guidelines of the State-required Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plans, which limits residential develop-
ment around Travis AFB and other County airports.

As part of the County General Plan update process,
special community participation programs were con-
ducted in four special study areas. These are areas
that face unique planning issues and require goals and
policies specific for each area. Three of these special study areas are adjacent to Fairfield (Middle Green
Valley, Old Town Cordelia, and Suisun Valley). The goal of the planning process for the Middle Green Valley
area, which is primarily agricultural and grazing land
located north of Fairfield city limits, was to maintain the rural character of the area while allowing some oppor-
tunities for compatible residential development. Land
use tools such as clustering and transfer of develop-
ment rights will be used to limit the effects of residen- tial development on the rural character of the valley,
including viewsheds, wildlife habitat and corridors, and agricultural activities. Suisun Valley is located between Fairfield and Cordelia and is primarily agricultural with limited tourism related to wineries. The planning pro-
cess for the Suisun Valley area focused on ensuring
that Suisun Valley will serve as a destination for visi- tors interested in local wine production and local pro- duce. Land use policies expanded commercial land
use designations in several Neighborhood Agricultural
Centers in Suisun Valley. Lastly, the Old Town Corde-
© Solano Land Trust
U.S. Air Force photo/Katherine L. Kruczek
“Planning for a Sustainable Solano County”
Solano County

GENERAL PLAN
November 2008Packet Page 41 of 390Attachment 3 Page 12 of 37

2-13
lia special study area is located just outside the Fair- field city limits, adjacent to the I-680/I-80 interchange.

The land use policies for Old Town Cordelia focus on
maintaining the historic community, which is listed in
the National Register of Historic Places, while providing opportunities for appropriate future development.

Chapter 3 of the County General Plan, Agriculture, pro- vides policies to support agricultural land uses across the county. Agricultural land accounts for more land
than any other land use in Solano County and con-
tributes to regional economic health, supports wild-
life habitats, provides open space amenities, and act
to separate the county’s distinct cities. Policies such as transfer of development rights, urban-agricultural buf- fers, and farmland mitigation programs, among others,
aim to protect agricultural land uses. The Chapter also includes policies to enable housing development for
farm families and farmworkers to help maintain eco-
nomic competitiveness of Solano County farmland.

Chapter 7 of the County General Plan, Transportation
and Circulation, addresses circulation issues across the county as a whole, including the influence of circulation in incorporated cities and between these cities and
other counties. This Chapter focuses on goals for the
county such as enhancing transportation safety, coordi- nating transportation funding and project implementa-
tion with other agencies, encouraging land use patterns that minimize vehicle miles traveled (VMT), encouraging the use of alternative forms of transport, and maintain- ing convenient transfer of goods from agricultural and
industrial locations to transportation facilities. A section with specific policies is dedicated each to general trans- portation, roadways, bus transit, air service, rail ser- vices, port facilities, and nonmotorized facilities.

The Solano County Housing Element, which is Chapter
9 of the General Plan but maintained separately, was
updated most recently in 2015 and covers the 8-year
period of 2015-2023. The Housing Element contains
a detailed housing needs assessment and goals, poli-
cies, objectives, and programs designed to address the
housing needs of unincorporated Solano County. The
goal of the County is to promote and ensure adequate
housing ins a satisfying environment for all residents.

The Housing Element helps to achieve this goal through
policies that support objectives such as conservation
and rehabilitation of existing housing stock through
rehabilitation programs, capitalizing on opportunities
for housing production in the unincorporated county
that does not compete with housing production in
cities, incentivizing affordable housing production,
addressing the housing needs of special needs groups
(e.g. elderly, disabled, military, farm laborers, etc.), and providing for residential development that is generally self-sufficient in regard to water and sewage needs.

The Housing Element emphasized the general agree-
ment between County and cities that most multi-family
housing needs should continue to be directed towards
the urban environments of the cities, while the unin-
corporated areas would continue to have limited res-
idential development in order to preserve agricultural
and open space uses.

MIDDLE GREEN VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN
Solano County adopted the Middle Green Valley
Specific Plan on August 8, 2017. The Plan covers the
unincorporated area immediately north of the City of
Fairfield boundary in the Cordelia neighborhood. To
its north is the unincorporated area of upper Green
Valley, including the Green Valley Country Club, to its east is Rockville Hills Regional park, and to its west are the Elkhorn Foothills. The purpose of the Middle Green
Valley Specific Plan is to resolve the conflict between the desire for open space and agricultural conserva-
tion by neighbors and community members, and the
development rights and financial viability of area land- owners. In order to avoid a piece-meal subdivision
from playing out across the area, the Plan envisions
Middle Green Valley as collection of small neighbor-
hoods along the base of the surrounding foothills.

It proposes up to 400 new primary residential units,
along with land uses for agricultural tourism, local
neighborhood retail, community facilities, and over
1,400 acres of protected agriculture and open space
land. The Middle Green Valley Specific Plan empha-
sizes clustered development, conservation, and limited
appropriate settlement.

Packet Page 42 of 390Attachment 3 Page 13 of 37

2-14

SUISUN VALLEY STRATEGIC PLAN
Solano County adopted the Suisun Valley Strategic
Plan in February 2010. The area covered by Strategic
Plan encompasses approximately 9,000 acres located
to the north of the City of Fairfield between the Corde- lia and Central Fairfield neighborhoods. The majority of this land is designated for agricultural use (92 percent).

The purpose of the Plan is to guide, inform, and pro-
vide information on how to enable change in the Valley
while achieving profitable family farms and quality of
life for residents of the Valley and of the surrounding City. A major point of the Strategic Plan emphasizes the creation of Agricultural Tourism Centers (ATCs), as the Valley is home to significant agricultural production in wine grapes as well orchard fruits. The Plan encour-
ages collaboration with cities to attract business and
tourism industries to the Suisun Valley through ade-
quate infrastructure, wayfinding, marketing materials,
community events, and other collaborations.

SOLANO COUNTY LAFCO
Solano County Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) is responsible for coordinating changes in local governmental boundaries, including city, agency, and
special district boundaries and spheres of influence.

This includes establishing boundaries and spheres of
influence for each city and special district within Solano County. LAFCO’s efforts are directed toward seeing
that services are provided efficiently and economi-
cally to discourage urban sprawl, while agricultural and open space lands are protected. Accordingly, Solano
County LAFCO may approve, conditionally approve, or
deny any proposed annexations to the City of Fairfield
according to established standards for consideration
in reviewing specific annexation proposals.

As listed in Table 2-3 on the following page, Solano
LAFCO has approved a total of 56 jurisdictional changes involving Fairfield since 1980. Often, annexations to the City are requested by private property owners and in
that situation, an application for annexation along with a development application is submitted to the City of
Fairfield. The City’s Sphere of Influence was originally established by LAFCO in the 1970s and last updated
in 2004. There have been no amendments to the SOI
since then.

California State Law AB 2838 directs LAFCOs to conduct
a Municipal Service Review (MSR) for all municipalities or agencies which have an SOI, and to update it every
five years or following a major revision to its General Plan or SOI. Updated and approved by Solano LAFCO
in 2012 and then again in 2018, the Fairfield MSR is a
statement and analysis of the City’s plans for growth,
based on the existing Fairfield General Plan. The focus of the MSR is primarily on ensuring the appropriate
timing of new annexations and the efficient provision
of public facilities and services.

The purpose of the 2012 Fairfield MSR was to demon-
strate that annexations were needed given the city’s
realistic growth potential, and that additional annexa- tions would not significantly inhibit the timely develop- ment of existing vacant land within city limits. The MSR Packet Page 43 of 390Attachment 3 Page 14 of 37

2-15
TABLE 2-3: LAFCO Approved
Jurisdictional Changes Involving Fairfield
Year Name Acres
1980 Hwy. 12 Redevelopment 461
1980 Ennio Belli 26
1980 Woodcreek Unit #8 Lum 41
1980 Andrews 8.5
1982 Greenvale (Citation Homes)294
1982 Lum/Lum 25.4
1982 Pierce Business Park 37.6
1983 Daniel Harris 1
1984 Hansen-Wolfskill (KAKOR)153
1984 Locke-Paddon 4.5
1985 Gregory Hill 69
1985 Sunset Oaks 27
1985 Paradise Valley/Cement Ranch 1,046
1985 Dunnel-Burton 617.8
1985 Rancho Solano 1,505
1987 LDS Church 2.03
1987 Balestra 28
1987 Hornstein 22
1987 Green Valley Lake 152
1987 Green Valley Meadows 43.6
1987 Upper Mangels 6
1987 Upper Mason 293
1987 Green Vale 287
1987 Grimm, Rowe, Ambrose 5.3
1987 Fort George Wright 1.3
1987 Hampstead Pacific 21.3
1988 Oakwood 6.8
1988 Cordelia Weigh Station 32
TABLE 2-3: LAFCO Approved
Jurisdictional Changes Involving Fairfield
Year Name Acres
1988 Patriot Village 50.5
1988 Paradise Valley 3.5
1989 Stonedene 6
1989 Meridian 9.8
1992 John Hewitt 12.2
1992 Serpas Ranch 426
1992 Hewatt Steel 12.17
1993 Corporation Yard 52.3
1994 Travis Unified (Center)15
1994 Travis Unified (Vanden)89.9
1994 Fairfield Institute (LDS)2.2
1994 Gold Ridge 413
1998 Parker Ranch 34.2
1999 Illinois Street/Penn. Ave.32.2
2000 Dittmer Ranch/Mangels 19.2
2003 Hidden Meadow 51.4
2003 Grant Buss Annexation 1.01
2004 SOI Reoganization -420
2005 Madison 150
2005 Discovery II 22.7
2005 Sheldon 16
2005 Marrow 5.74
2007 Hidden Oaks (Pinovi)7.78
2007 Suisun-Fairfield Downtown 6
2012 Cannon Station 1,244
2013 Core Area Annexation 1,044
2015 Detachment of McGary Road -75.8
Source: Solano County LAFCO City of Fairfield MSR, 2018; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021.
identified eleven areas suitable for potential develop- ment for annexation to the City, totaling approximately 2,158 acres. The most significant of these areas are:
2,290 acres within and slightly outside the Train Station Specific Plan area; 244 acres encompassing the Nelson
Hill Master Plan area; 247 acres encompassing the
Dittmer West site; and 60 acres of relatively flat terrain within the Rancho Solano North Planning Area. In 2013,
LAFCO granted the annexation to the City of Fairfield
of the land within the Train Station Specific Plan area.

The 2018 MSR was developed in conjunction with the
processing of development and annexation approvals
for the Pacific Flyway Education Center project. Thus,
the MSR focused specifically on the services the project would use, including police and fire protection, waste- water collection, and the provision of municipal water.

The Pacific Flyway Center project is approximately 560
acres (four parcels) comprised of secondary (upland)
and primary (wetlands) marsh habitat in the Suisun
Marsh. Two of the four parcels, approximating 280
acres in size and located in the vicinity of southwest
Fairfield along I-680, were proposed and approved for
annexation to the City. The purpose of the site is to
be a land preserve and open space conservation area
with an interpretive nature center, trails, and theater for educational purposes.

Packet Page 44 of 390Attachment 3 Page 15 of 37

TABLE 2-3: Development Regulations
Symbol District Name
Maximum
Height (feet)
Minimum
Lot Area
Maximum
Lot Coverage
Units
per Acre
Maximum
FAR
Residential
RVL-40
Residential, Very Low
Density 35 40,000 sq ft None Up to 1 0.5
RVL-20
Residential, Very Low
Density 35 20,000 sq ft None Up to 1.75 0.5
RVL-15
Residential, Very Low
Density 35 15,000 sq ft None Up to 2.5 0.5
District
Purpose
Intended for areas of single-family detached homes on large lots. They primarily serve as transitions between urban development and agricultural or open space areas.

RL-10
Residential, Low
Density 35 10,000 sq ft None 3 0.5
RL-8
Residential, Low
Density 35 8,000 sq ft None 2.5-4.5 0.5
District
Purpose Intended for areas of single-family detached homes on minimum lot sizes of 8,000 or 10,000 square feet.

RLM-6
Residential, Low
Medium Density 35 6,000 sq ft 50%1 4.5-5 0.5
RLM-5
Residential, Low
Medium Density 35 5,000 sq ft 50%1 4.5-6 0.5
RLM-4.5
Residential, Low
Medium Density 35 4,500 sq ft 50%1 4.5-7 0.5
RLM
Residential, Low
Medium Density 35 1 acre2 50%1 Up to 8 None
District
Purpose
Intended for single-family neighborhoods. Where no minimum lot size is required, more compact design is allowed through the Small Lot SF Development Regulations.

RM
Residential, Medium
Density 35 3 acres2 60%1 8-15 None
District
Purpose
Intended for areas of low density attached housing, such as duet, duplex, triplex, and four-plex units; townhouses; and condominiums.
2-16 10-2-16
The Zoning Ordinance is an important implementa-
tion tool for the General Plan and provides permitted
land uses and development standards for each land
use category. In addition to zoning designations, spe-
cific plan and overlay areas are governed by unique
detailed land use regulations. As with the General Plan, zoning designations do not always coincide with exist-
ing land uses and development intensities as built.

Fairfield’s Zoning Ordinance only applies within city
limits, whereas the SOI is under Solano County zoning
regulations. Figure 2-3 maps the existing zoning dis-
tricts for the Planning Area, including the unincorpo-
rated areas under the jurisdiction of Solano County.

Table 2-3 summarizes zoning regulations in Fairfield.

2.3 Existing Zoning
Packet Page 45 of 390Attachment 3 Page 16 of 37

TABLE 2-3: Development Regulations
Symbol District Name
Maximum Height
(feet)Minimum Lot Area
Maximum
Lot Coverage Units per Acre Maximum FAR
Residential
RH Residential, High Density 45 3 acres2 None 11-22 None District Purpose
Intended for multifamily development such as apartments and condominiums. RH zoned properties are located along major collector and arterial roads, adjacent to neighborhood-serving land uses, and near employment centers.

RVH Residential, Very High Density 45 3 acres2 None 22-33 None District Purpose
Intended for very-high density multifamily development. The primary land uses include apartments, condominiums, and senior housing. Three to four story structures would be typical. Typically located near transit stations or employment centers.

Commercial
CN Neighborhood Commercial 35 6,000 sq ft2,3 None -0.74 District Purpose
Intended for areas of convenient neighborhood access to daily goods and services. Typical uses include grocery stores, banks, restaurants. Residential may be appropriate, particularly as mixed-use
CC Community Commercial 35 20,000 sq ft2,3 None -0.44
District Purpose
Applies to commercial areas of the City where retail goods and services are available to serve neighborhood and communitywide needs. Typical uses include larger shopping centers. Residential may be appropriate, particularly as mixed-use.

CT Thoroughfare Commerical 45 20,000 sq ft2,3 None -1.0 District Purpose
Applies to portion of N Texas Street and Parker Road characterized by a mixture of small, individual and multi-tenant commercial buildings, shopping centers, auto services and fast-food restaurants. Residential may be appropriate, particularly as mixed-use.

CS Service Commercial 35 20,000 sq ft2.3 None -0.5 4
District Purpose
Provides areas for commercial service and light industrial uses that may have impacts not suitable for other commercial districts. Typical uses are primarily non-retail, some of which require outdoor storage or activity areas such as light assembly operations, auto repair, or storage.

CM Mixed Commercial 35 10,000 sq ft2,3 None -0.5 4
District Purpose Applies to transitional areas near the Heart of Fairfield plan boundary and areas identified by the General Plan as Mixed Use.

CO Office Commerical 45 20,000 sq ft2.3 None -0.5 4
District Purpose
Applies to areas intended for office uses and related services. Typical uses include professional offices, medical offices and related services, administrative offices, and banks.

CR Regional Commercial 55 40,000 sq ft2.3 None -1.0
District Purpose
Applies to areas appropriate for highway-oriented retail and service uses and regional shopping centers that serve a market beyond Fairfield/Suisun area.

Generally applied to properties directly fronting I-80 or 680, or Highway 12.

Industrial
IBP Industrial Business Park 50 1 acre5 None -1.0
District Purpose
Intended for master-planned business and industrial parks in campus-like settings. Suitable for administrative and professional offices, research and development parks, limited distribution, light manufacturing, and assembly operations.

TABLE 2-3: Development Regulations
SymbolDistrict Name
Maximum
Height (feet)
Minimum
Lot Area
Maximum
Lot Coverage
Units
per Acre
Maximum
FAR
Residential
RVL-40
Residential, Very Low
Density3540,000 sq ftNoneUp to 10.5
RVL-20
Residential, Very Low
Density3520,000 sq ftNoneUp to 1.750.5
RVL-15
Residential, Very Low
Density3515,000 sq ftNoneUp to 2.50.5
District
Purpose
Intended for areas of single-family detached homes on large lots. They primarily serve as transitions between urban development and agricultural or open space areas.

RL-10
Residential, Low
Density3510,000 sq ftNone30.5
RL-8
Residential, Low
Density358,000 sq ftNone2.5-4.50.5
District
PurposeIntended for areas of single-family detached homes on minimum lot sizes of 8,000 or 10,000 square feet.

RLM-6
Residential, Low
Medium Density356,000 sq ft50%14.5-50.5
RLM-5
Residential, Low
Medium Density355,000 sq ft50%14.5-60.5
RLM-4.5
Residential, Low
Medium Density354,500 sq ft50%14.5-70.5
RLM
Residential, Low
Medium Density351 acre250%1Up to 8None
District
Purpose
Intended for single-family neighborhoods. Where no minimum lot size is required, more compact design is allowed through the Small Lot SF Development Regulations.

TABLE 2-3: Development Regulations
Symbol District Name
Maximum Height
(feet)Minimum Lot Area
Maximum
Lot Coverage Units per Acre Maximum FAR
IL Limited Industrial 50 1 acre5 None -0.6
District Purpose
Intended for low-intensity, light and medium industrial activities. Typical uses include assembly and fabrication industries, warehousing, distribution centers, and administrative offices.

IG General Industrial 50 2 acres5 None -0.6
District Purpose
Intended for medium and heavy manufacturing and industrial activities with direct access to major transportation routes such as freeway, arterial roads, and rail service.

ITP Industrial Technology Park 70 30 acres5 None -1.5
District Purpose Intended for technology production and development, such as biotechnology, software and hardware development, and electronics.

Agriculture and Public Benefit Uses
AG-20 Agriculture 50 20 acres ---
AG-40 Agriculture 50 40 acres ---
AG-80 Agriculture 50 80 acres ---
District Purpose Intended to provide for the enhancement and preservation of agriculture. Restricts land uses to livestock grazing, crop production, and compatible uses.

OSC Open Space/Conservation 50 ----
District Purpose
Intended for environmentally sensitive areas or those identified in the General Plan as having significant open space value and not to be used for active recreation.

REC Recreation 50 ----
District Purpose Intended for public and private lands committed to leisure and recreational uses that are primarily open space in character.

PF Public Facilities 50 ----
District Purpose
Applied to lands owned and operated by the City, County, State, or Federal Government, or school districts, used for a governmental, educational, recreational or other purpose.

Heart of Fairfield
HD/HDC Downtown and Downtown Core 45
6,000 sq ft
(commercial) 7,500 sq
ft (residential) None
(mixed use)100%15-48 3.0
District Purpose
Intended to implement the vision for HoF as a “social, entertainment, and employment heart of the City” through a mixture of specialty shopping, restaurants, entertainment, and cultural uses supported by residential and office uses on upper floors and locations off Texas Street proper. 2-18 Packet Page 47 of 390Attachment 3 Page 18 of 37

TABLE 2-3: Development Regulations
Symbol District Name
Maximum Height
(feet)Minimum Lot Area
Maximum
Lot Coverage Units per Acre Maximum FAR
HWT West Texas Street 45
10,000 sq ft
(commercial) 7,500 sq
ft (residential) 7,500
sq ft (mixed use)60%15-48 2.0
District Purpose Intended to implement the vision of the HoF for a mixed use, higher density residential corridor with commercial uses that support residential development.

HO Mixed Use Office 35
6,000 sq ft
(commercial) 7,500 sq
ft (residential) 7,500
sq ft (mixed use)60%8-35

2.0 (commercial) 0.6
(mixed use)
District Purpose
Applied to transition zones north and south of the Downtown and Downtown Core. Permits office uses and higher density housing while preserving the existing mixed residential-office character.

HTD Transit-Oriented Development 65
15,000 sq ft
(commercial) 7,500 sq
ft (residential) 7,500
sq ft (mixed use)60%20-80 3.0
District Purpose
Applied near the Suisun-Fairfield Train Station. Intended to create a new high-density residential neighborhood accessible to both Downtown and the train station.

HR Residential 356 7,500 sq ft 60%8-35 None
District Purpose
Intended to produce new development that complements existing character of single-family homes mixed with smaller apartment buildings, with an emphasis on medium densities.

HPF Public Facilities-Transit 75 -None -5.0
District Purpose Incorporates the Fairfield Transportation Center, including the planned parking garage. Facilitates construction and operation of the garage.

Overlays
-PI Downtown Area Parking7 -----
District Purpose
Allows land uses to deviate from typical parking requirements in recognition of the unique characteristics of the downtown area such as: mixed uses, pedestrian development, and transit access.
-H Hillside Development
In compliance with
Hillside Management
Guidelines
In compliance with
Hillside Management
Guidelines
In compliance
with Hillside
Management
Guidelines -
In compliance with
Hillside Mngmt
Guidelines
District Purpose
Preserve scenic hillside areas and prominent topographic features, address areas of concern unique to hillside projects, avoid safety hazards, and avoid high maintenance costs.
2-19Packet Page 48 of 390Attachment 3 Page 19 of 37

TABLE 2-3: Development Regulations
Symbol District Name
Maximum Height
(feet)Minimum Lot Area
Maximum
Lot Coverage Units per Acre Maximum FAR
-NC North Cordelia
In compliance with
North Cordelia Design
Standards
As in underlying
zoning
As in
underlying
zoning -
As in underlying
zoning
District Purpose Implement the Green Valley Settlement Agreement, including the North Cordelia Design Standards. -GC Gateway Court 55 40,0003 None -1.0
District Purpose Facilitate the continued success of the restaurant cluster on Gateway Court and prohibit or discourage incompatible uses. -ES Emergency Shelter As in underlying zoning
As in underlying
zoning
As in
underlying
zoning -
As in underlying
zoning
District Purpose
Establish as-of-right development and operation of emergency shelters in appropriate locations and facilitate the ability of emergency shelters to expand as needed to serve homeless residents of Fairfield.
-PD Planned Development
As in underlying
zoning, unless
otherwise stated
As in underlying
zoning, unless
otherwise stated
As in
underlying
zoning, unless
otherwise
stated -
As in underlying
zoning, unless
otherwise stated
District Purpose
Encourage innovations that will promote creative and imaginative designs by allowing greater flexibility in the application of regulations and promote integrated development of parcels that might otherwise be developed in unrelated increments.

Notes:

1. Only applicable to small lot developments.

2. Only applicable to new subdivisions.

3. Individual parcels within a shopping center or master planned development may vary from the minimum lot size, dimensions, and setbacks so long as the project as a whole complies with the development requirements of this Table. Reciprocal easements shall be recorded to guarantee common maintenance of all parking and landscape areas.

4. FAR is increased to 0.85 for projects incorporating residential units on commercially designated lots.

5. Parcels within an integrated development may vary from the minimum lot size and dimensions, setbacks, and landscape areas with recordation of cross easements to guarantee common maintenance of all parking and landscape areas.

6. Except 40’ on Broadway or Pennsylvania.

7. Applied to HO, HD, and HDC zones to allow reductions in the number of required parking spaces and may permit the use of in lieu fees and off-site parking facilities.

Source: City of Fairfield, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
2-20 Packet Page 49 of 390Attachment 3 Page 20 of 37

2-21
Pipeline Development Projects
As of November 2020, there are 36 projects either
approved, under construction, or under review in
Fairfield. Eighteen of these projects are non-residen-
tial, while the other 18 are residential developments.

In total, the residential projects will add 2,009 units of housing to Fairfield. The majority of these hous-
ing units are located in single-family residential sub- divisions. Non-residential developments are adding
approximately 2.6 million square feet of commercial,
office, and industrial building space to the city. The
pipeline development projects are listed in Table 2-4
and their locations are shown in Figure 2-3.

2.4 Pipeline Development Projects and Opportunity Sites TABLE 2-4: Pipeline Development Projects
Project Name Address or Location
Development
Type
Building Area
(square feet)Units
Lot
Acres
Non-Residential
Under Review
CB Lining Contractors
Yard 780 Link Road Industrial 0 -1.6
Float Glass and Mirror 2600 Industrial Drive Industrial 15,000 -1.7 Home 2 Suites 4490 Central Way Hotel 112,000 -3.1
Innova Chadbourne 510 Chadbourne Road Industrial 432,506 -0.4 Storage360 1245 Horizon Drive Storage facility 139,538 -1.6 Approved
Huntington and Air Base Huntington Drive Industrial 496,000 -5.5 Gateway 80 Building C 2950 Cordelia Road Office 356,000 -31.4 Hyatt House 1340 Holiday Lane Hotel 66,000 -1.9
PDC Building A Business Center Drive Industrial 162,000 -7.2 PDC Buildings B & C Business Center Drive Industrial 219,345 -13.5 Pittman Road Self
Storage 555 Pittman Road Storage facility 198,000 -3.6
Residence Inn by
Marriott
4850 Business Center
Drive Hotel 166,000 -9.3
Wiseman Green Valley 5000 Wiseman Way Office 52,000 -2.5 Under Construction
Fairfield Toyota
Expansion 2575 Auto Mall Parkway Car dealership 13,473 -5.6 Nippon Industries
Expansion 2340 S Watney Way Industrial 10,154 -2.8
Storage Pro Lopes Road Storage facility 136,882 -5.2
Completed
Enterprise Vehicle
Storage 1708 Enterprise Drive Storage facility 0 -1.1
Paradise Valley Estates
Memory Care 2600 Estates Drive
Assisted living
facility 15,631 -70.9
Non-residential subtotal 2,590,529 -168.9
Packet Page 50 of 390Attachment 3 Page 21 of 37

2-22 10-2-23
Opportunity Sites
Opportunity sites are those that have the greatest
potential for land use or intensity change over the long term. The purpose of mapping opportunity sites is to
understand where the greatest reuse or intensification
possibilities exist, so that public policy can be used to affect desired change. These sites are shown in Figure
2-4.

A multi-step process has been undertaken to map
potential opportunity sites in the Planning Area. As an initial step, sites were initially identified by mapping vacant and underutilized land using Solano County
Assessors data. The County Assessors data was used
to preliminarily determine underutilized land by iden-
tifying parcels with a low assessed value ratio, or AV
ratio. AV ratio is defined as the ratio of the value of existing permanent improvements (i.e., buildings) to
the value of the land. Where this ratio is less than one, a parcel may be considered underutilized. A ratio of
less than 0.5 indicates even greater potential for rede- velopment. In other words, the lower the value of per-
manent structures on a site relative to land value, the greater the propensity to change, especially if market
conditions and zoning regulations allow higher devel-
opment values to be realized.

Next, sites with low intensity uses, which provides
another indication of potential for intensification in the future, were identified. Building intensity is measured as floor area ration (FAR), which is the ratio of building floor area to overall site area. A low intensity means
that buildings are small in floor area compared to the
overall site. Sites with FAR values of 0.3 or less were TABLE 2-4: Pipeline Development Projects
Project Name Address or Location
Development
Type
Building Area
(square feet)Units
Lot
Acres
Residential
Approved
Bella Vita Phase II Via De Bella Single-family -13 4.9
Cooper’s Landing Cement Hill Road Single-family -169 41.3 Estaire
Pittman Road at Link
Road Mixed-use -25 1.9
Green Valley II Business Center Drive Mixed-use -281 13.3 Fieldcrest Red Top Road Single-family -394 573.2
Villas at Havenhill Red Top Road Multi-family -324 36.1 Gold Hill Village III
Gold Hill Road at Lopes
Road Single-family -79 -
Under Construction
Eastridge Green Valley Road Single-family --1 258.3
Enclave at Red Top Red Top Road Single-family -65 74.9
Gardenstone at Tabor
Ave
Gardenstone Place at
Tabor Avenue Single-family -10 0.8
Gold Hill Village II
Red Top Road at Lopes
Road Single-family -64 8.2
Gold Ridge Peabody Road Single-family -57 229.5
Ivy Crossing E Tabor Avenue Single-family -111 9.8
One Lake
One Lake Drive at
Vanden Road Single-family -266 106.6
Village Oaks Suisun Valley Road Single-family -38 3.2
Villages at Fairfield,
Village I
Gulf Drive at Clay Bank
Road Single-family -122 32.8
Villages at Fairfield,
Village II
Horizon Circle at Clay
Bank Road Single-family --1 44.5
Completed
Garibaldi Ranch
Gold Hill Road at Lopes
Road Single-family --1 75.3
Residential Subtotal -2,009 1,514.6
TOTAL 2,590,529 2,009 1,683.5
Notes:

1. Unit count not available.

Source: City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021.

Packet Page 51 of 390Attachment 3 Page 22 of 37

2-23
identified as having significant potential for redevelop- ment or expansion. Sites where the property owner
has indicated interest in a land use designation change or potential change in density or intensity are outlined in yellow. Acreage of sites with a low AV ratio, medium and low FAR, or both, are shown in Table 2-5.

It is important to note that sites identified in this analy- sis as potential opportunity sites are just that—poten- tial opportunities. These sites are likely to have greater propensity for change if the right set of land use desig- nations and/or development incentives are provided.

However, because development decisions will ulti-
mately be made by the individual property owners, it
is possible that some of these potential sites may not
experience change over the next 30 years. Conversely,
some sites not identified in this analysis may undergo
redevelopment. This analysis is merely a tool to identify and quantify areas in Fairfield where future develop-
ment is most likely to occur in the next 30 years. Pos- sibilities for the future would be examined in further
detail as part of the alternatives process.

As part of Plan Bay Area 2040, the Association for
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) 2040 identified four
Priority Development Areas (PDAs) in Fairfield. Pri-
ority development areas serve as the foundation for
sustainable regional growth and are ready for invest-
ment, new homes, and job growth. These areas, which
include the West Texas Street Gateway, Downtown
South, North Texas Street Core (from Air Base Parkway
south to Travis Boulevard), and the Fairfield-Vacaville Train Station, are also the location of site clusters with low AV and FAR ratios and present significant reuse or
intensification potential. Specific Plans have already been prepared for three of the PDAs, namely the Train
Station Specific Plan and the Heart of Fairfield Plan
(West Texas Street and Downtown).

TABLE 2-5: Potential Opportunity Sites
Opportunity Category
Acres
Within City Limits
Within Sphere of
Influence
Outside City Limits
and SOI
Current Development Projects
Recent Major Projects
(Approved, Under Review,
Under Construction, or
Construction Completed)1,726.2 --
Undeveloped
Vacant 1,925.4 274.0 293.8
Underutilized
Based on Land and Improvement Values1
AV Ratio 0.0 0 – 0.5 (Low)84.7 --
AV Ratio 0.5 – 0.99
(Medium)170.5 --
Based on Floor Area Ratio1
FAR 0.0 – 0.15 (Low)371.5 3.9 -
FAR 0.15 – 0.30 (Medium)599.8 0.4 -
Underutilized Total 1,077.6 4.3 -
GRAND TOTAL 4,729.2 278.3 293.8
Notes:

1. Some sites fall under both underutilized categories; there is some overlap of acreages (149 acres) and thus totals will not match.

Sources: City of Fairfield, 2020; Solano County office of the Assessor, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021. 10-2-23 Packet Page 52 of 390Attachment 3 Page 23 of 37

10-2-25
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
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
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park
Gary
Falati
Park
Rancho
Solano
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
27 32
33 5
30 10
28 21
17 1
2 3
4 25
35 11
8 15
19 16
12 14
9 6
29 7
34 13
31 26
20 18
22 36
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\PipelineProjects.mxd Non-Residential Under Review
CB Lining Contractors Yard
Float Glass and Mirror
Home 2 Suites
Hyatt House
Innova Chadbourne
PDC Building A
PDC Buildings B & C
Pittman Road Self Storage
Residence Inn by Marriott
Storage 360
Wiseman Green Valley
Non-Residential Approved
Huntington and Air Base Industrial
Gateway 80 Building C
Non-Residential Under Construction
Fairfield Toyota Expansion
Nippon Industries Expansion
Storage Pro
Non-Residential Completed
Enterprise Vehicle Storage
Paradise Valley Estates Memory Care
Residential Approved
Bella Vita Phase II
Cooper's Landing
Estaire
Fieldcrest
Villages at Fairfield Village II
Villas at Havenhill
Green Valley II
Residential Under Construction
Eastridge
Enclave at Red Top
Gardenstone at Tabor Ave
Gold Hill Village II
Gold Ridge
Ivy Crossing
One Lake
Village Oaks
Villages at Fairfield, Village I
Villages at Fairfield, Village II
Residential Completed
Garibaldi Ranch
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Water
Map Date: 5/19/2021
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
24 36
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
Cordelia
21 1
3 11
8 19
9 6
7 N eitze lR dGr
e
en
V
a
l
l
e
y
RdBusinessC enterD rSuisunValleyRdPittmanRdLopesRd!"c$
%&p(
InsetNot to Scale
23 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 rage D 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 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
Gary
Falati
Park
Rancho
Solano
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
27 32
33 5
30 10
28 21
17 1
2 3
4 25
35 11
8 15
19 16
12 14
9 6
29 7
34 13
31 26
20 18
22 36
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\PipelineProjects.mxd Non-Residential Under Review
CB Lining Contractors Yard
Float Glass and Mirror
Home 2 Suites
Hyatt House
Innova Chadbourne
PDC Building A
PDC Buildings B & C
Pittman Road Self Storage
Residence Inn by Marriott
Storage 360
Wiseman Green Valley
Non-Residential Approved
Huntington and Air Base Industrial
Gateway 80 Building C
Non-Residential Under Construction
Fairfield Toyota Expansion
Nippon Industries Expansion
Storage Pro
Non-Residential Completed
Enterprise Vehicle Storage
Paradise Valley Estates Memory Care
Residential Approved
Bella Vita Phase II
Cooper's Landing
Estaire
Fieldcrest
Villages at Fairfield Village II
Villas at Havenhill
Green Valley II
Residential Under Construction
Eastridge
Enclave at Red Top
Gardenstone at Tabor Ave
Gold Hill Village II
Gold Ridge
Ivy Crossing
One Lake
Village Oaks
Villages at Fairfield, Village I
Villages at Fairfield, Village II
Residential Completed
Garibaldi Ranch
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Water
Map Date: 5/19/2021
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
24 36
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
Cordelia
21 1
3 11
8 19
9 6
7 N eitzelR dGreen
V
a
l
l
e
y
RdBusinessC enterD rSuisunValleyRdPittmanRdLopesRd!"c$
%&p(
InsetNot to Scale
23 Figure 2-3: Pipeline Development Projects
Packet Page 53 of 390Attachment 3 Page 24 of 37

2-25
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

N A PA C O U N T Y

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

N L
I
M
I
T
L
I
N

E
UR

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

N L
I
M
I
T
L
I
N
E
UR

I
M

I
T

L
I

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
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Solano
Community
College
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

N L
I
M
I
T
L
I
N
E
UR

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 Opportunity Sites
Figure 2-4: Opportunity Sites
10-2-25
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
RockvilleRd
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
Wa t e rman 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
Cordeli a R d
BusinessCenterDr ClayBankRdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos
Pk
w
y
Travis Av
N

P
A

Y
S

Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Solano
Community
College
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
UR

N L
I
M
I
T
L
I
N
E
UR

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 012½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
X-X Potential Development Opportunity Sites
Re d TopRd
Travis BlRockvilleRd East Tabor Av
Shiloh RdRailroad AvAbernathyRdOhioSt
C o u rageD r
Dickson Hil l RdNorth Texas StSunsetAvHilbornRd
ChadbourneRdBurganBlDoverAvM an gelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliverRd W Texas St PittmanRdCordelia St
Air Base PkwyWatermanBlSuisunValleyRd WaltersRdNorth Gate RdMankasCornerRd LyonRdBeckAvPennsylvaniaAvUnionAvLopesRdMeridian RdGr e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Cement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Bu sinessC enterDrClayBankRdCement Hill RdManuelCamposPkwy Travis AvN 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
Cordelia
Suisun
GreenValley
Solano
Community
College
TravisAirForceBaseTravis AFBAero Club
UR

N L
I
M
I
T
L
I
N
E
UR

I
M

I
T

L
I

N A PA C O U N T Y

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

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
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\Existing Intensity.mxd Floor Area Ratio*
FAR 0.0 - 0.20
FAR 0.21 - 0.40
FAR 0.41 to 0.99
FAR 1.0 or Greater
Building Sq Ft Not Available
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 Map Date: 5/3/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
C emen t Hill Rd
W Texas St DoverAvBeckAvWaterma n Bl
Sec
on
dStOliv
er
R
d
E Travis Bl
N TexasStSunsetAvE Tabor Av
Heath Dr
PennsylvaniaAvUnion AvHi
l
bornRdTravis Bl
A ir Ba se Pkwy
InsetNot to Scale
*Note: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the ratio of total building floor area to lot area.

FAR is only shown for non-residential uses such as General Commercial, Lodging Commercial, Service Stations, Mixed Uses, Office, Light Industrial, and Heavy Industrial.

X-X Existing Non-Residential Intensities (Floor Area Ratio) Packet Page 54 of 390Attachment 3 Page 25 of 37

2-26
Fairfield is characterized by, in large part, its surround- ing natural and agricultural landscapes, providing a dis- tinctly different character from other nearby cities and the Bay Area. Hilly terrain borders the city to the north and northwest, culminating in the area’s two moun-
tain landmarks: Twin Sisters (to the west) and Cement
Hill (to the northeast). South of the central city is the Suisun Marsh, the Continental United States’ largest
brackish marsh, which has been largely preserved as
open space for wildlife habitat. Active vineyards and
orchards are concentrated in Green Valley and Suisun
Valley immediately west of the city (north of the Cor-
delia neighborhood). Hillsides north of the City are
preserved as open space and used for grazing by long
term ranching families. The areas north and east of
Travis Air Force Base are also characterized by grazing as well as unique “vernal pool” seasonal wetlands that
provide habitat for a variety of rare plant and animal
species. There are also several creeks running through
or bordering Fairfield, including Green Valley Creek in Middle Green Valley, American Canyon Creek in Corde-
lia Villages, Ledgewood Creek bordering Suisun Valley,
and Laurel Creek in eastern Fairfield.

The City’s historic development pattern is shown in
Figure 2-5. Central Fairfield includes the original town site and surrounding neighborhoods, which date from
the 1940s through 1990s. Northeast of central Fairfield is Travis AFB. The Cordelia neighborhood is located
to the southwest around the intersection of I-80 and
I-680. and primarily includes freeway-oriented busi-
nesses, newer single-family housing, and office and
industrial parks. Like many suburban communities,

2.5 Community Design and Urban Form
Fairfield is primarily a low-density city where one- and two-story buildings predominate.

Key Corridors And Activity
Nodes
Fairfield is characterized by three distinct communi-
ties: Cordelia, Central Fairfield, and the Northeast area including Travis AFB. These communities are shown in
Figures 2-6, 2-7, and 2-8, respectively.

Several major corridors and activity nodes define the
land use pattern and character of the Planning Area.
•Interstate 80: I-80 forms the spine of the city.

As it traverses the city southwest-northeast, I-80
is flanked by Fairfield’s only Highway and Regional
Commercial designated land. This has enabled the
development of commercial centers at Cordelia
Junction (in the Cordelia neighborhood) and the
Fairfield Gateway (near downtown Fairfield).
•Texas Street and West Texas Street: The Texas
Street corridor is encompassed in the Heart of
Fairfield Specific Plan. It runs from I-80 at the
western end to Armijo High School at the eastern
end. The Texas Street portion, from Pennsylva-
nia Avenue to Jefferson Street, constitutes Fair-
field’s original downtown, an existing commercial
corridor with a “small town” feel. This pedestri-
an-oriented stretch of six blocks includes appro-
priately-scaled lighting, seating, and landscaping.

West of Pennsylvania Ave, the West Texas Street
portion becomes more auto-oriented in use and
scale, culminating in Highway and Regional Com-
mercial uses at Winery Square bordering I-80.

The Fairfield Transportation Center, located adja-
cent to I-80 on West Texas Street, provides an
important transit link for the city. To the east of
Jefferson Street is the Solano County Government
Center, which includes public facilitates such as
the County Courthouse, Sheriff’s Department, and
County administrative offices.

Packet Page 55 of 390Attachment 3 Page 26 of 37

2-27
•North Texas Street: Turning north from Texas
Street at Armijo High School, the North Texas
Street corridor continues running north to Manuel
Campos Parkway at its intersection with I-80. The
corridor is primarily designated for Community
Commercial land use types, with some area devel-
oped with modern, high-density residential (apart-
ment and condominium complexes) between
Hawthorn Drive and the Putah South Canal. At
its northern terminus are Highway and Regional
Commercial uses at the Raley’s Plaza shopping
center and Lowes. North Texas Street is a highly
auto-centric corridor, characterized by car dealer-
ships, repair shops, and gas stations, older strip
malls with large parking lots, and big box stores
along its stretch. Portions of the corridor north
of Airbase Parkway have largely been developed,
redeveloped, or rehabilitated over the last thirty
years. New development activity south of Airbase
Parkway, however, has been sporadic.
•Linear Park Trail: The Linear Park Trail traverses
much of Fairfield from southwest to northeast
along the former right-of-way of the Northern Elec-
tric railroad. The Trail starts at Solano Community
College near the Cordelia neighborhood and runs
along I-80 until branching off at West Texas Street.

It then ends at Dover Ave just north of Nightingale
Drive. Though the Trail currently ends at Dover,
the Open Space designation continues across the
rest of Fairfield to Peabody Road and into the area
of the Train Station Specific Plan. As such, the Trail
currently provides a bicycle and pedestrian con-
nection from many residential areas of the city
to commercial centers at North Texas Street and
East Tabor Avenue, Fairfield Gateway, and Winery
Square, as well as providing an alternative connec-
tion to the Community College. However, existing
stretches of the Trail through residential neigh-
borhoods are mostly fronted by backyard fences
with entrances only at the Trail’s intersections
with major roadways. New segments of the trail
are currently under development in the Villages
of Fairfield and One Lake residential communities,
which will provide a connection to northeastern
Fairfield and ultimately Solano County and Vacav-
ille.
•Fairfield/Vacaville Train Station: This area,
the subject of Fairfield’s Train Station Specific
Plan (TSSP), represents the City’s primary area for
planned growth. Currently, the area surround-
ing the Capitol Corridor station, which opened in
2017, is primarily made up of industrial uses and
vacant or open space land. However, the One Lake
master planned community is currently under
development within the TSSP area. The TSSP cap-
italized on the new Capitol Corridor station with
land use designations to create a transit-oriented
district within walking distance of the station. Addi-
tionally, Travis AFB is located approximately a mile
from the station. There is currently, however, no
low-stress bike or pedestrian connection to the
Base. The Train Station Specific Plan undertakes
to ultimately address this issue.

Packet Page 56 of 390Attachment 3 Page 27 of 37

Travis Air Force Base
Travis Air Force Base
1953 1968 1980
2020
Figure 2-5: City of Fairfield Historical Development
Figure 2-5: Historic Development Pattern
Travis Air Force Base
Travis Air Force Base
1953 1968 1980
2020
Figure 2-5: City of Fairfield Historical Development
Packet Page 57 of 390Attachment 3 Page 28 of 37

80 80
680

S U ISUNPKW Y

BUS I N E S SCENTERD R

SUISUN VALLEY RDBUSINESS C E N T E R DRMANGELS B
L
V
DGREEN

VAL
LEY

CORDELI
A
R
D

LOPES RDREDTOPRD

OAKBROOK
D
R
LOPES

RDGOLDHILLRDWESTAMER I C ADR

CORDELIA

R
D
Suisun
Marsh
Green ValleyMiddleSchool
CordeliaJunction
SolanoCommunityCollege
CordeliaOpen Space
ScandiaFamilyCenter
CordeliaCommunityPark
RodriguezHigh School
OakbrookAcademy ofthe Arts
Rockville HillsRegional Park
NorthBayHealthcare
Costco
2011/2
MILES
Figure 2-6: Southwest Fairfield
Existing Land Use Framework
Residential
Commercial
Office
Public/Institutional
Industrial
Park/Golf Course
Open Space/Agriculture
Suisun Marsh
Railroad
City Limits
2-29
Figure 2-6: Cordelia Existing Land Use
Packet Page 58 of 390Attachment 3 Page 29 of 37

RANCHOSOLANO
RD

C O R D E L I A R D
2011/2
MILES
12 Residential
Commercial
Office
Public/Institutional
Industrial
Park/Golf Course
Open Space/Agriculture
Suisun Marsh
Railroad
City Limits
Heart of FairfieldSpecific Plan
Figure 2-7: Central Fairfield
Existing Land Use Framework

MANUELCAM
P
O
S
PK
W

YPARADISEVALLEYDRPARADISEVALLEYDR

DICKSONHILL R D

DOVER AVECE M E NT HILL RDNORTH TEXAS STAIR BASE PKWY E. TABOR PKWYHILLBORNRDWATERMAN BLVD
O
L
I
V
E
R

R
D
E. TRAVIS BLVDGATEWAYBLVD

PENNSYLVANIA AVEWE
B
S
T
E
R

S
T
W. TEXAS ST

BECK AVEROCKVILLE RD

SUISUN PK
W
Y

CHADBOURNE RDC O U R A G E R D NORTH TEXAS STDOVER AVESUNSET AVEABERNATHY RDMANK A
S

C
O
R
N
E
R

R
D
WALTERS RDJelly Belly
CountyOffices
AmtrackStation
ArmijoHighSchool
City ofFairfieldOffices
Allan WittPark
SolanoTownCenter
WalmartSuperCenter
LaurelCreekPark
FairfieldHighSchool
ParadiseValleyGolfCourse
RanchoSolanoGolfCourse
North BayMedicalCenter
Budweiser L i
n

a
r
T
r

a
i
l

P
a
r

k
L
i

a
r

T
r
a
i
l

P
a
r

k
SpyglassHillOpen Space
ParadiseValleyPlaza
Suisun
Marsh
Suisun
Marsh
SuisunCity CLAYBANKRD80
12 80
80 2-30
Figure 2-7: Central Fairfield Existing Land Use
Packet Page 59 of 390Attachment 3 Page 30 of 37

PINTAIL D

R WALTERS RDTWIN PEAKS DRCANNONDR
BURGAN BLVD1ST STAIR BASE PKWY
HUNTI
N
GT
O
N
DR

CEMENT HILL RD VANDEN R
D
PEABODY RDCLAY BANK RDE. TABOR RD

AIR BASE PKWY
Travis Air Force Base
FairfieldAmtrackStation
VandenHigh School
David GrantUSAFMedicalCenter
12 2011/2
MILES
Figure 2-8: East Fairfield
Existing Land Use Framework
Residential
Commercial
Office
Public/Institutional
Industrial
Park/Golf Course
Open Space/Agriculture
Travis AFB
Railroad
City Limits
Fairfild Amtrack StationSpecific Plan
2-31
Figure 2-8: East Fairfield Existing Land Use
Packet Page 60 of 390Attachment 3 Page 31 of 37

2-32
Densities And Intensities
Non-residential development intensity is defined by
floor area ratio (FAR), which refers to the ratio between a building’s total floor area and the total area of the site. For instance, a one-story building occupying half a parcel has an FAR of 50 percent (0.5), while a three- story building occupying the same half of a parcel has
an FAR of 150 percent (1.5). As seen in Figure 2-9, the vast majority of commercial buildings in Fairfield have an FAR less than 1.0. This suggests a predominance of
buildings less than two-stories in height with a signifi- cant amount of land devoted to parking.

Residential density is defined by dwelling units per acre (du/acre). As seen in Figure 2-10, most neighborhoods
across Fairfield have a mix of low-density units ranging from six or fewer units per acre to between seven and
12 units per acre. Residential areas in more outlying
areas of the city—such as those neighborhoods near
Rancho Solano—and in the more rural areas outside
the city in Green Valley and Suisun Valley are almost
exclusively made up of less than or equal to six units
per acre. Higher density areas tend to be concentrated
close to commercial corridors in Central Fairfield and
composed of older two-story apartment buildings.

Examples include the Dover Park Apartments off of
East Travis Boulevard, Woodside Court Apartments
adjacent to Air Base Parkway, and Magnolia Terrace
complex off of East Tabor Avenue. Most of these com-
plexes are in the range from 13 to 24 units per acre,
with some areas reaching 25 to 36 units per acre.

The exception to this pattern is in the neighborhood
around Downtown Fairfield, where structures contain-
ing two to four units are mixed in alongside single-unit houses, creating a mix of densities in this area. A very limited number of parcels in the city exceed 36 units
per acre.

Historic Resources
Fairfield was established in the mid-19th century as a
commercial and residential center serving neighbor-
ing farms and the Delta region. The town became the
county seat of Solano County in 1856 and was incorpo-
rated as a city in 1903. Many landmark historic build-
ings from the from the first few decades remain within
the Downtown core along West Texas Street.

In 1976-77, the Central Solano County Cultural Heri-
tage Commission conducted a survey of historic build-
ings and features in central Solano County. The study
identified many significant historic sites in the City of Fairfield. Most of these are single-family homes located in areas that were originally residential neighbor-
hoods. Other nonresidential structures identified for
their historical significance include the Solano County Courthouse, the water tower on Texas Street, and the
old post office. The historical town of Cement located
in the northern part of the planning area, contains a
number of structures related to the Pacific Portland
Cement Company Factory. Old Town Cordelia also con-
tains a collection of historical structures.

Despite this, there are no sites in Fairfield registered as a California State Historical Landmark or on the Cal- ifornia Register of Historical Resources. There is only one site in Fairfield that is designated on the National Register of Historic Places; the Samuel Martin House,
or Stonedene, located at approximately 4015 Suisun
Valley Road in the Cordelia neighborhood, directly
across from Solano Community College. The house
was built in 1861 in the Gothic Revival style and is rep- resentative of the area’s history with ties to the Gold Rush.

The City has historically pursued strong preservation
policies for its scenic resources. Hillsides within the city limits have been protected from intense develop-
ment in order to maintain views ensure a more rural
feel. In exchange for approval of development plans in
less visible portions of the city’s hilly areas, the city has required preservation of significant open space partic- ularly neighborhoods such as Eastridge, Rolling Hills,
Rancho Solano, Serpas Ranch, and Paradise Valley.

Additionally, the City acquired Rockville Hills Regional Park in the late 1960s to preserve its 633 acres of
grasslands and oak woodlands for recreation as well as
for its contribution as part of the city’s visual character.

The City also participates with Solano County and its
neighboring cities in a Joint Power Authority, the Tri City and County Cooperative Planning Group for Agricul-
tural and Open Space Preservation, aimed at planning
Packet Page 61 of 390Attachment 3 Page 32 of 37

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

N A PA C O U N T Y

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

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
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\Existing Intensity.mxd Floor Area Ratio*
FAR 0.0 - 0.20
FAR 0.21 - 0.40
FAR 0.41 to 0.99
FAR 1.0 or Greater
Building Sq Ft Not Available
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 Map Date: 5/3/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
C emen t Hill Rd
W Texas St DoverAvBeckAvWaterman Bl
Sec
on
dStOliv
er
R
d
E Travis Bl
N TexasStSunsetAvE Tabor Av
Heath Dr
PennsylvaniaAvUnion AvHi
l
bornRdTrav is Bl
A ir Ba se Pkwy
InsetNot to Scale
*Note: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the ratio of total building floor area to lot area.

FAR is only shown for non-residential uses such as General Commercial, Lodging Commercial, Service Stations, Mixed Uses, Office, Light Industrial, and Heavy Industrial.

X-X Existing Non-Residential Intensities (Floor Area Ratio) 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

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
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Solano
Community
College
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
U

R
B

A
N

L
I

M
I

T L
I

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
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\Existing Intensity.mxd Floor Area Ratio*
FAR 0.0 - 0.20
FAR 0.21 - 0.40
FAR 0.41 to 0.99
FAR 1.0 or Greater
Building Sq Ft Not Available
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 Map Date: 5/3/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
C ement Hill Rd
W Texas St DoverAvBeckAvWaterman B l
Sec
on
dStOliv
e
r
R
d
E Travis Bl
N TexasStSunsetAvE Tabor Av
Heath Dr
PennsylvaniaAvUnion AvHi
l
bornRdTra vis Bl
Ai r B a s e Pkwy
InsetNot to Scale
*Note: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the ratio of total building floor area to lot area.

FAR is only shown for non-residential uses such as General Commercial, Lodging Commercial, Service Stations, Mixed Uses, Office, Light Industrial, and Heavy Industrial.

X-X Existing Non-Residential Intensities (Floor Area Ratio) 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

N A PA C O U N T Y

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

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
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\Existing Intensity.mxd Floor Area Ratio*
FAR 0.0 - 0.20
FAR 0.21 - 0.40
FAR 0.41 to 0.99
FAR 1.0 or Greater
Building Sq Ft Not Available
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 Map Date: 5/3/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
C emen t Hill Rd
W Texas St DoverAvBeckAvWaterman B l
Sec
on
dStOliv
er
R
d
E Travis Bl
N TexasStSunsetAvE Tabor Av
Heath Dr
PennsylvaniaAvUnion AvHi
l
bornRdTra vis Bl
Ai r B a s e Pkwy
InsetNot to Scale
*Note: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the ratio of total building floor area to lot area.

FAR is only shown for non-residential uses such as General Commercial, Lodging Commercial, Service Stations, Mixed Uses, Office, Light Industrial, and Heavy Industrial.

X-X Existing Non-Residential Intensities (Floor Area Ratio) 2-33
Figure 2-9: Existing Commercial Intensities
Packet Page 62 of 390Attachment 3 Page 33 of 37

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

N A PA C O U N T Y

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

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
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\Existing Density.mxd Density (Units/Acre)
≤ 6 units/acre
7 - 12 units/acre
13 - 24 units/acre
25 - 36 units/acre
> 36 units/acre
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 *Note:Density is the ratio of total housing units to lot acre.

Density is only shown for residential uses such as Rural Residential, Single Family Residential, Single Family-Attached, Multi Family, Mobile Homes, and Residential Mixed Uses. Map Date: 5/3/2021 0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
X-X Existing Residential Densities DoverAvRailroad Av
Ohio St
W a t e rm anBlE Tabor Av
Sec
on
dStW Texas St
E Travis Bl
N TexasStSunsetAvHeath Dr
Lotz W yPennsylvaniaAvUnion AvTrav is Bl
Air Ba se Pkwy
InsetNot to Scale
Red TopRd
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

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
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Solano
Community
College
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
U

R
B

A
N

L
I

M
I

T L
I

N
E
U

R
B

Density is only shown for residential uses such as Rural Residential, Single Family Residential, Single Family-Attached, Multi Family, Mobile Homes, and Residential Mixed Uses. Map Date: 5/3/2021 0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
X-X Existing Residential Densities DoverAvRailroad Av
Ohio St
W a t e rm anBlE Tab or Av
Sec
on
dStW Texas St
E Travis Bl
N TexasStSunsetAvHeath Dr
Lotz W yPennsylvaniaAvUnion AvTravis Bl
Air Base P kwy
InsetNot to Scale
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

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
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Solano
Community
College
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
U

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
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\Existing Intensity.mxd Floor Area Ratio*
FAR 0.0 - 0.20
FAR 0.21 - 0.40
FAR 0.41 to 0.99
FAR 1.0 or Greater
Building Sq Ft Not Available
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 Map Date: 5/3/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
C emen t Hill Rd
W Texas St DoverAvBeckAvWa terman Bl
Sec
on
dStOliv
e
r
R
d
E Travis Bl
N T exasStSunsetAvE Tabor Av
Heath Dr
PennsylvaniaAvUnion AvHi
l
bornRdTrav is Bl
Air Ba se Pkwy
InsetNot to Scale
*Note: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the ratio of total building floor area to lot area.

FAR is only shown for non-residential uses such as General Commercial, Lodging Commercial, Service Stations, Mixed Uses, Office, Light Industrial, and Heavy Industrial.

X-X Existing Non-Residential Intensities (Floor Area Ratio) 2-34
Figure 2-10: Existing Residential Densities
Packet Page 63 of 390Attachment 3 Page 34 of 37

2-35
for the preservation of existing open space and agricul- tural uses in the area generally defined by Interstates 80 and 680 and Lake Herman Road. Finally, it should
be noted that the City strongly supports the activities of Solano Land Trust, a 501c3 nonprofit focusing on
agricultural and open space preservation. The Land
Trust owns and operates several open space proper-
ties near Fairfield.

SCENIC VISTAS AND ROADWAYS PLAN (1999)
The Scenic Vistas and Roadways Plan (SCRP), adopted
by the City of Fairfield in 1999, was the City’s first com- prehensive plan aimed at preserving scenic resources.

The goal of the SVRP was to maintain and enhance
views, natural features, and roadways that contribute
to the scenic qualities of Fairfield, which promote its unique sense of identity and place. As part of imple-
menting this goal, the SVRP designated certain “Scenic
Vista Areas” (SVAs) and “Scenic Roadways” in Fairfield
and identified mechanisms for their preservation and
enhancement. The Plan recognized the landscape
surrounding the city and creating its perimeter, such
as the Twin Sisters mountain to the north, the Suisun
Marsh lowlands to the south, and Cement Hill to the
east, as integral to the city’s identity.

The SVRP identifies specific SVAs and Scenic Roadways.

Each SVA and Scenic Roadway is described in detail.

Issues for scenic preservation and enhancement and
specific recommendations are discussed for each SVA
and Scenic Roadway individually. The SVRP identifies
the following SVAs: Suisun Marsh, Green Valley, Suisun
Valley, Nelson Hill, Vaca Mountains, Cement Hill Range, and Tri-City County Open Space. The SVRP includes
policies and guidelines that apply to all development in or affecting Scenic Vista Areas. These policies include not significantly obstructing views of SVAs from scenic roadways, vista points, or parks; limiting land uses to primarily agricultural, open space, or low residential; encouraging compact development on smaller lots
within an SVA; blending building materials and color
schemes with the surrounding landscape; and utilizing
native vegetation in planting, among others.

The SVRP also identifies the following Scenic Roadways:

I-680, Cordelia Road west of Hale Ranch Road, Green
Valley Road north of Business Center Drive, Rockville
Road west of Suisun Valley Road, Rancho Solano Park-
way, Lyon Road north of Rollingwood Drive, Hillborn
Road, and Manuel Campos Parkway. The Plan includes
policies and guidelines that apply to all development
or improvements around Scenic Roadways or of the
Roadways themselves. The primary purpose of these
guidelines is to ensure that new development adjacent
to Scenic Roadways and visible from the public right-
of-way should not significantly change the rural or nat- ural character of the setting.

Lastly, the SVRP identifies four areas that serve as the best locations in the city to establish formalized vista viewing points. These areas are: South Cordelia, Nelson Hill, Rockville Hills Park, and Cement Hill. Three of these four locations are currently privately owned and so not currently available to be designated. The Plan identifies issues to considered in planning for any of these loca- tions to be officially designated as vista points. It also establishes design guidelines for vista points, such as providing paved parking and lighted restrooms.

Packet Page 64 of 390Attachment 3 Page 35 of 37

2-36

2.6 Key Findings and Planning Considerations
1 3THE FUTURE OF GROWTH IN FAIRFIELD WILL BE INFLU-

ENCED BY THE URBAN LIMIT LINE BOUNDARY AND
ANNEXATIONS TO THE CITY.

The Urban Limit Line (ULL) establishes the City’s ultimate boundary for urban development. Expanding the ULL permits more development at the city’s edges. Additionally, the City has annexed many areas over the years, most recently in 2019 with the annexation of land for the Pacific Flyway Center. Annexed areas of the city require city services. Together, these are important tools for establishing the growth pattern in Fair- field. In particular, the General Plan update must consider potential changes to the ULL or annexations to the City and how such changes will direct growth around Fairfield’s edges as opposed to its existing neighborhoods.

THERE ARE SEVERAL COUNTY AND CITY LAND USE
PLANS THAT ARE PERTINENT TO THE PLANNING AREA.

THE INFORMATION IN THESE PLANS SHOULD ALIGN THE
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE.

The Train Station Specific Plan and the Heart of Fairfield Plan have pro- vided a strong foundation for future land use planning across the city that promotes transit-oriented and mixed-use development. The Gen- eral Plan update should build off of these documents and, if applica- ble, should provide updated information and goals for these specific plans. Additionally, policies for the unincorporated areas of the Sphere of Influence and Planning Area should be consistent with those of the Solano County General Plan and other County planning documents.

Finally, policies for future development will need to comply with the Travis AFB LUCP to ensure the continued viability of the Base.2 4

THE EXISTING LAND USE PATTERN IS PRIMARILY SUBUR-
BAN AND AUTO-ORIENTED.

Fairfield is a primarily car-dependent city due to land use patterns that have encouraged wide commercial corridors lined with auto-ori- ented uses, primarily single-family residential neighborhoods, and high- way-serving commercial centers. The General Plan update provides an opportunity to promote more sustainable multimodal transportation through integrated land use planning that establishes attractive and walkable destinations, particularly along the Texas corridors. Policies that promote mixed-use and infill development can encourage a less auto-oriented future by promoting complete neighborhoods where goods, services, and activities are within walking distance.

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USES SHOULD

BE RESPONSIVE TO FUTURE ECONOMIC NEEDS AND
TRENDS.

As the landscape for work continues to evolve following the COVID-19 pandemic, the General Plan must be responsive to economic trends.

Promoting more flexible uses in commercial and industrial areas of the city can help to ensure that Fairfield stays responsive to the needs of employers and their staff. Areas such as the mall at Solano Town Center provide opportunities to rethink commercial land uses to be more aligned with the flexible, mixed-use environment that workers and res- idents will need.

Packet Page 65 of 390Attachment 3 Page 36 of 37

2-37
5 PRESERVATION OF AGRICULTURE AND OPEN SPACE

LANDS IS IMPORTANT FOR ECONOMIC, SUSTAINABILITY,
AND RECREATION REASONS, AMONG OTHERS.

Fairfield is surrounded by agricultural and open space lands such as the Vaca Mountains and Suisun Marsh, which define its visual character.

Agricultural lands, in particular in Green Valley and Suisun Valley, are important economic drivers for the area. And open space opportuni- ties, such as in Rockville Hills Regional Park, provide vital recreation and educational opportunities for the community. Minimizing pressures to develop at the city’s edges through an emphasis on infill development will be an important focus of the General Plan in order to preserve these key resources in Fairfield.
corridor includes a majority of these low AV ratio sites. Other oppor- tunity site clusters include the Solano Town Center, adjacent auto-ori- ented uses along I-80, and industrial areas. While not all of these sites will completely redevelop, there may be opportunity for reuse or inten- sification of existing uses.

Based on the City’s land use needs, the potential for these opportu- nity area clusters, as well as any environmental or other development constraints, will be explored as part of the alternatives phase of the General Plan Update process. Because vacant parcels are often con- sidered easier to develop (though infrastructure or environmental con- siderations influence this suitability), the General Plan will also evaluate tradeoffs of expanding urbanized land in certain areas or encouraging development of underutilized parcels.
6 7THERE ARE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITY AREA CLUSTERS

WITHIN THE PLANNING AREA THAT COULD BE DEVEL-

OPED OR REDEVELOPED TO MEET COMMERCIAL, INDUS-
TRIAL, OR RESIDENTIAL NEEDS.

Initial analysis suggests that 1,925 acres of land is either vacant, and nearly 1, 078 acres are underutilized based upon the Assessed Value ratio or low floor area ratio (FAR). The largest contiguous vacant parcels are located south of Cement Hill Road adjacent to the Train Station Specific Plan, northern central Fairfield just outside of the City Limit, to the west of Lyon Road, and just outside of Thomasson, west of Cordelia Road outside of the City Limit. Other large vacant parcels are part of the Train Station Specific Plan. Underutilized sites, especially clusters of sites with both a low AV ratio and low FAR, present opportunities for significant new development or redevelopment. The North Texas Street

CURRENT LAND USE PATTERNS CREATE RELATIVELY
SEPARATE NEIGHBORHOODS ACROSS THE CITY. THE

GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PRESENTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO
CONNECT AND UNIFY FAIRFIELD.

Currently, Fairfield is composed of the relatively distinct three neigh- borhoods of Cordelia, Central Fairfield, and Northeast Fairfield. A lack of connectivity between these areas encourages auto-dependence, while also making it difficult for Fairfield to develop a singular identity as a City. Through the General Plan update, the City may be able to develop land use patterns that encourage better connections between neigh- borhoods. This may also help to promote Fairfield as a destination for both travelers and potential residents, by providing the City with a dis- tinct and desirable character.

Packet Page 66 of 390Attachment 3 Page 37 of 37

Circulation
The Circulation Element provides the framework for a com- prehensive and multimodal transportation network that
supports and integrates the other elements of the General Plan, especially the Land Use and Growth Management
Elements. This chapter includes an inventory of existing (2021) conditions of the roadway system (including existing Level of Service (LOS) and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), bicy- cle and pedestrian transportation facilities, public transit system, and local freight system in the Planning Area. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent Shelter-in-Place orders by the State of California, intersection turning move- ment counts for the AM and PM peak hour will reflect pre- COVID-19 pandemic conditions (pre-March 2020). Existing conditions data was compiled from information provided
by the City, recent plans and studies, online resources such as Big Data, field observations, and field data collection.

Chapter 3
Packet Page 67 of 390Attachment 4 Page 1 of 17

Freeways And Expressways
(State Highways)
The Fairfield General Plan Planning Area is located at
the intersection of several critical state highways (free- ways and expressways) that serve the movement of
people and goods in the local, regional, interregional, and interstate context.

Interstate 80 (I-80) is an east-west, eight-to-12-lane
divided freeway extending from San Francisco to the
California-Nevada state line via Vallejo, Fairfield, and Sacramento. The facility connects the Planning Area to
the San Francisco Bay Area, to the center of Fairfield, and to the Sacramento metropolitan area. I-80 is
signed as State Route 12 in the Cordelia area.

Interstate 680 (I-680) is a north-south, divided freeway extending from Fairfield to San Jose via Benicia, Walnut Creek and Fremont. In the Fairfield area, the freeway
has four lanes. The facility connects the Planning Area to Contra Costa County and San Jose.

State Route 12 (SR 12) is an east-west, two-to-four-lane highway extending from Sebastopol to San Andreas
via Santa Rosa, Napa, Fairfield, and Lodi. The facility connects the Planning Area to Sonoma, Napa, and San
Joaquin Counties. SR 12 is designed as an express-
way in the Planning Area and is signed as I-80 in the
Cordelia area.

Interchanges
Connections between arterials and freeways are pro-
vided at interchanges throughout the Planning Area.

Because freeways are limited-access facilities, local
street interchanges frequently serve as aggregation
points for vehicle demand in the overall Planning
Area roadway system, which results in localized traf-
fic congestion. The high levels of vehicle demand and
congestion also reduce the comfort level of pedestri-
ans and bicyclists traversing an interchange. System
interchanges (also known as freeway-to-freeway
interchanges) play a critical role in the routing of trips through the Planning Area as drivers generally tend to
prefer to take high speed routes between destinations;
missing ramp connections within system interchanges
typically force drivers to use local street interchanges to complete missing connections between freeways,
thus adding to local street congestion.

The following system (freeway-to-freeway) interchanges
serve demand in the Planning Area:
•I-80/I-680/SR 12 West (partial access, no direct
connections between I-80 to the west and SR 12
to the west; motorists must use Red Top Road to
make this connection)
•I-80/SR 12 East (partial access, no direct connec-
tions between I-80 to the east and SR 12 to the
east; motorists must use Chadbourne Road to
make this connection)

3.1 Roadway Network
Packet Page 68 of 390Attachment 4 Page 2 of 17

R o c k v ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathy RdSunsetAvM angels BlMain StCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWalters RdMa
nka
s
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
een Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Re d TopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u r a geD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRdChadbourne RdBurgan BlDover Av2ndStPeabody RdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Wa t erman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvania AvUnion AvLopes RdC ement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordel i a R d
Business Center DrClay Bank RdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos Pkw
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 UN 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

Arterials, Collectors and Local
Roadways
The Planning Area non-freeway/expressway roadway
system is classified by the following roadway functional classification types: arterial (major/minor), collector and local. Arterials provide higher capacity mobility
between destinations in the Planning area and the
region, while local and collector roadways provide
direct access to destinations along the streets. All facil- ities play a key role in connecting residential, employ- ment, retail, industrial, recreational, educational, and institutional land uses throughout the Planning Area.

Figure 3-1 shows the Planning Area roadway network
and functional classifications as designated in the cur- rent General Plan. Additional information on major
facilities throughout the Planning Area are described
below. North-south roadways are followed by east-
west roadways.

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 interchange improvement project, which is
expected to be substantially complete by 2040 (pend-
ing funding availability). It is noted that 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 interchanges.

The following local street system interchanges, man-
aged by Caltrans, serve demand in the Planning Area:
•I-80/Red Top Road (full access, signed connection
to SR 12 west towards Napa)
•I-80/Green Valley Road (partial access, interchange
currently in complex with I-80/I-680/SR 12 West
system interchange, no westbound I-80 off-ramp)
•I-80/Pittman Road-Suisun Valley Road (partial
access, no westbound I-80 on-ramp)
•I-80/Suisun Parkway (full access, signed connec-
tion to SR 12 east towards Rio Vista)
•I-80/West Texas Street (full access, motorists must
use Oliver Road and Beck Avenue to connect from
westbound I-80 off-ramp and to eastbound I-80
on-ramp, respectively)
•I-80/Travis Boulevard (full access)
•I-80/Air Base Parkway-Waterman Boulevard (full
access)
•I-80/Manuel Campos Parkway-North Texas Street
(full access)
Packet Page 69 of 390Attachment 4 Page 3 of 17

R o c k v ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathy RdSunsetAvM a n gels BlMain StCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
ey
RdWalters RdMa
nk
a
s
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
ee
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Red TopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad
Av
Ohio St
C o u r a geD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRdChadbourne RdBurgan BlDover Av2ndStPeabody RdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvania AvUnion AvLopes RdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Business C enter DrClay Bank RdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos Pkw
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 UN 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
C:\GIS\MXD\FairfieldGPU_030821.mxd
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 3/8/2021
0 1 20.5
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 ·12
·12
%&80
%&80
%&680
3-1 Street Classification
Minor Collector
Local
Major Collector
Freeway/Expwy
Interstate
Major Arterial
Minor Arterial
R o c k v ill e R d
Shiloh RdAbernathy RdSunsetAvM an gels BlMain StCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWalters RdMa
nka
s
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
een Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Red TopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad
Av
Ohio St
C o u r a geD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRdChadbourne RdBurgan BlDover Av2ndStPeabody RdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvania AvUnion AvLopes RdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordeli a R d
Business Center DrClay Bank RdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos Pkw
y
Travis Av
Paradise ValleyGolf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park Southbrook
Park
Gary
Falati
Park

N A PA C O UN 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

3-5

NORTH-SOUTH ROADWAYS
•Lopes Road is a two-to-four-lane minor arterial
extending from the I-80/Green Valley Road inter-
change in the north to the City of Benicia in the
south. The roadway connects the Green Valley
area to industrial and residential neighborhoods
along the west side of I-680. Lopes Road serves
as a direct connection to Rodriguez High School.

The posted speed limit in the Planning Area is 45
miles per hour.
•Green Valley Road is a two-to-four-lane divided
minor arterial extending from the Green Valley
Country Club area in unincorporated Solano
County the north to the I-80/Green Valley Road
interchange in the south. Green Valley Road tran-
sitions onto Lopes Road south of the interchange,
which continues towards Red Top Road and
Benicia. Green Valley Road has a posted speed
limit of 45 miles per hour. Green Valley Road
serves a variety of commercial, industrial, and res-
idential land-uses.
•Suisun Valley Road is a two-to-six-lane minor
arterial roadway that extends from the Wooden
Valley area of Napa County in the north to the
I-80/Suisun Valley Road-Pittman Road interchange
in the south. Suisun Valley Road transitions into
Pittman Road at the interchange. Suisun Valley
Road serves industrial, commercial, residential,
agriculture, and public facilities along the corridor,
including Solano Community College. The posted
speed limit varies between 35 to 55 miles per
hour.
•Pittman Road is a two-to-four-lane minor arterial
roadway that extends from the I-80/Suisun Valley
Road-Pittman Road interchange in the north to
Cordelia Road in the south. The posted speed limit
varies between 35 to 40 miles per hour. Pittman
Road serves commercial and residential land uses
along the corridor.
•Lopes Road is a north-south, two-to-four-lane
arterial extending from the I-80/Green Valley Road
interchange in the north to the City of Benicia in
the south. The roadway connects the Green Valley
area to industrial and residential neighborhoods
along the west side of I-680. The posted speed
limit along Lopes Road is 45 miles per hour.
•Beck Avenue is a three-to-five-lane minor arte-
rial that extends from the I-80 interchange in the
north to Cordelia Road in the south. The roadway
connects commercial uses, residential neighbor-
hoods, and industrial areas. The posted speed
limit varies between 35 to 40 mph.
•Oliver Road is a four-lane minor arterial that
extends from Waterman Boulevard in the north to
Travis Boulevard, and turns to a two-lane minor
arterial between Travis Boulevard and Rockville
Road/I-80 interchange in the south. Oliver Road
serves residential and commercial uses. The
Fairfield Linear Park crosses Rockville Road at the
Oliver Road intersection and the posted speed
limit along this corridor is 35 miles per hour.
•Hilborn Road is a four-lane minor arterial. The
I-80 off-ramp leads to Hilborn Road in the north
and the I-80 on-ramp in the south. Hilborn Road
primarily serves residential neighborhoods along
with commercial uses and open space. The posted
speed limit is 35 miles per hour.
•Pennsylvania Avenue is a two-to-four lane
minor arterial between Cunningham Road to the
north and Cordelia Road to the south with a direc-
tion connection to SR 12. The Fairfield Linear Park
meets Pennsylvania Avenue just north of the Travis
Boulevard intersection. Pennsylvania Avenue
serves variety of land uses including residential,
commercial, and public facilities including a couple
of schools. The posted speed limit varies between
30 to 35 miles per hour, with a posted speed limit
of 25 miles per hour near schools.
•N Texas Street is four-lane major arterial that
runs from Manuel Campos Parkway in the north
and transitions to Texas Street about a mile south
of the North Texas Street and East Tabor Avenue
intersection. North Texas Street, along with West
Texas Street, serves as the primary spine for traf-
fic traveling through central Fairfield, connecting
to Interstate 80 at both ends. N Texas Street pri-
marily serves as a commercial and residential cor-
ridor, while providing a connection to Downtown
Fairfield and two high schools. Despite its key role
in the City, North Texas Street has limited bicycling
infrastructure. The posted speed limit ranges
between 30 to 35 miles per hour.

Packet Page 71 of 390Attachment 4 Page 5 of 17

3-6
•Peabody Road is a three-to-six lane major arterial
that extends from City’s northern limits to Air Base
Parkway in Fairfield. This corridor serves the Travis
Air Force Base, the Train Station Specific Plan
Area, the Thomas Hannigan Capital Corridor Train
Station, Huntington Industrial Park, existing and
planned residential neighborhoods, and serves
as a connection to Vacaville. The Specific Plan
envisions major improvements to Peabody Road.

Peabody Road also serves as a major commuting
route for employees of Travis Air Force Base and
is a link in the planned Jepsen Parkway. The posted
speed limit on Peabody Road is 45 miles per hour.

EAST-WEST ROADWAYS
•Mangels Boulevard is a four-to-six-lane minor
arterial extending from Green Valley Road in the
west to Westamerica Drive in the east. Mangels
Boulevard is a two-to-four lane local street between
Business Center Drive near Antiquity Drive and
Green Valley Road. At Antiquity Road, there is a
roundabout that connects Mangels Boulevard to
Business Center Drive. The corridor serves resi-
dential and industrial land uses and has a posted
speed limit between 40 and 45 miles per hour.
•Business Center Drive is a four-lane minor
arterial roadway that currently extends from
the Mangels Boulevard/Antiquity, Green Valley
Technical Plaza driveway in the west to Suisun
Creek in the east; east of Suisun Creek, Business
Center Drive transitions onto Suisun Parkway
(at Solano County), which terminates at the I-80/
Suisun Parkway-Chadbourne Road interchange.
•Dover Avenue is a two-to-four lane minor arte-
rial primarily serving residential neighborhoods
and an elementary school. This corridor extends
from Manuel Campos Parkway in the north to East
Travis Boulevard in the south. The Fairfield Linear
Park connects to Dover Avenue near the intersec-
tion of East Pacific Avenue and Nightingale Drive.

The posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour. Dover
Avenue provides direct access to the Paradise
Valley residential community and one of the City’s
two public golf courses. There is a Class II bicycle
lane north of Air Base Parkway.
•Clay Bank Road is a planned four lane divided
minor arterial that connects residential neigh-
borhoods in the north to Air Base Parkway in the
south. Clay Bank Road primarily serves residential
developments, along with Western Business Park
and the Solano County Office of Education campus
and has a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour.

This corridor primarily serves commercial uses,
along with industrial and residential areas. The
posted speed limit varies between 35 and 45 miles
per hour.
•Neitzel Road is a two-lane, one-way minor arterial
roadway that extends from Business Center Drive
in the west to the I-80/Suisun Valley Road-Pittman
Road interchange in the east. The roadway serves
as the connection between westbound I-80 and
Green Valley Road as the I-80 Green Valley Road
interchange does not include a direct off-ramp to
Green Valley Road. The posted speed limit is 50
miles per hour.
•Cordelia Road is a two-lane major arterial extend-
ing from an industrial area west of Lopes Road
to Suisun City in the east. The roadway connects
the Cordelia neighborhood with I-680 (via Lopes
Road and Central Way) and I-80 (via Pittman Road).

Cordelia Road provides direct access to the indus-
trial users in Solano Business Park and Busch
Corporate Park, the location of several of the City’s
major employers. The posted speed limit in the
Planning Area varies between 25 and 45 miles per
hour.
•Manuel Campos Parkway is a four-to-six lane
divided major arterial with a direct connection to
the I-80 interchange in the west to Cement Hill
Road in the east. At Dickson Hill Road, Manual
Campos Parkway turns into a two-lane roadway
until Peabody road where it widens to five-lanes
at the intersection. East of Cement Hill Road,
the corridor changes to Cement Hill Road. The
Packet Page 72 of 390Attachment 4 Page 6 of 17

3-7
corridor primarily serves residential uses along
with commercial uses. The posted speed limit
varies between 40 and 45 miles per hour.
•Cement Hill Road is a two-lane roadway that
runs between Cement Hill Road in the west and
Peabody Road in the east. East of the Peabody
intersection, the corridor changes to Vanden
Road. Cement Hill Road primarily serves access to
the Train Station Specific Plan Area along with res-
idential and open space areas. The posted speed
limit varies between 40 and 45 miles per hour.
•Dickson Hill Road is a four-lane minor arterial
between North Texas Street in the west and Dover
Avenue in the east. Between Dover Avenue and
Manuel Campos Parkway in the east, Dickson Hill
Road is a four-lane major collector. This corridor
serves both commercial and residential land uses
and a posted speed limit of 40 miles per hour.
•Air Base Parkway is a four-lane major divided
arterial that widens to six-lanes at various inter-
sections throughout the corridor. This corridor is
essential to Fairfield’s roadway network as it pro-
vides direct access to Interstate 80 and serves as
a direct link to the Travis Air Force Base. Air Base
Parkway also provides access to commercial, res-
idential, and various public facilities. The posted
speed limits vary between 45 and 55 miles per
hour.
•East Tabor Avenue is a two-to-four-lane minor
arterial roadway that extends from North Texas
Street and the Fairfield Linear Park in the west to
Charleston Street in the east. East Tabor Avenue
primarily serves residential and commercial land
uses and access to an elementary and middle
school. The posted speed limit is 35 miles per hour.
•Travis Boulevard is a four-to-six lane major arte-
rial extending from Oliver Road in the west and
Sunset Avenue in the east with a direct connection
to I-80. This roadway mostly serves commercial
and residential neighborhoods and has a posted
speed limit varying between 30 and 35 mph.

Travis Boulevard provides direct access to Solano
Town Center/Fairfield Gateway, the City’s regional
shopping center, along with NorthBay Medical
Center, the City’s hospital.
•West Texas Street/Texas Street/North Texas
Street is an older commercial district that was
developed along historic Lincoln Highway and links
southern I-80 to northern I-80. The City of Fairfield
Transportation Center, a regional bus and car-
pooling center, is bounded by Interstate-80 at the
western end of the West Texas Street corridor and
connects to Texas Street downtown and North
Texas Street. The Fairfield Linear Park Trail crosses
West Texas Street at Oliver Road. This corridor is a
four-to-five lane major arterial with a posted speed
limit varying between 25 and 35 miles per hour.
•Travis Boulevard is a four-to-six lane roadway
extending from Oliver Road in the west and Sunset
Avenue in the east with a direct connection to I-80.

There are Class II bike lanes between Oliver Road
and Holiday Lane and Class III bike lanes east of
the I-80 interchange. This roadway mostly serves
commercial and residential neighborhoods and
has a posted speed limit between 30 and 35 mph.

Congestion Management
Program
The Solano County Congestion Management Program
(CMP), required by Caltrans, includes three state-
owned roadways and six local arterials and intersec-
tions shown in Table 3-1 below.

TABLE 3-1: Congestion Management
Program Locations
Intersection Type Interstate 680 Freeway
Intersection 80 Freeway
State Route 12 Highway
Peabody Road Arterial
Walters Road Arterial
Air Base Parkway Arterial
Vanden Road Arterial
Peabody Road and Cement
Hill Road/Vanden Road Intersection
Walters Road and Air Base
Parkway Intersection
Source: Solano County 2019 Congestion Management Program Planned Improvements
The City of Fairfield’s anticipated near term Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) projects contains 13 proj-
ects in design as shown in Table 3-2. Improvements not
related to transportation are omitted.

Packet Page 73 of 390Attachment 4 Page 7 of 17

3-8
TABLE 3-2: Anticipated Near Term CIP Projects
Location Project Description Estimate ($)
Tentative Completion
Date
Fairfield/
Vacaville Train
Station
Improve station access with route efficiency and safe ingress and egress of buses. The train station ac- cess road will have a Class I multi-use path connecting to the Linear Park trail. The station also plans to increase parking from 139 spaces to 408 spaces. $2,866,000 TBD (No construction
funding at the time of the
report publication)
Citywide Modifications and/or upgrades to existing traffic signals at various locations throughout the City.$125,000 4th Quarter 2019 Citywide Construction of warranted signals at various locations throughout the City.$600,000 2nd Quarter 2021 West Texas
Street & I-80
Off-Ramp
Modifications to the eastbound I-80 off-ramp at West Texas Street that include eliminating the free right-turn movement and the weave onto West Texas Street and constructing a bus-only movement from the ramp into the Fairfield Transportation Center. This project also includes improving pedestri- an access into the center. $3,600,000 4th Quarter 2020
Beck Avenue
Incorporate Bus Rapid Transit at three signalized intersection along Beck Avenue and install system equipment on Solano Express Buses that the City of Fairfield operates.$205,000 3rd Quarter 2019 Citywide
Annual citywide project that includes installing, modifying, replacing and/or upgrading sidewalks and ADA ramps. $200,000 3rd Quarter 2020
East Tabor
Avenue
East Tabor Avenue sidewalk gap closure that includes the construction of sidewalk between Clay Bank Road and Railroad Avenue, and the widening of the sidewalk of Tolenas Avenue between Tole- nas Elementary and East Tabor Avenue.$1,849,000 3rd Quarter 2023 West Texas
Street
Reconfiguration of West Texas Street, from Pennsylvania Avenue to Beck Avenue, from a four-lane roadway into two-lanes with a center turn lane. This Complete Streets project intends to enhance safety, mobility, and access for all road users and will create an environment to accommodate a vari- ety of transportation modes.
$16,922,000 (ATP is
funding $10,903,000 of
the project) *
TBD (Additional funding
source needed)
Grange Middle
School
As part of the Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program, this project includes upgrading the intersections along East Tabor (between Dover Avenue and Clay Bank Road) to improve the safety of people walk- ing and biking crossing East Tabor Avenue. Additional improvements include ADA ramps, restriping, colored and textured asphalt in crosswalk areas, installing RRFBs, and installation of concrete bulb outs. The project will also rehabilitate the existing pavement on East Tabor Avenue (between Dover Avenue and Clay Bank Road) and Sunset Avenue (between East Tabor Avenue and Travis Boulevard). $2,800,000 3rd Quarter 2022 Travis Boule -
vard/North
Texas Street
Install adaptive signal timing, advanced dilemma-zone detection, and enhance the visibility of sig- nalized intersections along Travis Boulevard and North Texas Street. The intersections along North Texas include Tabor Avenue, Walmart, Atlantic Avenue/Cement Hill Road, and Travis Boulevard.

Intersections along Travis Boulevard include 2nd Street, Pennsylvania Avenue, Webster Street, Union Avenue, Holiday Lane, Fairfield Avenue, Solano Mall, and Oliver Road. Additional intersections include Oliver Road at Woodcreek Drive and Oliver Road at Gateway Boulevard. This project also includes installation of fiber optic conduit on North Texas Street from Travis Boulevard to Air Base Parkway. $1,800,000 ($935,150 has
been secured through
a Highway Safety
Improvement Program
(HSIP) grant 3rd Quarter 2023
Citywide
Installation of pedestrian crossing enhancements at five locations: North Texas Street and Wisconsin Street, North Texas and Oak Street, Travis Boulevard and Phoenix Drive, Travis Boulevard and Clay Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue and Empire Street. These improvements include high intensity acti- vated crosswalk (HAWK) beacon installation accompanied by ADA curb ramps and relevant signs and pavement markings.
$1,300,000 ($1,226,771
has been secured
through an HSIP grant)3rd Quarter 2021
Packet Page 74 of 390Attachment 4 Page 8 of 17

3-9
TABLE 3-2: Anticipated Near Term CIP Projects
Location Project Description Estimate ($)
Tentative Completion
Date
Citywide Upgrade existing guardrails and their end treatments at 25 locations throughout the City. $655,400 (Funding has
been secured through
an HSIP grant)3rd Quarter 2023
Corporation
Yard
Electric infrastructure upgrade project, along with site improvements and the purchase of charging stations to incorporate new zero-emission electric buses into the Fairfield and Suisun Transit fleet.$8,800,000 3rd Quarter 2023 TOTAL $41,722,400
Source: City of Fairfield 2019-2021 Capital Improvement Program *Caltrans 2021 Cycle 5 Action Transportation Program Score Order The General Plan provides the City with an opportu-
nity to identify strategic long-term improvements to
enhance or maintain existing capacity and improve
safety for all modes of travel. The City has previously completed feasibility studies for various roadways, but budgetary constraints have limited the implementa-
tion of all projects and additional studies may need to occur. Key roadways to consider include:
•Suisun Valley Road and Pittman Road Overcrossing
widening
•Air Base Parkway and Heath Drive westbound left
turn movements
•I-80 and Manuel Campos Parkway eastbound right
turn on to Manuel Campos Parkway queues at the
off-ramp
•Manuel Campos Parkway westbound left turn
queues to turn on to Hilborn Road
•Air Base Parkway between North Texas Street and
I-80 roadway widening
•West Texas Street between downtown Fairfield
and Interstate 80/Oliver Road
Packet Page 75 of 390Attachment 4 Page 9 of 17

3-10

3.2 Existing Traffic Conditions
Existing Vehicle-Miles Traveled
(VMT) Summary
On September 27, 2013, Governor Jerry Brown signed
SB 743 into law, which initiated a process to change
transportation impact analyses completed in support
of CEQA documentation. SB 743 eliminates level of
service (LOS) as a basis for determining significant
transportation impacts un-der CEQA and provides a
new performance metric, vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

As a result, the State is shifting from measuring a proj- ect’s impact to drivers (LOS) to measuring the impact
of driving (VMT) as it relates to achieving State goals of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, encour-
aging infill development, and improving public health
through active transportation. Statewide SB 743 imple-
mentation occurred on July 1, 2020.

Vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) is a measure of the
transportation system’s impact on the climate, the
environment, and human health. Public Resources
Code Section 21099 of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) aligns local environmental review
methodologies with statewide objectives to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, encourage infill
mixed-use development in designated priority devel-
opment areas, reduce regional sprawl, and reduce
vehicle-miles traveled in California. 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 in Solano
County. Approximately 51% of greenhouse gas emis-
sions in Solano County are associated with transporta-
tion (County of Solano Climate Action Plan, 2011).

Typical VMT metrics estimate household VMT per
capita for residential uses, home-work VMT per worker
for employment-generating uses, and total VMT per
service population. The house-hold VMT per capita is
the sum of all trip distances by motor vehicle on a typ- ical weekday associated with a residential use, such as trips to work, school, or retail, divided by the number of residents in the study area. The home-work VMT per
worker is the sum of all commute trip distances on a
typical weekday by motor vehicles between homes and
workplaces, divided by the number of workers in the
TABLE 3-3: Existing Fairfield VMT
Metrics
VMT Metric
Existing VMT
(per weekday)
Home-based VMT per Resident¹

25.77 (SFR)

19.73 (MFR)
Home-work VMT per Worker 20.77
Note:

1. City Model calculates home-based VMT per resident for single family residents (SFR) and multifamily residents (MFR) separately
Source: City of Fairfield Travel Demand Model (Base Year 2020) study area. The total VMT per service population is the sum of all trip distances by motor vehicle on a typical weekday, divided by the total number of residents and
workers in the study area.

Based on the City of Fairfield Traffic Impact Reports
(TIR) Guidelines (2020), only home-based VMT per res-
ident and home-work VMT per worker are estimated.

Existing (base year 2020) City Model VMT metrics are
summarized in Table 3-3.

The City Model planning area is limited to the City of
Fairfield and adjacent areas outside of the City bound- aries. Supplemental data from the new STA Solano-
Napa Activity-Based Model (SNABM), the US Census’
Journey to Work database, and location-based services
“Big Data” were analyzed to better understand the real- world travel patterns between Fairfield and the greater Northern California region.

Packet Page 76 of 390Attachment 4 Page 10 of 17

3-11
TABLE 3-4: Base Year Fairfield VMT
Metrics Comparison
VMT Metric
City Model
Base Year
2020 VMT
SNABM
Base Year
2015 VMT
Home-based VMT per
Resident¹

25.77 (SFR)

19.73 (MFR)25.30
Home-work VMT per
Worker 20.77 28.65
Total VMT per Service
Population²--43.32
Note:

1. City Model calculates home-based VMT per resident
for single family residents (SFR) and multifamily residents (MFR) sepa-rately. SNABM calculated home-based VMT per
resident for all residents combined

2. City Model does not provide total VMT per service
population calculation
Source: City of Fairfield Travel Demand Model (Base Year 2020) and SNABM (base year 2015)

STA SONOMA-NAPA ACTIVITY-BASED

MODEL (SNABM)
SNABM is a regional model that extends beyond the
City Model boundaries. A greater geographic area
means trips can travel longer distances. A comparison
of the two models’ base year VMT metrics are summa-
rized in Table 3-4.

Both models have similar home-based VMT per resi-
dent values. The SNABM has higher home-work VMT
metrics because the trips can travel greater distances
than in the City Model. As discussed below, most
work-related trips occur between Fairfield and the
greater regional area.

Figure 3-12: Fairfield Home and Work Flow
Source: US Census Bureau (2018 American Community Survey), Center for Economic Studies, LEHD

JOURNEY TO WORK DATA
The US Census American Community Survey collects
data on workers’ travel from home to work. Figure 3-2
illustrates three types of home and work relationships:

Fairfield workers living outside of Fairfield, people who live and work in Fairfield, and Fairfield residents work- ing outside of Fairfield. Figure 3 3 illustrates Fairfield workers’ travel distance and direction to work and
the top ten home city locations. Figure 3-4 illustrates Fairfield residents’ travel distance and direction to work and the top ten employment city locations.

A total of 75,429 Journey to Work surveys were col-
lected from Fairfield residents and workers in 2018.

Only about 12% of surveyed people both live and work
in Fairfield, and about 88% of Fairfield workers and
residents travel outside of Fairfield to or from work.

About 76% of Fairfield workers live outside of Fairfield, and about 80% of Fairfield residents work outside of
Fairfield. Fairfield has a net out commute of approxi-
mately 7,500.

Packet Page 77 of 390Attachment 4 Page 11 of 17

3-12
Figure 3-3: Fairfield Workers Home Locations Figure 3-4: Fairfield Residents Work Locations Approximately 53% of Fairfield residents travel less
than 25 miles to work. About 60% of Fairfield residents travel in the south and southwest direction to work.

Six of the top ten Fairfield work locations are located south and southwest of Fairfield: San Francisco, Vallejo, Oakland, Concord, Benicia, and San Jose.

Source: US Census Bureau (2018 American Community Survey), Center for Economic Studies, LEHD
Source: US Census Bureau (2018 American Community Survey), Center for Economic Studies, LEHD
Approximately 65% of Fairfield workers live less than
25 miles from Fairfield, with about 45% living within 10 miles of Fairfield and 21% between 10 and 25 miles.

About one-third of Fairfield workers live in the north- east direction. Three of the top ten worker home city
locations are located northeast of Fairfield: Vacaville, Sacramento, and Dixon.

Packet Page 78 of 390Attachment 4 Page 12 of 17

Figure 3-5: Fairfield Active Transportation Profile
10-3-13
The US Census data was also used in the Solano
Countywide Active Transportation Plan 2020. The
Fairfield Active Transportation Plan included an info-
graphic summarizing commute travel modes and
demographic data of commuters who travel via active
transportation modes, as illustrated on Figure 3-5.

Most trip distances are less than five miles (67%), indi- cating that most trips stay within Fairfield. Work trips make up about 18.2% of all trip purposes. The primary
commute trip travel mode is by car (91.5%). About

2.2% of commuters took transit, 1.7% walked, and 0.5%
biked. The remaining 4.1% of commuters either tele-
commuted or went to work using an unidentified travel
mode. The lowest income category of people, making
less than $25,000 a year, make up about 35.4% of all
Fairfield commuters, but represent about 69.2% of
commuters who bike and about 38.7% of commuters
who walk to work.

There is potential to reduce VMT in Fairfield with travel mode shifts. Some commute trips can shift from per-
sonal vehicle to active transportation or telecommute.

Vehicle trips with trip distances that are less than
one mile (28%) can be shifted to walk trips, and trips
between one and three miles (30%) can be shifted to
bike trips. The success of mode choice shift to active
transportation also depends on the availability and
safety of Fairfield’s active transportation network and its ability to meet the needs of current and future users (further discussed in Section 3.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities).

Sources: Solano County Active Transportation Plan: Fairfield, US Census American Community Survey (2017, 5-year estimates), and California Household Survey (2012)
Packet Page 79 of 390Attachment 4 Page 13 of 17

3-14
LOCATION-BASED SERVICES “BIG DATA”
Location-based services “Big Data” from mobile devices
were purchased from Streetlight for the 2019 horizon
year to reflect pre-COVID conditions. The data had
a spatial resolution of around ten meters and had
the ability to measure people’s activities over a given period of time, including times when mobile devices
were at rest. Traditional travel survey methods do not
capture specific travel routes and travel distances are self-reported estimations. Big Data’s higher spatial res- olution and geographic tagging make the data suitable
for understanding users of specific roadway segments
and capturing zone to zone travel patterns and provide
more accurate travel distance data.

The data provided vehicle-miles traveled information
between geographic zones and travel patterns. The
analysis zone sets included 70 zones within Fairfield
developed from the transportation analysis zones
(TAZs) used in the City Model and aggregated into
eight districts, nine external zones to represent the
areas outside of Fairfield, and seven zones at City of
Fairfield gateway roadway segments. The zones are
listed in Table 3-5. The Fairfield and external zones
were used as origin and destination zones. The gate-
way zones were used to capture trips traveling through
each specific gateway segment. This analysis provided
information on the travel patterns (e.g., trip routes and trip distribution) to and from Fairfield.

TABLE 3-5: Analysis Zones
Fairfield Districts External Zones Gateway Segments
Cordelia Benicia SR-12 west of Fairfield
Green Valley Circle Oaks SR-12 east of Fairfield
Business and Industrial Park (BIP)Contra Costa I-80 southwest of Fairfield Downtown Davis - Woodland I-80 north of Fairfield
Central Fairfield Grizzly - Rio Vista I-680 south of Fairfield Solano Town Center Napa Peabody Rd north of Fairfield
Fairfield/Vacaville Train Station Specific Plan Area
(FFV Train Station)Sacramento Vanden Rd northeast of Fairfield Travis Air Force Base (AFB)Vacaville
Vallejo
Source: Fehr & Peers, March 2021
Packet Page 80 of 390Attachment 4 Page 14 of 17

10-3-15
TABLE 3-6: Trips between Fairfield and External Zones
Fairfield Districts BeniciaCircle OaksContra CostaDavis - WoodlandGrizzly - Rio VistaNapaSacramentoVacavilleVallejoTOTALCordelia 1%0%2%0%0%1%1%2%3%11% Green Valley 0%0%1%0%0%1%0%2%2%7%
BIP 0%0%1%1%0%0%1%3%1%8%
Downtown 0%0%1%0%1%0%1%3%1%8%
Central Fairfield 1%0%4%2%2%2%3%19%6%39%
Solano Town Center 0%0%0%0%0%0%0%3%1%7%
FFV Train Station 0%0%1%0%0%0%1%9%1%12%
Travis AFB 0%0%0%1%0%0%1%5%0%8%
TOTAL 4%1%9%4%5%7%7%47%16%
Source: Streetlight Data, March 2021
Based on the Big Data analysis, there were approx-
imately 3,978,959 daily trips that travel to, from, or
within Fairfield. About 40% of those trips travel from an external zone to Fairfield, 40% travel from Fairfield to an external zone, and 20% stay within Fairfield. Table
3-6 summarizes the percentage of trips that travel
between Fairfield and external zones.

As shown in Table 3-6, the top three travel markets
between a Fairfield district and an external zone are
between Central Fairfield and Vacaville (19%), Train
Station and Vacaville (9%), and Central Fairfield and
Vallejo (6%). The shading in the Total row and column
represents the magnitude of trips that travel to a spe- cific Fairfield district or external zone. Darker shading indicates greater magnitude. As shown in the Total
row, the top three external destinations are Vacaville
(47%), Vallejo (16%), and Contra Costa (9%). The Total
column shows that the top three Fairfield destinations
are Central Fairfield (39%), Train Station (12%), and
Cordelia (11%).

The percentage of trips between Fairfield and external
zones using each gateway is shown in Table 3-7. The
top gateways used to travel to and from Fairfield are
I-80 north of the Fairfield boundary (39%), I-80 south- west of Fairfield (20%), I-680 south of Fairfield (13%), and Peabody Road north of Fairfield (12%).

TABLE 3-7: Trips between Fairfield and
External Zones by Gateway
Gateway
Percentage
of Trips
SR-12 west of Fairfield 9%
SR-12 east of Fairfield 2%
I-80 southwest of Fairfield 20%
I-80 north of Fairfield 39%
I-680 south of Fairfield 13%
Peabody Rd north of Fairfield 12%
Vanden Rd northeast of Fairfield 4%
Source: Streetlight Data, March 2021
Packet Page 81 of 390Attachment 4 Page 15 of 17

R o c k v ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathy RdSunsetAvM a n gels BlMain StCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWalters RdMa
nka
s
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
een Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Red TopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u r a geD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRdChadbourne RdBurgan BlDover Av2ndStPeabody RdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Wa t er man Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvania AvUnion AvLopes RdC ement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordel i a R d
Business Center DrClay Bank RdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos Pkw
y
Travis Av
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park Southbrook
Park
Gary
Falati
Park
N

P
A

U
N

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

I
N

E
Cement
Hill
Elkhorn
Peak
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
OkellHill
Suisun
Hill
Sulphur
Springs
Mountain
Twin
Sisters
11 22
33 44
55 66
77 88 99
1212
1010
1313
1111
1414 15151616
1717 1818
2020
1919
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
910
11 12
1314
15 16
C:\GIS\MXD\FairfieldGPU_030821.mxd
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 3/8/2021
0 1 20.5
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 ·12
·12
%&80
%&80
%&680
3-6 Study Intersections and Segments
Intersection Analysis
Locations (16)
Segment Analysis
Locations (20)
AM PM
LOS
D
E
F
3-16
Existing Level Of Service (LOS)
Traffic Analysis
This section provides a summary of the existing traf-
fic conditions. Traffic counts were collected at 16
signalized intersection and 20 roadway segments, as
shown in Figure 3-6. Due to COVID-19 and the sup-
pressed travel patterns resulting from the shelter-in-
place orders, morning and evening peak hour turning
movement counts and roadway segment counts were
compiled from the City’s database, recently completed
projects between the years of 2017 and 2020, and “Big
Data.” “Big Data” location-based services were used at
intersections where recent turning movement count
data was not available. A growth factor of 1% per
year was applied to these volumes to represent 2020
pre-pandemic conditions.

INTERSECTION LOS
The operations of roadway facilities are described with the term “level of service” (LOS). LOS is a qualitative description of traffic flow from a vehicle driver’s per- spective based on factors such as speed, travel time,
delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels of service
are defined ranging from LOS A (free-flow conditions)
to LOS F (over capacity conditions). LOS E corresponds
to opera-tions “at capacity.” When volumes exceed
capacity, stop-and-go conditions result, and opera-
tions are designated LOS F.

The City of Fairfield General Plan 2014 states in Policy CI 3.1 that evening Peak Hour (PM Peak Hour) levels
of service shall generally meet the following standards:
•Arterial Streets: LOS “D” or better
•Collector Streets: LOS “C” or better
•Local Streets: LOS “B” or better
There can be caveats to these standards when public
health, safety, and welfare requirements warrant.

Intersections may be permitted to maintain lower levels of service if urban design, community character, pedes- trian circulation, access for bicyclists, or other goals limit necessary road or street improvements. Select
arterial intersections may be permitted to maintain a
Level of Service of “E” where the estimated construction cost of required improvements is significant relative to the expected reduction in congestion.

The Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan must demonstrate that the City is able to fund roadway
improvements. LOS B and LOS C policies may be VMT-
inducing as it may result in additional transportation
investment to the roadway system beyond what the
City can accommodate either in terms of new construc-
tion or operations and maintenance.

Signalized Intersections
Traffic conditions at signalized intersections were eval- uated using methods developed by the Transportation
Research Board (TRB), as documented in the Highway
Capacity Manual, 6th Edition (HCM 6th Edition) for vehi- cles using the analysis software Synchro 10.0.

Packet Page 82 of 390Attachment 4 Page 16 of 17

RockvilleRd
Shiloh RdAbernathy RdSunsetAvMangels BlMain StCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWalters RdMa
nka
s
CornerRdLyonRd Meridian RdGr
een Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
TravisBl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
CourageDr
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRdChadbourne RdBurgan BlDover Av2ndStPeabody RdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAirBase Pkwy
WatermanBl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvania AvUnion AvLopes RdC ement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
CordeliaRd
Business Center DrClay Bank RdCement Hill Rd
Manuel Campos Pkw
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

U
N

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
ParkTabor
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

N A PA C O UN 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
11 22
33 44
55 66
77 88 99
1212
1010
1313
1111
1414 15151616
1717 1818
2020
1919
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
910
11 12
1314
15 16
C:\GIS\MXD\FairfieldGPU_030821.mxd
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 3/8/2021
0 1 20.5
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 ·12
·12
%&80
%&80
%&680
3-6 Study Intersections and Segments
Intersection Analysis
Locations (16)
Segment Analysis
Locations (20)
AM PM
LOS
D
E
F
R o c k v ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathy RdSunsetAvM a n gels BlMain StCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWalters RdMa
nka
s
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
ee
n Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Red TopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u r a geD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRdChadbourne RdBurgan BlDover Av2ndStPeabody RdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvania AvUnion AvLopes RdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordel ia R d
Business C enter DrClay Bank RdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos Pkwy
Travis Av
Paradise ValleyGolf CourseRancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park Southbrook
Park
GaryFalatiParkN A PA C O UN 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

3-18
The HCM methodologies calculate control delay at an
intersection based on inputs such as traffic volumes,
lane geometry, signal phasing and timing, pedestrian
crossing times, and peak hour factors. Control delay is defined as the delay directly associated with the traffic control device (i.e., a stop sign or a traffic signal) and specifically includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration
delay. The relationship between LOS and control delay
is summarized in Table 3-8 for signalized intersections and in Table 3-9 for unsignalized intersections.

Table 3-10 summarizes the intersection LOS during the
morning (AM) and evening (PM) peak hours at each of
the 16 intersections.

The previous General Plan notes that LOS standards
were only applied to the evening peak hour. This anal-
ysis applies the previous General Plan LOS standard to
both morning and evening peak hours. The following
intersections do not meet the LOS standards.
•Intersection 1: Business Center Drive/Green Valley
Road (PM Peak)
•Intersection 5: West Texas Street/Pennsylvania
Avenue (PM Peak)
•Intersection 9: Dover Avenue/Air Base Parkway
(AM and PM Peak)
•Intersection 12: Peabody Road/Cement Hill Road-
Vanden Road (AM Peak)
TABLE 3-8: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
LOS Description Delay in seconds
A
Progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase.

Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.≤ 10 B
Progression is good, cycle lengths are short, or both. More vehicles stop than with LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.> 10 to 20 C
Higher congestion may result from fair progression, longer cycle lengths, or both.

Individual cycle failures may begin to appear at this level, though many still pass through the intersection without stopping.> 20 to 35
D
The influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high V/C ratios.

Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.> 35 to 55
E
This level is considered by many agencies to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences.> 55 to 80 F
This level is considered unacceptable with oversaturation, which is when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. This level may also occur at high V/C ratios below 1.0 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be contributing factors to such delay levels, and most cycles fail to clear the queue.> 80
Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition
TABLE 3-9: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria
LOS Description Delay in seconds
A Little or no delay.≤ 10
B Short traffic delays.> 10 to 15
C Average traffic delays.> 15 to 25
D Long traffic delays.> 25 to 35
E Very long traffic delays.> 35 to 50
F Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded.> 50 Source: Highway Capacity Manual 6th Edition
Packet Page 84 of 390Attachment 5 Page 1 of 17

Photo credit: News Break
3-19

ROADWAY SEGMENT LOS
LOS thresholds can be developed for general road-
way functional classifications using the Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM). The Planning and Preliminary
Engineering Guide to HCM discusses these thresholds
in greater detail.

The LOS capacity thresholds in Table 3-10 are generally appropriate for suburban and rural areas. Table 3-11
shows the roadway classification, number of lanes,
peak hour volumes, and LOS for the 20 roadway seg-
ments analyzed in the Planning Area.

Table 3-12 shows all analyzed segments operate and
meet the previous General Plan’s Policy CI 3.1 that
arterial streets must operate at LOS D or better during the evening peak hour. This analysis applies the LOS
standards to both morning and evening peak hours.

No roadway segments in the Planning Area operate
below the City’s General Plan policy.

TABLE 3-10: Existing LOS, 2020
Int.
#Intersections Peak Hour1 Delay (in seconds)LOS2
1 Business Center Drive/Green Valley Road
AM
PM

22.2 39.2
C
E
2 Business Center Drive/Suisun Valley Road
AM
PM

19.0 22.2
B
C
3 SR-12/Beck Avenue
AM
PM

45.0 43.3
D
D
4 SR-12/Pennsylvania Avenue
AM
PM

23.2 40.0
C
D
5 West Texas Street/Beck Avenue
AM
PM

41.7 85.2
D
F
6 West Texas Street/Pennsylvania Avenue
AM
PM

43.0 51.8
D
D
7 Travis Boulevard/Pennsylvania Avenue
AM
PM

50.6 54.5
D
D
8 Travis Boulevard/North Texas Street
AM
PM

37.5 38.2
D
D
9 Dover Avenue/Air Base Parkway
AM
PM

60.2 62.1
E
E
10 Waterman Boulevard/Hilborn Road-I-80 Southbound
On-Ramp
AM
PM

28.7 47.7
C
D
11 North Texas Street/Manuel Campos Parkway
AM
PM

42.0 43.3
D
D
12 Peabody Road/Cement Hill Road-Vanden Road
AM
PM

58.8 19.5
E
B
13 Air Base Parkway/Clay Bank Road
AM
PM

39.4 41.8
D
D
14 North Texas Street/Westbound Air Base Parkway
Interchange
AM
PM

30.0 24.1
C
C
15 North Texas Street/Eastbound Air Base Parkway
Interchange
AM
PM

29.4 35.4
C
D
16 Rockville Road-West Texas Street/Oliver Road-I-80
Southbound On-Ramp
AM
PM

43.1 48.2
D
D
Notes:

1. AM = Weekday morning peak hour; PM = Weekday evening peak hour

2. Delay calculated per HCM 6th Edition methodologies.

Bold indicates unacceptable operations.

Source: Fehr & Peers, March 2021
Packet Page 85 of 390Attachment 5 Page 2 of 17

3-20
TABLE 3-11: Peak Hour Volume Thresholds
Facility Type A B C D E
Minor 2-Lane
Highway 90 200 680 1,410 1,740
Major 2-Lane
Highway 120 290 790 1,600 2,050
4-Lane, Multi-
lane Highway1 1,070 1,760 2,530 3,280 3,650
2-Lane Arterial --970 1,760 1,870
4-Lane Arterial,
Undivided --1,750 2,740 2,890
4-Lane Arterial,
Divided --1,920 3,540 3,740
6-Lane Arterial,
Divided --2,710 5,320 5,600
8-Lane Arterial,
Divided --3,720 7,110 7,470
2-Lane Freeway1 1,110 2,010 2,880 3,570 4,010
2-Lane Freeway
+ Auxiliary Lane1 1,410 2,550 3,640 4,490 5,035
3-Lane Freeway1 1,700 3,080 4,400 5,410 6,060
3-Lane Freeway
+ Auxiliary Lane1 2,010 3,640 5,180 6,350 7,100
4-Lane Freeway1 2,320 4,200 5,950 7,280 8,140
Notes:
1 LOS capacity threshold is for one direction
- LOS is not achievable due to type of facility
Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021
TABLE 3-12: Segment Daily Level of Service
Seg
#Segment
Roadway
Classification
Number
of Lanes
AM Peak
Hour
Volume LOS
PM Peak
Hour
Volume LOS
1 Suisun Valley Road between
Oakwood Drive and Campus
Lane Minor Arterial 4 1,008 C 1,010 C
2 Suisun Parkway at Suisun
Creek Major Arterial 4 557 C 702 C
3 Red Top Road between I-80
and Watt Drive Minor Arterial 2 834 C 830 C
4 Lopes Road between Brittany
Drive and Silver Creek Road Minor Arterial 2 578 C 628 C 5 Cordelia Road between Chad-
bourne Road and Beck Avenue Major Arterial 2 175 C 295 C 6 North Texas Street at Putah
South Canal Major Arterial 4 1,161 C 1,403 C
7 Hilborn Road south of Vista
Grande Minor Arterial 4 1,251 C 1,193 C
8 Dover Avenue between
Cement Hill Road and
Marigold Drive Minor Arterial 4 771 C 769 C
9 Clay Bank Road north of
Cement Hill Road Minor Arterial 2 742 C 865 C
10 Pennsylvania Avenue between
Canterbury Drive and Tabor
Avenue Minor Arterial 2 427 C 455 C
11 North Texas Street between
Utah Street and East
Tennessee Street Major Arterial 4 1,215 C 1,466 C
12 Manuel Campos Parkway east
of Clay Bank Road Minor Arterial 2 832 C 988 D
13 Waterman Boulevard west of
10 Gate Road Minor Arterial 4 1,438 C 1,691 C
14 Air Base Parkway between
Heath Drive and North Texas
Street Major Arterial 4 2,665 D 2,877 D
Packet Page 86 of 390Attachment 5 Page 3 of 17

3-21
TABLE 3-12: Segment Daily Level of Service
Seg
#Segment
Roadway
Classification
Number
of Lanes
AM Peak
Hour
Volume LOS
PM Peak
Hour
Volume LOS
15 Air Base Parkway between
Dover Avenue and Clay Bank
Road Major Arterial 4 2,130 D 2,274 D
16 East Tabor Avenue between
Sunset Avenue and Falcon
Drive Minor Arterial 2 937 C 999 D
17 Oliver Road between Travis
Boulevard and Woodcreek
Drive Minor Arterial 4 647 C 615 C
18 Travis Boulevard between
Monroe Street and Adams
Street Major Arterial 4 1,209 C 1,642 C
19 Travis Boulevard between
Flamingo Drive and Phoenix
Drive Major Arterial 4 919 C 1,217 C
20 West Texas Street between
1st Street and 2nd Street Major Arterial 4 1,414 C 2,082 D Source: Fehr & Peers, 2021
Packet Page 87 of 390Attachment 5 Page 4 of 17

Class I Class II Class III Class IV
3-22

3.3 Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle planning and design typically relies on guide-
lines and design standards established by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the Highway
Design Manual (Chapter 100 Basic Design Policies and
Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design). The
Highway Design Manual provides for four distinct types
of bikeway facilities, as described below.
•Class I Bikeways (Shared-Use Path) provide
a completely separate right-of-way and are des-
ignated for the exclusive use of bicycles and
pedestrians, with vehicle and pedestrian crossflow
minimized. In general, bike paths serve corridors
where on-street facilities are not feasible or where
sufficient right-of-way exists to allow them to be
constructed.
•Class II Bikeways (Bicycle Lanes) are dedicated
lanes for bicyclists generally adjacent to the outer
vehicle travel lanes. These lanes have special lane
markings, pavement legends, and signage. Bicycle
lanes are typically at least five feet wide. Adjacent
vehicle parking and vehicle/pedestrian crossflow
are permitted. Class II buffered bike lanes pro-
vide greater separation from an adjacent traffic
lane and/or between the bike lane and on-street
parking. This separation is created with chevron or
diagonal striping.
•Class III Bikeways (Bicycle Route) are desig-
nated by signs or pavement markings for shared
use with pedestrians or motor vehicles but have
no separated bike right-of-way or lane striping.

Bike routes serve either to a) provide a connection
to other bicycle facilities where dedicated facilities
are infeasible, or b) designate preferred routes
through high-demand corridors.
•Class IV Bikeways (cycle tracks or “separated”
bikeways) provide a right-of-way designated
exclusively for bicycle travel within a roadway and
are protected from other vehicle traffic by physical
barriers, including, but not limited to, grade sep-
aration, flexible posts, inflexible vertical barriers
such as raised curbs, or parked cars.

The Planning Area has a 415-mile vehicular roadway
network, with 42 miles with designated bicycle facilities as shown on Figure 3 7. This includes 11 miles of multi- use paths and 31 miles of bicycle lanes. The City of
Fairfield has many residential, low-volume, low-speed
roadways that do not have designated bicycle facilities, but that can serve as facilities for bicycle travel where most bicyclists would feel comfortable traveling.

Closing gaps in the City’s bicycle network and provid-
ing safer routes would facilitate better travel between destinations throughout the Planning Area. Some loca-
tions include barrier to travel (such as freeways, creeks, etc.) that could be bridged by additional investments
such as an overcrossing or roadway reconfiguration.

Most segments included below were taken from the
Solano Countywide Active Transportation Plan (ATP)
(2020) and is subject to change as proposed land use
patterns and circulation within the City changes as part of the General Plan Update. It is also noted that the
segments listed are not an exhaustive list. Critical gaps in the bicycle network include:

Packet Page 88 of 390Attachment 5 Page 5 of 17

3-23
•Red Top Road from McGary Road and further north
•Lopes Road from Red Top Road to West Cordelia
Road
•Pittman Road from Suisun Valley Road to
Cordelia Road, including the widening of the I-80
overcrossing
•Link Road from Pittman Road to Cordelia Road
•Oliver Road from Mankas Corner Road to Rockville
Road
•Beck Avenue from the Fairfield Linear Park to
Cordelia Road
•Pennsylvania Avenue from Woolner Avenue to
Tabor Avenue
•North Texas Street from Clay Street to Manuel
Campos Parkway
•Dover Avenue from Manuel Campos Parkway to
East Travis Boulevard
•Clay Bank Road from Quail Drive to East Tabor
Avenue
•Peabody Road from the northern City limits to Air
Base Parkway
•Residential areas off Mankas Corner Road and
Hilborn Road to connect to the City’s core Central
Business District across I-80
•Dickson Hill Road from North Texas Street to
Manuel Campos Parkway
•Cement Hill Road from North Texas Street to Clay
Bank Road
•East Tabor Avenue from North Texas Street to
Walters Road
•West Texas Street from Pennsylvania Avenue and
Clay Street
•Auto Mall Parkway from Chadbourne Road to Beck
Avenue
•Courage Drive from Chadbourne Road to Beck
Avenue
•Airbase Parkway from Dover Avenue to Walters
Road
•Linear Park Pathway connections between Dover
Avenue to Clay Bank Road
The Complete Streets Safety Assessment (CSSA) led by
Berkeley’s SafeTREC notes a few locations for bicycle
improvements listed below:
•Anna Kyle Elementary School
–Consider providing bicycle detection and
clearance time on the Eisenhower Street
approach as STA ATP recommendations are
implemented
•Fairfield Linear Park at East Tabor Avenue
–Provide an “escape ramp” for bicyclists travel-
ing westbound to access the sidewalk
–Provide a sharrow in the outer left turn lane of
the westbound approach for left turning bicy-
clists. Alternatively, bicyclists can choose to use
the Class I facility for the two stage turn option
–Consolidate and close driveways along East
Tabor Avenue and North Texas Street near
the intersection to reduce conflict points for
bicyclists and motorists
The ATP also noted several bicycle collision hotspots
throughout the City. These locations include West
Texas Street from Beck Avenue to Washington Street:
•Pennsylvania Avenue from Texas Street to Travis
Boulevard
•Travis Boulevard from Holiday Lane to Sunset
Avenue
•North Texas Street from East Travis Boulevard to
Dickson Hill Road
•East Tabor Avenue from North Texas Street to Clay
Bank Road
•Atlantic Avenue from Heather Drive to East Atlantic
Avenue
There are over 100 corridor segments in the Planning
Area notes in the ATP that is recommended for bikeway
projects supported through community outreach and
feedback from City staff. To support the City’s equity
goals, these projects include bicycle infrastructure
installations and feasibility studies that provide con- nectivity, gap closures, and provide an all ages and
abilities network. Note that many of the recommended
improvements, however, face serious feasibility and
funding gaps that may make implementation of the ATP
difficult or impossible.

Packet Page 89 of 390Attachment 5 Page 6 of 17

3-24
Through community outreach and feedback from City
staff, five projects were identified as near-term priority projects.
•Trail network Expansion Study: This project
includes a study to expand the Linear Park Trail
from its current terminus in the northeast to the
Fairfield-Vacaville Amtrak Station, as well as incor-
porate other proposed trails and paths identified
through the ATP.
•Red Top Road: Implement low-cost Class IV sepa-
rated bikeways on Red Top Road. This route would
connect the existing countywide bicycle facility
on McGary Road to the proposed gap closure
bikeway projects on Lopes Road and Business
Center Drive, linking the Cordelia Junction area to
Downtown Fairfield. This project would establish
a safe route to Rodriguez High School, access to
nearby industrial areas, and closing a gap to transit
for FAST Transit Route 8.
•Lopes Road: Implement Class II Buffered Bicycle
Lanes closes a gap in the countywide backbone
network and serves a link over I-80 through
Cordelia Junction between retail and industrial
businesses. This project would establish a safe
route to Rodriguez High School and closes a gap
to transit for FAST Transit Route 8.
•Business Center Drive: Conduct a feasibility study
to determine the most appropriate route and
consider installing a Class IV Separated Bikeway.

This project would provide a link between the Bay
Ridge Trail and the Fairfield Linear Park Trail and
closes a gap in the countywide backbone network
from Lopes Road. A safe route to Nelda Munday
Elementary School, InterCoast Colleges Fairfield
Campus, and Solano Community Collection would
be created and closes a gap to transit for FAST
Transit Routes 7 and 8.
•Linear Park to Downtown Fairfield Accessibility:

This project would look at two routes to implement
an all ages and abilities facilities with the intent to complement and connect with the planned proj-
ect on West Texas Street and North Texas Street.

The 2nd Street Class III Bicycle Route linked the
Linear Park north toward the Solano Town Center
and south to West Texas Street, providing access
to Downtown Fairfield. This project would pro-
vide a safe route to Fairview Elementary School
and close a gap to transit for local FAST Transit
Route 1. This route would connect through one
of Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s
Priority Development Areas and one Metropolitan
Transportation Commission Community of
Concern. The Union Avenue Two-Way Class IV
Separated Bikeway would include an outreach
to local neighborhoods and a parking study. This
bikeway would establish a safe route and frontage
access for Armijo High School and would provide
direct access to the Union Avenue Bicycle and
Pedestrian Overcrossing to the Suisun-Fairfield
Amtrak Station if coupled with Jefferson Street.

This project also closes a gap to transit for local
FAST Transit Route 6 and connects through one
Priority Development Area and three Communities
of Concern.

Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian circulation and access within the City con-
sist largely of sidewalk infrastructure supported by
roadway crossing treatments, multi-use paved trails,
and unpaved recreational trails. The City of Fairfield
currently has a Walk Score of 32 out of 100 according
to the real-estate website www.WalkScore.com . This
relatively low Walk Score indicates that most of the
trips throughout the Planning Area are more conve-
niently made by vehicle than by walking resulting from
the diversity of the land use pattern in the City and
existing pedestrian system infrastructure.

The Solano Countywide Active Transportation Plan
(2020) notes that Fairfield has a total of 564 miles of existing sidewalk infrastructure as shown on Figure 3 8, which includes a total of sidewalks on both sides of the street. There are approximately 830 miles of potential
maximum sidewalk coverage (i.e., sidewalks on both
sides of a street segment). The ATP included pedes-
trian collision hotspots and pedestrian-related projects, but it should be noted that these recommendations
are not an exhaustive list. It is subject to change based on proposed land use patterns and circulation as part
of the General Plan Update. The Plan notes several
pedestrian collision hotspots throughout the City.

These locations include:
•West Texas Street from I-80 interchange to
Washington Street
•Pennsylvania Avenue from Texas Street to Essex
Drive
Packet Page 90 of 390Attachment 5 Page 7 of 17

3-25
R o c k v ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathy RdSunsetAvM a n gels BlMain StCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWalters RdMa
nka
s
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
ee
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Red TopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad
Av
Ohio St
C o u r a geD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRdChadbourne RdBurgan BlDover Av2ndStPeabody RdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvania AvUnion AvLopes RdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordel ia R d
Business Center DrClay Bank RdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos Pkwy
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 UN 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
C:\GIS\MXD\FairfieldGPU_030821.mxd
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 3/8/2021
01 20.5
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 ·12
·12
%&80
%&80
%&680
3-7 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
Class II Bicycle Lane
Class I Multi-Use Path
ProposedExisting
Class II Buffered Bicycle Lane
Class III Bicycle Route
Class III Bicycle Boulevard
Class IV Separated Bikeway
Feasibility Study
Figure 3-7: Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
R o c k v il le R d
Shiloh RdAbernathy RdSunsetAvM a n gels BlMain StCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWalters RdMa
nk
a
s
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
e
en Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Red TopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad
Av
Ohio St
C o u r a g eD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRdChadbourne RdBurgan BlDover Av2ndStPeabody RdO liv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvania AvUnion AvLopes RdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordel ia R d
Business Center DrClay Bank RdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos Pkw
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 UN 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
TwinSisters
C:\GIS\MXD\FairfieldGPU_030821.mxd
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 3/8/2021
01 20.5
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 ·12
·12
%&80
%&80
%&680
3-7 Existing and Proposed Bicycle Facilities
Class II Bicycle Lane
Class I Multi-Use Path
ProposedExisting
Class II Buffered Bicycle Lane
Class III Bicycle Route
Class III Bicycle Boulevard
Class IV Separated Bikeway
Feasibility Study
RockvilleRd
Shiloh RdAbernathy RdSunsetAvMangels BlMain StCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWalters RdMa
nka
s
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 a geD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRdChadbourne RdBurgan BlDover Av2ndStPeabody RdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Wa t erman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvania AvUnion AvLopes RdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordel i a R d
Business Center DrClay Bank RdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos Pkw
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 UN 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

3-26
•Travis Boulevard from Pennsylvania Avenue to
Sunset Avenue
•North Texas Street from West Texas Street to
Hawthorn Drive
•East Tabor Avenue from North Texas Street to Clay
Bank Road
•Air Base Parkway from Dover Avenue to Clay Bank
Road
The City’s existing roadway network also includes vari- ous signalized intersections with channelized right turns.

Channelized right turns create additional conflict points between motorists and pedestrians and creates a longer
crossing distance across the intersection. Removing
channelized right turns and tightening the corner radii helps to facilitate speed reduction and improve pedes-
trian safety. Locations to consider include:
•Air Base Parkway and Dover Avenue
•Air Base Parkway and Heath Drive
•Air Base Parkway and Clay Bank Road
•Air Base Parkway and Walters Road
•Oliver Road, West Texas Street and Rockville Road
•West Texas Street and I-80 eastbound Off-Ramp
The ATP also recommended over 40 pedestrian proj-
ects be implemented that close key sidewalk gaps in the City of Fairfield along the backbone networks. Projects were also identified and highlighted through the safety analysis, walking audits, community outreach, or previ- ous transportation plans. The recommendations from
the Active Transportation Plan create a network that is comfortable for people of all ages and abilities.

The 2018 Solano Travel Safety Plan notes that Fairfield has 10% of the total equivalent property damage
only score, and 4% of total crashes in Solano County.

The plan recommends countermeasures to address
pedestrian collisions with installing pedestrian count- down signal heads and pedestrian crossing, pedestrian
median fencing on approaches, installing crossings at
uncontrolled locations, improving signal timings to
allow for longer walk times, adding intersection lighting, and installing sidewalks and raised pedestrian cross-
ings and fencings where feasible.

Berkeley’s SafeTREC completed a Complete Streets
Safety Assessment for the City of Fairfield that analyzed four locations in the City. Pedestrian related recom-
mendations are included below.
•Anna Kyle Elementary
–East Travis Boulevard and Eisenhower Street:

Install LPIs for all crosswalks and blank out
“No Right Turn on Red” signs for the north-
bound right turn during the LPI
–Kidder Avenue: Stripe advanced stop bars at
East Travis Boulevard to improve yielding to
pedestrians in crosswalk
•David Weird K-6 Preparatory Academy
–Tabor Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue:

Install LPIs for each crosswalk with a blank
out “No Right Turn on Red” sign and ensure
adequate crossing time. Prohibit right turn on
red during the LPI
–Tabor Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue:

Tighten the southeast corner to shorten
crossing distances and slow down turns on to
Tabor Avenue/ Bulbout the southwest corner
to improve visibility of pedestrians and reduce
crosswalk length.
•Fairfield Linear Park at East Tabor Avenue and
North Texas Street
–Install an LPI and “No Right Turn on Red” blank
out signs for the westbound approach on East
Tabor Avenue
–Consolidate and close driveways along East
Tabor Avenue and North Texas Street near
the intersection to reduce conflict points for
pedestrians and motorists
•Rockville Road/West Texas Street and Oliver Road
–Install a raised crossing at Oliver Road south-
bound channelized right onto Rockville Road
–Tighten the radius on the northeast corner to
reduce the pedestrian crossing distance and
slow right turning speeds
–Stripe trail crossing and provide LPIs with
blank out “No Right Turn on Red” signs on the
southbound Oliver Road approach and east-
bound Rockville Road approach
–Formalize the “goat trails” through the pork-
chop island by installing sidewalk
–Install wayfinding signage to facilitate travel
from the Linear Park to Ledgewood Creek Trail
–Fence off part of Oliver Road near the tunnel
to direct crossings to the signal
Packet Page 92 of 390Attachment 5 Page 9 of 17

3-27
R o c k v i l le R d
Shiloh RdAbernathy RdSunsetAvM an gels BlMain StCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWalters RdMa
nka
s
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
ee
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Red TopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u r a ge D r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRdChadbourne RdBurgan BlDover Av2ndStPeabody RdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvania AvUnion AvLopes RdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Business Center DrClay Bank RdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos Pkwy
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 UN 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
C:\GIS\MXD\FairfieldGPU_030821.mxd
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 3/8/2021
01 20.5
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 ·12
·12
%&80
%&80
%&680
3-8 Existing Sidewalk Coverage
Existing Sidewalk
Figure 3-8: Sidewalk Coverage
RockvilleRd
Shiloh RdAbernathy RdSunsetAvM angels BlMain StCordelia StSuisunVa ll
e
y
RdWalters RdManka
s
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
een
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u r a geD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRdChadbourne RdBurgan BlDover Av2ndStPeabody RdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvania AvUnion AvLopes RdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd Cordel ia R d
Business Center DrClay Bank RdCement Hill RdManuel Campos Pkwy Travis Av
Paradise ValleyGolf CourseRancho SolanoGolf Course DunnellNatureParkMeadowGlen Park
Cordelia
ParkSouthbrook
Park
GaryFalatiParkN A PA C O UN 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 CreekPark
Vintage
Green
Valley
Park
Dover
Park
Mankas
Park
Rockville
Hills
Regional
Park
Woodcreek
Park
SunrisePark
Meadow
Park
Rolling HillsPark
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

3-28

3.4 Public Transportation
Fairfield is served by a variety of public transporta-
tion options that include buses, rail systems, casual
carpool, and vanpool. The Fairfield Transportation
Center (FTC) is located on Cadenasso Drive and serves
as a hub for local, commuter, and long-distance bus
travel. The Suisun-Fairfield Transit Station is located on Main Street and serves as a transit hub and Amtrak
Station. Both stations provide vehicular parking and
bicycle lockers on site. The City Engineer and DakTrak
has created an ADA Transition Plan on existing gaps of
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) needs.

Transit agencies that provide local and regional transit service to the City of Fairfield include FAST, Rio Vista Delta Breeze, SolTrans, Napa County VINE Transit, and
Capitol Corridor. Bus routes included in this report
reflect pre-COVID 19 conditions, prior to March 2020
and are shown on Table 3-13.

Fairfield and Suisun Transit (FAST) provides eight fixed local routes managed and operated by the City of
Fairfield that serve Fairfield and Suisun City. Routes
operate between 6:00 AM to 8:30 PM Monday through
Friday, and from 9:00 AM to 6:30 PM on Saturday. All
FAST buses are wheelchair accessible, and most are
equipped with bike racks. Along with local taxi services, the Disabled Access to Road Transportation (DART) is
complementary to FAST and provides origin-to-destina-
tion, shared ride services within the City and a ¾ mile area buffer at the ends of FAST fixed route corridors.

SolanoExpress is managed by SolTrans and STA.

SolTrans is the public transportation provider for south Solano County and STA provides both express intercity
bus services and individual routes throughout Solano
County. SolanoExpress intercity and commuter routes
consist of the Blue and Green Express (GX) Lines oper-
ated by FAST and SolTrans provides routes for the
Weekday Red Line. The Blue Line operates between
Pleasant Hill BART and Sacramento Monday through
Friday between 4:25 AM and 8:30 PM and Saturday’s
from 8:25 AM and 7:40 PM. The Green Express Line
is a commuter route that operates between Fairfield
and El Cerrito del Norte BART Monday through Friday
between 4:10 AM and 7:25 PM. The Red Line oper-
ates between the Suisun-Fairfield Amtrak Station and
El Cerrito del Norte BART Monday through Friday
between 4:20 AM and 11:45 PM.

Napa Valley Transit (VINE Transit) provides one route
to the City of Fairfield. This line runs Monday through Friday between 6:00 AM and 7:15 PM.

The Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority (Capitol
Corridor) is an intercity passenger railroad service
that provides service between Auburn and San Jose
Packet Page 94 of 390Attachment 5 Page 11 of 17

3-29
via Sacramento and Oakland. There are two Capitol
Corridor stations serving Fairfield: Fairfield-Vacaville Hannigan Station (near the intersection of Peabody
Road/Vanden Road-Cement Hill Road) and Suisun-
Fairfield Station (near the SR 12 overhead of the
Capitol Corridor line). These stations provide critical interregional rail connections to other destinations in the 21-County Northern California megaregion, and
the ½-mile walkshed area around these stations qualify
for substantial CEQA streamlining of land use projects
under Senate Bill 2013 (2013).

For the 2018-2019 calendar year, the City of Fairfield
reported various passenger miles travelled (PMT) to
the National Transit Database (NTD). Both the Fairfield Transit Center and Suisun-Fairfield Transit Station are hubs for commuters in Fairfield. For commuter service,
the average PMT on weekdays were 26,248 PMT and
2,355 PMT on Saturday. Annually, the total PMT for
the City of Fairfield is 6,792,739 PMT. For local service routes, the average PMT on a weekday is 4,594 PMT
and 1,014 PMT on Saturdays. The annual PMT for the
local service in Fairfield is 1,189,158 PMT. The numbers provided by NTD show that residents and visitors of the City do rely on transit for origin and destination trips. If it were not for transit, these trips would likely be made by automobiles and contribute to additional VMT on
City roadways.

Figure 3-9 shows the existing transit routes throughout the City.

TABLE 3-13: Transit Service in the City of Fairfield
Provider Line Origin Destination
Frequency in
minutes
FAST Route 1
Fairfield Transportation
Center Fairfield Walmart
AM 30 min, PM 15
min
FAST Route 2 Solano Town Center
Fairfield-Vacaville Train
Station 30 min
FAST Route 3
Fairfield Transportation
Center Fairfield Walmart 30 min
FAST Route 4 Smart & Final
David Grant Medical
Center
1 hour, no mid-day
service
FAST Route 5
Fairfield Transportation
Center Suisun City Senior Center 1 hour
FAST Route 6 Solano Town Center
Mayfield Circle/Lawler
Ranch Parkway 45 minutes
FAST Route 7
Fairfield Transportation
Center Cordelia Library 1 hour
FAST Route 8 Cordelia Library
Oakbrook Drive/ Lopes
Road 1 hour
FAST Blue Line B Sacramento Pleasant Hill BART Time varies FAST
Green Express
GX Suisun Fairfield Amtrak El Cerrito del Norte BART
AM time varies, PM
1 hour
SolTrans Red Line Suisun-Fairfield Amtrak El Cerrito del Norte BART 1 hour SolTrans Red Line R Suisun Fairfield Amtrak El Cerrito del Norte BART 1 hour Rio Vista
Delta Breeze Route 50
Front Street and Main
Street (Rio Vista)
Fairfield Transportation
Center
Time varies, no mid-
day service
VINE Transit Route 21
Soscol Gateway Transit
Center Fairfield-Suisun Station 1 hour
Amtrak
Capitol
Corridor
Auburn-Sacramento-
Emeryville SF-Oakland-San Jose Time varies
Source: FAST Transit, SolTrans, Rio Vista Delta Breeze, VINE Transit, and Amtrak, 2021 Packet Page 95 of 390Attachment 5 Page 12 of 17

R o c k v i lle R d
Shiloh RdAbernathy RdSunsetAvM a n gels BlMain StCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWalters RdMa
nka
s
CornerRd LyonRdMeridian RdGr
ee
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Red TopRd
Travis Bl
East Tabor Av
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u r a geD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRdChadbourne RdBurgan BlDover Av2ndStPeabody RdO liv
e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvania AvUnion AvLopes RdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordel ia R d
Business Center D rClay Bank RdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos Pkwy
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 UN 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
C:\GIS\MXD\FairfieldGPU_030821.mxd
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 3/8/2021
0 1 20.5
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 ·12
·12
%&80
%&80
%&680
3-9 Transit Routes
Napa VINE
SolTrans
Fairfield-Suisun
Transit (FAST)
Amtrak
Rio Vista Delta Breeze
R o c k v i lle R d
Shiloh RdAbernathy RdSunsetAvM a n gels BlMain StCordelia StSui s
unVa
ll
e
y
RdWalters RdMa
nk
a
s
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 a g eD r
Dickson Hill Rd
North Texas StHilbornRdChadbourne RdBurgan BlDover Av2ndStPeabody RdOliv e
r
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanRdAir Base Pkwy
Waterman Bl North Gate RdBeckAvPennsylvania AvUnion AvLopes RdCement Hill Rd McCrory Rd
Cordelia R d
Business C enter DrClay Bank RdCement Hill Rd
M a n u e l Campos Pkwy
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 UN T Y

N
L
I
M
I
T
L
I
N
E
UR

I
M

I
T

I
N

3-31
The Planning Area includes three major State/Federal
Highways that serve as interregional goods The
Planning Area includes three major State/Federal
Highways that serve as interregional goods move-
ment facilities. Interstate 680 and Interstate 80 are
both designated as part of the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982 National Network, and
State Route 12 is designated a Terminal Access route
under STAA. In addition to passenger rail service pro-
vided by Capitol Corridor, Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) and California Northern Railroad (Cal Northern) serve
freight customers in Fairfield.

Existing and future businesses in the City of Fairfield benefit from efficient circulation of goods, materi-
als, and products. There are three areas within the
Planning Area where the efficient movement of freight
and goods is critical to success of the land use pattern. •Cordelia area between Red Top Road, Lopes Road,
and I-80: This portion of the Cordelia area includes
various commercial and industrial uses that rely
on Lopes Road, Red Top Road, I-80 and I-680 for
goods movement and distribution.
•South Fairfield Industrial Area: This area of the City includes the Budweiser Brewery, Jelly Belly factory,
various industrial uses, and other businesses that
produce various goods that rely on imports of
materials. This area relies on SR 12, Chadbourne
Road, Beck Avenue, Pennsylvania Avenue and
Cordelia Road for the movement of goods.
•Travis Air Force Base is known as the “Gateway to
the Pacific,” handling more cargo and passenger
traffic through its airport than any other military
terminal in the United States. The base also hoses
the 60th Air Mobility Wing and the David Grant
USAF Medical Center. The Travis Air Force Base
relies on Air Base Parkway, Peabody Road, and I-80
for the movement of goods.

3.5 Freight and Goods Movement
Packet Page 97 of 390Attachment 5 Page 14 of 17

3-32

3.6 Key Findings and Planning Considerations
1 USE OF BOTH AM AND PM PEAK HOUR LEVELS OF
SERVICE FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING. THE

CURRENT GENERAL PLAN POLICY AS WRITTEN ONLY
APPLIES TO THE EVENING PEAK HOURS.

The analysis included in this chapter applies the General Plan level of service standards to both the morning and evening peak hours.

Intersections that do not meet the standard for both the morning and evening peak hours are noted. Should level of service be maintained as policy in the future, both AM and PM peak-hour conditions should be considered.
3 2 4 THE SNABM ESTIMATES A HIGHER HOME-WORK VMT
PER WORKER OF 28.65 BECAUSE IT HAS A GREATER

GEOGRAPHIC AREA THAT CAPTURES TRIPS TRAVELING
TO WORK BEYOND THE CITY MODEL BOUNDARIES.

The City Model home-based VMT per resident is 25.77 for single family residents and 19.73 for multifamily residents, and the home-work VMT per worker is 20.77. About 88% of Fairfield workers and residents travel outside of Fairfield to work.

THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HAS INSTITUTIONS AND

INDUSTRIES WITHIN THE CITY THAT CREATE SPECIAL
GENERATORS.

The City of Fairfield hosts a variety of businesses and institutions that create job opportunities for those throughout the region. The Jelly Belly Factory, Budweiser Brewery, wineries, and olive oil businesses provide jobs and create destinations for people outside of the area. Travis Air Force Base is also a large employment center for the City and has spe- cial transportation needs to accommodate the services on base. These special generators in the City create additional LOS and VMT impacts, that will be discussed further in the General Plan update.

THE LEVEL OF SERVICE THROUGHOUT THE PLANNING

AREA GENERALLY OPERATES AT AN ACCEPTABLE LEVEL,

WITH CAPACITY DEFICIENCIES AT INTERSECTIONS IN
CLOSER PROXIMITY TO FREEWAY AND EXPRESSWAYS.

While the level of service within the City generally meets standards, loca- tions near freeways and expressways experience more delay during the morning and evening peak hours. The General Plan may look at ways to reduce congestion in these areas. Strategies to consider reducing congestion must include a shift from vehicular travel to other active transportation modes such a transit, rideshare, bicycling, and walking. A shift is achievable through roadway reconfigurations to allow priority to transit and rideshare vehicles, traffic calming measures to reduce vehi- cle speeds along roadways, and comfortable facilities for those bicycling and walking.

Packet Page 98 of 390Attachment 5 Page 15 of 17

3-33
5 6

MOST FAIRFIELD WORKERS COME FROM THE NORTHEAST

OF FAIRFIELD, AND MOST FAIRFIELD RESIDENTS WORK
SOUTHWEST OF FAIRFIELD.

The top three Fairfield destinations from an external area are Central Fairfield (39%), Train Station (12%), and Cordelia (11%). The top three external destinations from Fairfield are Vacaville (47%), Vallejo (16%), and Contra Costa (9%). The major Fairfield gateways are at I-80 north of Fairfield (39%), I-80 southwest of Fairfield (20%), I-680 south of Fairfield (13%), and Peabody Road north of Fairfield (12%).

THE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE PROCESS IS AN OPPORTUNITY

FOR THE CITY TO IDENTIFY STRATEGIC LONG-TERM

IMPROVEMENTS TO ITS ROADWAY NETWORK TO ENHANCE
CAPACITY OR MAINTAIN EXISTING CAPACITY.

The City has completed feasibility studies for various roadway capacity improvements throughout the Planning Area. Budgetary constraints con- tinue to limit the number of improvements that can be made in the short- term, until additional funding sources can be acquired. Roadways to be considered include:
•Suisun Valley Road and Pittman Road Overcrossing widening •Air Base Parkway and Heath Drive westbound left turn movements •I-80 and Manuel Campos Parkway eastbound right turn on to Manuel Campos Parkway queues at the off-ramp
•Manuel Campos Parkway westbound left turn queues to turn on to Hilborn Road
•Air Base Parkway between North Texas Street and I-80 roadway widening 7 IMPROVING SAFETY FOR ALL MODES OF TRAVEL ALONG

WITH VEHICULAR SPEED REDUCTION CAN BE ACHIEVED

THROUGH ROADWAY RECONFIGURATION AND
ENHANCEMENTS.

The Solano Transportation Authority’s Active Transportation Plan laid the framework for various bicycle and pedestrian improvements throughout the Planning Area. The City has also studied the feasibility of various intersections and roadways and will continue to identify key locations to enhance safety. Roadway reconfigurations to include bicy- cle infrastructure, the removal of slip lanes to tighten the curb radius, and pedestrian crossing improvements provide safer facilities for active transportation modes.

Locations to consider for a reduction in lanes through roadway recon- figuration include:
•Oliver Road
•Courage Drive
•Dickson Hill
•Dover Avenue
•Clay Bank Road from Quail Drive to Tabor Avenue
•Hilborn Road
•Waterman Boulevard
•Link Road
•Pitman Road
Packet Page 99 of 390Attachment 5 Page 16 of 17

3-34
Locations to consider for removing channelized right turns and tight- ening corner radii for speed reduction and improved pedestrian safety include:
•Air Base Parkway and Dover Avenue
•Air Base Parkway and Heath Drive
•Air Base Parkway and Clay Bank Road
•Air Base Parkway and Walters Road
•Oliver Road, West Texas Street, and Rockville Road
•West Texas Street and I-80 eastbound Off-Ramp
8 •Mangels Boulevard from Suisun Valley Parkway to Vintage Valley Drive road diet, connecting bicyclists to adjacent cities and areas within the City such as Green Valley, Cordelia, Vallejo, and Napa.

This location would tie into the future Business Center Drive grade separation over SR 12
•The residential areas in the northern part of the City off Waterman Boulevard and Hilborn Road need connections across I-80 for direct access to the City’s core central business district •Based on the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)’s Plan Bay Area, the northeast corner of the City is included in the higher disadvantage factor of a Community of Concern. This framework includes a share of more than 82% of the community being minorities with 35% in the low-income household category.

Ensuring these communities have the infrastructure and frame- work for bicycle lanes, pedestrian facilities, and transit routes to the City’s Central Business District will focus on closing the gap in socioeconomic characteristics in the Planning Area
•I-80 carries regional traffic. With metering and traffic, freeway con- gestion prompts people to use local streets. Roadways that see cut-through traffic and added congestion due to on-ramp metering include Rockville Road, Auto Mall Parkway/Cadenasso Drive, and Hilborn Road/Waterman Boulevard

CONNECTIVITY OF VARIOUS MODES OF TRAVEL

THROUGH THE CITY IS ESSENTIAL FOR THE MOVEMENT
OF PEOPLE, FREIGHT, AND GOODS. IT IS A KEY PIECE OF

SMART CITY INFRASTRUCTURE IN MANAGING TRAFFIC

CONTROL, PUBLIC TRANSPORT, PARKING, AND FLEET
TRACKING.

In the City of Fairfield General Plan 2015, Objective CI 5 aimed to pro- vide adequate parking and loading facilities while encouraging alterna- tive means of transportation. Providing the roadway infrastructure and connections throughout the City is vital in creating a cohesive network.

Locations to consider include:

Packet Page 100 of 390Attachment 5 Page 17 of 17

Air Quality,
Greenhouse
Gases, and
Energy
Chapter 4
This chapter documents climate conditions, air quality, and greenhouse gas conditions in the Planning Area. These environ- mental conditions are interrelated and have significant impacts on the health and quality of Fairfield’s ecology and its residents; many of the sources of air pollution can also generate green- house gas emissions. While these issues are influenced by and experienced at the local level, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions also have implications for the region and state.

This chapter will also cover the regulatory setting for air qual- ity, greenhouse gas, and energy policy in Fairfield, including regional and statewide emissions reduction targets.

Packet Page 101 of 390Attachment 6 Page 1 of 30

4-2
Fairfield is located on a low-lying plain within the Coastal Range and is generally flat, with elevations between 13 to 49 feet above sea level throughout the central parts of the City. Elevations rise to the north near the Vaca Mountains and to the west approaching the hills near
Vallejo, and stay low to the south and east.

The City of Fairfield has a Mediterranean climate typ-
ical for the region with cool, wet winters and warm,
dry summers. Temperatures range from an average
monthly high of 86.2 degrees Fahrenheit (ºF) in July to an average monthly low of 38.2ºF in January. Annual
precipitation in the area ranges from roughly 16 to 24
inches. Summer temperatures can include extreme
high temperatures like the nearby Central Valley, but
summer may also include periods when extreme
heat in the Central Valley draws coastal fog through
the Carquinez Strait and the fog acts as a moderating
influence that reduces air temperatures in Fairfield.

The topography, air mass paths, and seasonal air
temperature gradients of the region create a distinct
wind regime in this area with consistent winds from
the west-southwest (WSW) that are particularly strong
during spring and summer months.1 The average
annual wind speed at the Fairfield-Travis Air Force Base weather station is 12.7 miles per hour (mph), one of
the highest in the state.2 Monthly average wind speeds exceed 16 mph in the summer (June, July, and August).3
The City of Fairfield is located within the northeastern part of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Air Basin).

Air Basins are geographic regions that experience
similar air quality conditions due to their location, topo- graphic setting, and climate conditions. The Air Basin is an approximately 6,745-square-mile area, topographi-
cally bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the
San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains
to the north and east. The Air Basin, a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, includes all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa, Marin, and San Francisco
counties, the southern portion of Sonoma County, and
the southwestern portion of Solano County, which
covers the City of Fairfield and surrounding agricultural land south of the City of Vacaville.
1 Western Regional Climate Center Wind Information, Fair- field-Travis Airforce Base. Webpage. Accessed at https://wrcc . dri.edu/Climate/wind.php, February 2021.
2 AECOM, County of Solano Climate Action Plan, 2011.
3 WRCC, 2021.

4.1 Climate Conditions
Packet Page 102 of 390Attachment 6 Page 2 of 30

Traffic exhaust is a main source of multiple criteria pollutants, such as particulate matter and ozone.

4.2 Air Quality Standards and Pollutants of Concern
10-4-3
Air quality is the balance of the natural dispersal capac- ity of the atmosphere and emissions of air pollutants
from human uses. Air pollution exposure occurs daily
in virtually every community when people come into
direct contact with air contaminants—Fairfield is no
exception. These pollutants are often the result of
incompatible land use, polluting facilities, or other
sources of exposure. Exposure to air pollution can
cause or worsen negative health outcomes and make
people too sick to work, go to school, or even go out-
side. Air pollution is a particularly important issue in Fairfield because nearly all of the Planning Area ranks in the top 25 percent in the state for asthma levels
(Black and African American residents experience
disproportionately higher levels of hospitalizations for asthma compared to other race and ethnicity groups).4
Outdoor air pollution exacerbates pre-existing asthma
conditions or cause the onset of new asthma. 5
Despite significant improvements in air quality over the last 20 years, the City of Fairfield still sometimes expe- riences unacceptable levels of the air pollutants ozone and particulate matter. The region is in compliance
with federal and State of California (State) standards
for other major air pollutants. This section summarizes existing air quality conditions in the Planning Area, and a variety of monitoring and regulations that are in place to support cleaner air and improved health for all.
4 BAAQMD, AB 617 Community Health Protection Program
Meeting Fairfield. (2018.) Accessed at https://www.baaqmd . gov/~/media/files/ab617-community-health/fairfield-ab617-pre- sentation_green-pdf.pdf?la=en, February 22, 2021.
5 M. Guarnieri & J.R. Balmes, Outdoor air pollution and asthma (The Lancet, 383(9928), 2014), pp. 1581-1592. Accessed at https:// www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4465283/ , February 12, 2021.

Criteria Pollutants
Certain air pollutants have been designated as “criteria” air pollutants because they are common and widely
distributed and are known to have adverse human
health effects and/or cause adverse impacts to the
environment either directly or through reactions with
other pollutants. Criteria air pollutants are indicators of ambient air quality and include: ozone (O3), carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), respirable or breathable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM10), fine par-
ticulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5
micrometers or less (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). The federal and California Clean Air Acts have established ambient
air quality standards for different pollutants.

Criteria pollutants are regulated by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) at the national
level and by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
at the state level and are subject to respective ambient air quality standards (AAQS) adopted by EPA and CARB.

Areas or basins in which air pollutant concentrations
exceed National AAQS (NAAQS) or California AAQS
(CAAQS) are classified as nonattainment for that specific pollutant.

Packet Page 103 of 390Attachment 6 Page 3 of 30

4-4
Existing Ambient Air Quality
Conditions
Air quality requires coordinated efforts for improve-
ment at all levels of government. In California, air qual- ity is measured by regional governing bodies called Air Quality Management Districts; Fairfield’s air pollution control agency is the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAMQD). BAAQMD periodically prepares
air quality management plans outlining measures to
reduce pollutants; the most recent is the 2017 Clean
Air Plan, which laid out programs to reduce pollutants
spanning from individual-oriented “Spare the Air” days
to region-wide strategies for building and energy effi- ciency designed to curb toxic emissions.

BAAQMD is also responsible for maintaining a network
of 34 air quality monitoring stations located through-
out the Air Basin to measure ambient pollutant con-
centrations. Air pollutant concentrations and meteoro-
logical information are continuously recorded at these
stations and data is then used by scientists to help
forecast daily air pollution levels. Different monitoring stations record different pollutant concentrations;
most data for Fairfield are read from a monitoring
station located at 304 Tuolumne Street in the City of
Vallejo, ozone is monitored from a station located at
1010 Chadbourne Road in Fairfield, and PM10 concen-
trations are monitored from a station located at 650
Merchant Street in Vacaville. Summarized air pollutant
data for these stations are provided in Table 4-1. The
table shows whether or not these stations attained
compliance with State and Federal standards for pol-
lutant concentration over a three-year period from
2017 to 2019.

TABLE 4-1: Attainment Status Designations Applicable to the Planning Area Criteria Pollutant
Averaging
Time
California
Standard
Measured Air Pollutant Attainment Status
2017 2018 2019
Ozone (O3)a
1-hour 0.09 ppm Attainment Attainment Attainment
8-hour 0.07 ppm Nonattainment Attainment Attainment
CO
1-hour 9 ppm Attainment Attainment Attainment
8-hour 20 ppm Attainment Attainment Attainment
PM10 b 24-hour 50 μg/m3 Nonattainment Nonattainment Nonattainment PM2.5 24-hour 35 μg/m3*Nonattainment Nonattainment Attainment NO2 1-hour 0.18 ppm Attainment Attainment Attainment
SO2
1-hour 0.25 ppm Attainment Attainment Attainment
24-hour 0.04 ppm Attainment Attainment Attainment
Lead (Pb)
30 day
average 1.5 μg/m3 Attainment Attainment Attainment
Sulfates 24-hour 25 μg/m3 Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Hydrogen Sulfide 1-hour 0.03 ppm Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Vinyl Chloride
(chloroethene)24-hour 0.010 ppm Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified Visibility Reducing
Particles (VRP)
8-hour (10:00
to 18:00 PST)N/A Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified O3 = ozone.

CO = carbon monoxide.

PM10 = particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns PM2.5 = particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns.

NO2 = nitrogen dioxide.

SO2 = sulfur dioxide.

A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an excep- tional event, as defined in the criteria. An “unclassified” designation signifies that data does not support either an attainment or nonattainment status.
a Values reported from Fairfield-Chadbourne Road station b Values reported from Vacaville-Merchant Street station * denotes NAAQS, rather than CAAQS. California AAQS are stricter than NAAQS for all ambient air pollutants, except for 1-hour averages of NO2. California does not have an AAQS for 24-hour averaging concentrations of PM2.5, and instead bases its standard on annual arithmetic mean concentration.

Sources: BAAQMD Bay Area Pollution Summaries for 2017 through 2019, http://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/airquality-sum- maries; BAAQMD Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status, https://www.baaqmd.gov/about-air-quality/research-and-data/ air-quality-standards-and-attainment-status#ten; CARB, iADAM Air Quality Statistics, see http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/select8/ sc8start.php.

Packet Page 104 of 390Attachment 6 Page 4 of 30

4-5

DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER
According to the 2006 California Almanac of Emissions
and Air Quality, the majority of the estimated health
risks from toxic air contaminants (TACs) can be
attributed to relatively few compounds, the most
important being particulate matter from the exhaust
of diesel-fueled engines. DPM differs from other TACs
in that it is not a single substance, but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances.

Based upon human and laboratory studies, there is
considerable evidence that diesel exhaust is a likely
carcinogen and a potential determinant of Alzheimer’s
disease. Human epidemiological studies demonstrate
an association between diesel exhaust exposure and
increased lung cancer rates in occupational settings.

Areas nearest to freeways are particularly affected by
higher exposure to DPM; in Fairfield, the areas imme-
diately adjacent to I-80 fall within the top 25 percent of DPM pollution in the state.6

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANT (TAC)

INVENTORY
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs) are a broad class of
compounds known to cause serious health effects;
however, the emission of a toxic chemical does not
automatically create a health hazard. Other factors,
such as the amount of the chemical, its toxicity, how
it is released into the air, the weather, and the terrain all influence whether the emission could be hazardous
6 CalEnviroScreen 3.0 online mapping tool (2018). Accessed at https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviro- screen-30, February 12, 2021.
to human health. TACs include metals, other particles,
gases absorbed by particles, and certain vapors from
fuels and other sources. TACs are emitted by a variety
of industrial processes, commercial operations such as
gasoline stations and dry cleaners, and motor vehicle
exhaust. The primary TACs of concern associated with
the Planning Area are fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
and Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM).

BAAQMD maintains an inventory of health risks associ-
ated with all permitted stationary sources of air pollu- tion within the Air Basin. The inventory was last updated on BAAQMD’s website in 2018. There many stationary
sources of TACs in the Planning Area, and these sources are largely comprised of diesel-powered generators,
gasoline dispensing facilities, and automobile body
shops. Some of the TAC sources may be removed or
relocated, and some new sources may be added, as a
result of development of the General Plan Update.

Aside from stationary sources, emissions of TACs
in and around the Planning Area are also generated
from mobile sources. BAAQMD considers roadways
with greater than 10,000 average daily traffic (ADT)
as “high volume roadways” and recommends they
be included in the analysis of health risks. Currently, roadways located in the immediate proximity of the
Planning Area that have ADT greater than 10,000 vehi-
cles include US-80 and State Route (SR) 12. In addition, Heath Drive, Tabor Street, Travis Boulevard, Air Base
Parkway, Clay Bank Road, Dover Avenue, Pennsylvania
Avenue, North Texas Street, Waterman Boulevard,
Beck Avenue, Chadbourne Road, Peabody Road, and
Suisun Valley Road traverse the Planning Area, are
classified as arterial streets in the city and have ADT volumes greater than 10,000.7 These arterial roadways
also represent sources of TACs in the Planning Area.

Highways that pass through the Planning Area repre-
sent the greatest mobile source of TACs (primarily DPM
from diesel-powered vehicles) due to the high volume
of vehicles that travel on these roads on a daily basis.

The segments of SR 12 and US-80 in and near the
Planning Area have annual average daily traffic volumes as high as 42,500 and 232,000 respectively.8
The Travis Air Force Base and railroads are also sources of air pollution emissions in the Planning Area. Travis Air Force Base has a land use plan that helps reduce
exposure to emissions, as well as other programs in
place to reduce the environmental impact of aviation
activities.9 Union Pacific Railroad is working with CARB to create a state implementation plan to introduce
cleaner locomotives and Amtrak also has sustainability
measures in place to reduce pollution and greenhouse
gas emissions as that result from locomotive activity.
10,11 Stationary and mobile sources of TACs are shown in Figure 4-1.
7 City of Fairfield, CA ADT Traffic Count Map (2018).
8 California Department of Transportation, 2015 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways (2019).
9 Travis Air Force Base, Environment. Accessed at https://www . travis.af.mil/Information/Environment/, February 22, 2021. 10 CARB, Reducing Rail Emissions in California. Accessed at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/reducing-rail-emis- sions-california, February 22, 2021.
11 Amtrak, Sustainability. Accessed at https://www.amtrak . com/about-amtrak/sustainability/environmental-compliance. html, February 22, 2021.

Packet Page 105 of 390Attachment 6 Page 5 of 30

4-6
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 Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park Southbrook
Park
Gary
Falati
Park
Green Valley
Lake 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
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\AirPollution.mxd Ambient Risk
Stationary Source Exceeding
BAAQMD Threshold
Stationary Source
Mobile Source
500-foot Buffer from
Roadway Centerline
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
5-1 Air Pollution: Stationary and Mobile Sources
Source: BAAQMD, 2020; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Map Date: 5/4/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
Red TopRd
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 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
Green Valley
Lake Park
Rancho
Solano
Park

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
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\AirPollution.mxd Ambient Risk
Stationary Source Exceeding
BAAQMD Threshold
Stationary Source
Mobile Source
500-foot Buffer from
Roadway Centerline
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
5-1 Air Pollution: Stationary and Mobile Sources
Source: BAAQMD, 2020; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 Map Date: 5/4/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
AÝ
Figure 4-1: Air Pollution: Stationary and Mobile Sources Packet Page 106 of 390Attachment 6 Page 6 of 30

In 2017, AB 617 increased the requirements for
CARB’s air monitoring of pollutants and established the Community Air Protection Program. This effort requires
community emission reduction plans in areas that face
high compounded pollution burdens and incentivizes
funding to employ clean technologies in impacted areas.

BAAQMD held a public workshop in Fairfield in 2018 to
inform residents about AB 617 and the site selection
process for community partners.12 While Fairfield does not have any disadvantaged communities as defined by
SB 535 (funding is prioritized for disadvantaged commu- nities that face high pollution burdens), neighborhoods within the Planning Area still face high levels of high pollution levels from stationary and mobile sources
that could be addressed in a community air pollution
reduction plan. AB 617 will require stationary sources
of TACs to phase in reporting up to twelve new chemical pollutants known to have health impacts.

SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
The NAAQS and CAAQS apply at publicly accessible
areas, regardless of whether those areas are populated.

Certain population groups, such as children, elderly,
and acutely and chronically ill persons (especially those with cardio-respiratory diseases), are considered more
sensitive to the potential effects of air pollution than others. Sensitive land uses are generally defined as
locations where these populations are located and
12 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, AB 617: Communi- ty Health Protection Program. Accessed at https://www.baaqmd . gov/community-health/community-health-protection-program, February 22, 2021.
where there is reasonable expectation of continuous
human exposure. Typical sensitive receptors include
residences, hospitals, and schools. As seen in Figure
2-1, Existing Land Use, the Planning Area consists of
wide array of land uses, including commercial uses,
business offices, industrial uses, single- and multi-family residential, hotels, schools, and parks. Many of the uses in the Planning Area are considered sensitive receptors.

INDOOR AIR QUALITY
Poor indoor air quality can contribute to chronic dis-
ease, including asthma and other respiratory diseases,
heart disease, eye and throat irritation, and cancer. Air pollutant levels are often higher indoors than outdoors, and exposure risk is compounded by the fact that we
spend most of our time indoors. Pollution sources can
include consumer products, gas appliances, smoking,
dust, mold, and building materials. Poor ventilation,
humidity, and exposure to carbon monoxide can exac-
erbate negative impacts to health. In the 2016 Solano
County Community Health Assessment, Section 8
housing residents in the County expressed concern
about secondhand smoke and poor housing quality
such as a preponderance of dust and mold as a con-
tributor to air pollution in their living environment.13 CARB and BAAQMD both oversee a variety of programs
designed to research and improve indoor air quality
and regulate the sales of building materials and indoor products throughout California and the Bay Area.
13 Community Themes and Strengths Assessment (Solano County Community Health Assessment, 2016).

AIR QUALITY INDEX
One tool for measuring air quality that is accessible to the public is the EPA’s Air Quality Index (AQI) metric.

This color-coded index gives the ambient air quality of any given place a score that falls between 0 and 500
based on levels of air pollution and health concerns.

These scores are found in many weather apps and were
designed to help the public understand the level of air quality-related health risks that sensitive groups or the general public might experience on a given day. An AQI
value of 50 or below represents good air quality and
AQI values below 100 are generally thought of as sat-
isfactory. AQI values over 100, however, are unhealthy
for certain groups of people, while AQI scores of 300
or higher represent hazardous air quality for everyone.

During periods of wildfires, AQI scores will spike, as
there are higher levels of particulate matter in the air. 4-7Packet Page 107 of 390Attachment 6 Page 7 of 30

4.3 Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases
Global Climate Change
The greenhouse effect is a phenomenon in which cer-
tain gases in the Earth’s atmosphere known as green-
house gases (GHGs) absorb heat that would otherwise
return to space. The greenhouse effect, which affects
temperature and atmosphere at the Earth’s surface,
occurs when sunlight passes through the atmosphere;
some of the sunlight is absorbed by the Earth’s sur-
face and converted to heat in the form of infrared
radiation. Heat then radiates from the surface to the
atmosphere where it is absorbed by GHGs. Thus, more
GHGs absorb more heat and amplify the warming of
the Earth.

GHGs contributing to global warming include carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and
fluorinated compounds, including sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), and perfluorinated
carbons (PFCs). They are produced by human activi-
ties including the burning of fossil fuels and changes
in land use, such as agriculture and deforestation.

Water vapor, the most abundant GHG, is not included
in this list because its natural concentrations and
fluctuations far outweigh its anthropogenic sources.

Rising atmospheric concentrations of GHGs in excess
of natural levels result in increasing global surface tem- peratures—a phenomenon commonly referred to as
global warming. Large-scale changes to Earth’s natural
systems are collectively referred to as climate change.

There is scientific consensus that the amount of GHGs
which have been released into the atmosphere are at
a level in which the climate and environment will be
negatively impacted. Temperatures worldwide have
been consistently increasing since the 1990s, with the
six hottest years on record passing since 2014. Overall, Earth’s average temperature has risen more than 2
degrees Fahrenheit since the 1880s.14
Climate change poses significant threats to public
health and the environment at all scales of life. Elevated carbon levels and higher global temperatures are
already leading to more intense storms and natu-
ral disasters such as extreme wildfires, hurricanes,
droughts, flooding, and heat waves. These events cause
death, injury, and damage to human life and property.

Increased CO2 and GHG pollution exacerbate the
potential for the spread of water and airborne diseases 14 NASA, 2020 Tied for Warmest Year on Record, NASA
Analysis Shows, 2021. Accessed at https://climate.nasa.gov/ news/3061/2020-tied-for-warmest-year-on-record-nasa-analy- sis-shows/, February 18, 2021.
and allergens, as well as trigger severe ecological
damage including ocean acidification, desertification,
sea level rise, loss of agricultural viability, and species extinction. The EPA has emphasized that it is important to reduce GHGs as soon as possible, because even
without new emissions, the gases currently in the atmo- sphere will remain there for a long time.

Regulatory Setting

FEDERAL
The Clean Air Act of 1967 (42 U.S.C. et seq) is the
main federal legislation that is specifically related to the reduction of GHG emissions. The Act established
NAAQS to protect public health and the environment
and also directs States to develop implementation
plans for toxic emission reduction strategies. In 1990
the Act was amended to add provisions related to
mobile sources of emissions, including tighter pollution standards for tailpipe emissions, which are one of the
major sources of GHG emissions. The law established
a clean fuel pilot program in California that set stricter emissions standards, which other states could choose
to “opt in” to.

In 2007, Congress mandated that the EPA publish a
rule requiring public reporting of GHG emissions from
large sources. This database provides comprehensive
nationwide GHG emissions data from approximately
8,000 facilities annually. Fairfield has two facilities in the registry which as of 2019 have discontinued reporting
emissions data for valid reasons.15
15 EPA, 2019 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Large Facilities.

Accessed at https://ghgdata.epa.gov/ghgp/main.do#/facility , February 17, 2021.

ATMOSPHERESUNLIGHT
HEAT
HEAT
4-8 Packet Page 108 of 390Attachment 6 Page 8 of 30

In 2020, Congress passed an omnibus energy package
which included research, development, and deploy-
ment for clean energy technologies, clean energy tax
incentives, and committed the U.S. to phasing out
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) over the next 15 years.

Hydrofluorocarbons are a type of pollutant normally
found in refrigerants or air coolants, and which are thou- sands of times more effective at trapping heat in the
atmosphere than CO2; as such, the phaseout of these
potent GHGs will have a significant impact on meet-
ing the emissions reduction goals of the Paris Climate
Agreement, which the U.S. recommitted to in 2021.

STATE
Control of GHGs is generally regulated at the State level and is typically approached by setting emission reduc-
tion targets for existing sources of GHGs, setting poli- cies to promote renewable energy and increase energy
efficiency, and developing statewide action plans.

California has adopted statewide legislation addressing various aspects of climate change and GHG emissions
mitigation. Much of this legislation establishes a broad framework for the state’s long-term GHG reduction
and climate change adaptation program. The Governor
of California has also issued several executive orders
(EOs) related to the State’s evolving climate change
policy. Of particular importance are Assembly Bill (AB) 32 and Senate Bill (SB) 32, which outline the State’s
GHG reduction goals of achieving 1990 emissions
levels by 2020 and a 40 percent reduction below 1990
emissions levels by 2030. EO S-3-05 also establishes a
GHG reduction target of 80 percent below 1990 levels
by the year 2050. Executive orders are legally binding
only on State agencies. Accordingly, EO S-3-05 guides
State agencies’ efforts to control and regulate GHG
emissions but has no direct, binding effect on local
government or private actions.

In 2016, the Governor signed SB 1383, which calls for
reductions in emissions of short-lived climate pollut-
ants (i.e., methane) by 40-50 percent below 2013 levels by 2030.

In November 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Climate
Change Scoping Plan to meet the GHG reduction
requirement set forth in SB 32. The 2017 Plan pro-
poses continuing the major programs of the previous
Scoping Plan, including the Cap-and-Trade Regulation;
the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; the Renewables
Portfolio Standard; more efficient cars, trucks, and
freight movement; and reducing methane emissions
from agricultural and other wastes. The Scoping Plan
also addresses GHG emissions from natural and work-
ing lands in California.

SB 375 requires regional transportation plans,
developed by Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPOs), to incorporate a “sustainable communities
strategy” (SCS) in their regional transportation plans
that will achieve GHG emissions reduction targets set
by the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which
updated the regional targets in March 2018. SB 375
requires the Association of Bay Area Governments and
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG and
MTC, respectively) to identify strategies that will reduce per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles
by approximately 19 percent by 2035 over base year
2005. ABAG and MTC jointly adopted their SCS as part
of Plan Bay Area 2040. Work is currently underway
in preparing Plan Bay Area 2050 and reducing GHG
emissions is one of the main topics that the final Plan (slated for adoption in Summer 2021) will address. 16
In September 2018, Governor Brown signed SB 100
and EO B-55-18, which requires 100 percent of retail
electricity to be carbon-free and commits the state to
a goal of achieving a carbon-neutral economy by 2045,
respectively. SB 100 also increases the renewable
energy target in 2030 from 50 percent (as specified in
SB 350) to 60 percent.
16 Plan Bay Area, Final Blueprint Release Strategies (2020).

A BLUEPRINT FOR THE BAY AREA’S FUTURE. A BLUEPRINT FOR THE BAY AREA’S FUTURE What is Plan Bay Area 2050?What requirements mustPlan Bay Area 2050 meet? Plan Bay Area 2050 is the long-range plan
now being developed by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission and the
Association of Bay Area Governments
to guide the growth of our nine-county
region for the next generation. Scheduled
for completion in 2021, the plan integrates
strategies for transportation, housing, the
environment and the economy.

The plan must work to advance the Vision and
Guiding Principles adopted by MTC and ABAG
in 2019 — to ensure that the Bay Area in 2050 is
more affordable, connected, diverse, healthy
and vibrant for all. Furthermore, among many
statutory requirements, the plan must meet or
exceed a 19 percent per capita greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions reduction target for
light-duty vehicles by 2035, while planning
for suff icient housing at all income levels.

What is the Final Blueprint? What is a “strategy”? Who implements these strategies? The Final Blueprint integrates 35 bold,
equitable and resilient strategies—building
upon the predecessor Horizon Initiative—to
tackle the region’s transportation, housing,
economic and environmental challenges.

A strategy is either a public policy or set
of investments that can be implemented
in the Bay Area over the next 30 years. A
strategy is not a near-term action, a mandate
for a jurisdiction or agency, or a legislative
proposal. In addition, because Plan Bay Area
2050 must be fiscally constrained, not every
strategy can be integrated into the plan
given finite available revenues.

Strategies in Plan Bay Area 2050 can be
implemented at the local, regional, or
state levels. Specific implementation
actions and the role for MTC and ABAG are
being identified through a collaborative
Implementation Plan process between fall
2020 and summer 2021. See inside to learn
more about the Final Blueprint strategies.

THE FINAL

BLUEPRINT

WINTERFALLSUMMERSPRING
• Analyze DraftBlueprint Outcomes • Convene Public and Stakeholder Workshops • Revise Strategies for Final Blueprint
• Adopt Final Blueprint
• Advance to EnvironmentalImpact Report (EIR)
• Conduct EnvironmentalAnalysis
• Develop Implementation Plan
Key Milestones
HOUSINGTRANSPORTATION ECONOMY ENVIRONMENTFour Elements ofPlan Bay Area2050 A BLUEPRINT FOR THE BAY AREA’S FUTURE. A BLUEPRINT FOR THE BAY AREA’S FUTURE What is Plan Bay Area 2050?What requirements mustPlan Bay Area 2050 meet? Plan Bay Area 2050 is the long-range plan
now being developed by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission and the
Association of Bay Area Governments
to guide the growth of our nine-county
region for the next generation. Scheduled
for completion in 2021, the plan integrates
strategies for transportation, housing, the
environment and the economy.

THE FINAL

BLUEPRINT

In 2020, Governor Newsom signed EO N-79-20 and EO
N-82-20, calling for 100 percent sales of zero emission light-duty vehicles by 2035 and set a goal to conserve
at least 30 percent of California’s land and coastal
waters by 2030, respectively. As transportation is the
state’s largest sector of GHG emissions, and because
trees and wetlands naturally remove carbon from the
atmosphere, the two mandates are expected to be
important tools for helping to meet the State’s strict
2030 and 2045 carbon neutrality targets.

REGIONAL
At the regional level, the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District’s (BAAQMD) Bay Area 2017 Clean
Air Plan addresses air emissions in the San Francisco
Bay Area Air Basin. One of the key objectives in the
Plan is climate protection. The Plan includes emission
control measures and performance objectives, consis-
tent with the state’s climate protection goals under AB 32, SB 32, EO S-3-05, and SB 375, designed to reduce
emissions of GHGs to 1990 levels by 2020, 40 percent
below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990
levels by 2050.17
Other nearby cities in the Bay Area and Solano County,
as well as Solano County itself, have prepared Climate
Action Plans (CAPs) that lay out their local GHG emis-
sion reduction targets and strategies to meet those
targets, all of which are consistent with or exceed the statewide goals required from AB 32. Some of these
County-wide programs, such as a voluntary Green
17 Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Spare the Air-Cool the Climate (2017).

Building Ordinance and the decarbonization of PG&E
impact emissions in Fairfield as well.

LOCAL
In 2009, Fairfield approved its first Sustainability
Report. The Report focused largely on sustainability
initiatives within internal City government operations, including Fairfield’s institutional facilities, equipment, and City fleet. The Report established a Green Team of
staff from departments throughout the City and com-
mitted to meet on a regular basis to develop ideas and
facilitate implementation. The Sustainability Report set out the following major goals:
•Establish a Commitment to Sustainability;
•Adopt Green Building policies;
•Join several sustainability-focused coalitions such
as the California Product Stewardship Council,
International Council for Local Environmental
Initiatives (ICLEI), and Tree City USA;
•Develop a communitywide GHG emissions
inventory;
•Develop a Municipal Sustainability Plan; and
•Develop a Climate Action Plan.

The City prepared a draft Climate Action Plan in 2017;
however, it was never adopted. A new Climate Action
Plan is being prepared in tandem with the General Plan
Update and will build upon the work of past sustain-
ability planning efforts by looking at impacts such as
the electrification of transit and city vehicles, increasing community access to renewable energy sources, and
solid waste reduction strategies.

In 2020, the Fairfield City Council adopted a City policy consistent with SB743 for reducing Vehicle Miles
Travelled. This policy is at root an effort to address
GHG emissions through guiding development to areas
which require less travel for daily needs. The policy
also includes mitigation policies and actions aimed at
this goal.
4-10 Packet Page 110 of 390Attachment 6 Page 10 of 30

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Inventories
A GHG inventory is a quantification of all GHG emis-
sions and sinks18 within a selected physical or economic boundary. GHG inventories have been prepared at the
state level (by CARB), at the regional level (by BAAQMD), and at the local level for the City of Fairfield’s commu- nity and municipal (i.e., City government) operations. At this time, the 2005 inventory is the City’s most recent communitywide assessment of GHG emissions.19
Table 4-2 outlines the most recent global, national,
statewide, regional, and local GHG inventories. Table
4-2 also shows projected emissions in Fairfield assum-
ing a “business as usual” (BAU) scenario, in which popu- lation and employment grow as expected but there are
no adjustments taken to reduce GHG emissions, and
projected emissions for an “adjusted business as usual” (ABAU) scenario that accounts for Statewide actions,
such as a renewable energy portfolio, higher building
efficiency standards, and sustainable transportation
efforts. A complete assessment of City’s GHG emis-
sions and climate change strategies will be undertaken
for the Climate Action Plan, which is being prepared as part of the General Plan Update.
18 A GHG sink is a process, activity, or mechanism that removes a GHG from the atmosphere.
19 The City developed its baseline emissions inventory for the 2005 operational year as part of a countywide climate action planning effort in 2011. This regional approach allowed all of the jointly-prepared GHG inventories and CAPs to be developed in a consistent manner to support comparability and collaboration on plan implementation. (City of Fairfield Draft Climate Action Plan, 2017)
Emissions inventories are commonly expressed in
metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (MT
CO2e/yr) to provide a standard measurement that
incorporates the varying global warming potentials
(GWP) of different greenhouse gases. GWP describes
how much heat a greenhouse gas can trap in the atmo-
sphere relative to carbon dioxide, which has a GWP of

1. Some gases used in industrial applications, such
as hydrofluorocarbons, can have a GWP thousands
of times larger than that of CO2. In order to maintain
consistency within each inventory and between the
baseline and projected emissions inventories, all GHG
emissions have been quantified in units of MT CO2e/yr.

In the City of Fairfield and the Planning Area, GHGs
are emitted by vehicles traveling on roadways, energy
usage in buildings, demolition and construction activ-
ities, and other sources. As shown in Table 4-3, more
than three quarters of Fairfield’s emissions come from
the energy and transportation sectors. GHG emissions
are also generated outside of the Planning Area from
sources that are a direct result of people living and
working within Fairfield. For example, power plants,
landfills, and wastewater treatment plants generate
emissions outside of Fairfield, but the ultimate driver of these emissions (electricity demand, solid waste, and wastewater) originate in Fairfield. Overall, the City’s GHG emissions inventory in 2005 was 663,519 MT CO2e for
community operations and 16,500 MT CO2e for munici-
pal operations in 2008. The City’s 2005 community GHG
emissions, by sector, are shown in Table 4-3.

TABLE 4-2: State and Local GHG Emissions Inventories
Emissions Inventory CO2e (metric tons)
2035 City of Fairfield Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projection ABAU 661,315
BAU 838,598
2020 City of Fairfield Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Projection ABAU 647,136
BAU 737,141
2018 CARB State GHG Emissions Inventory 425,300,000
2011 BAAQMD GHG Emissions Inventory 86,600,000
2008 City of Fairfield Municipal Greenhouse Gas Emissions 16,500 2005 City of Fairfield Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions 663,519 Sources: AECOM 2016, City of Fairfield Climate Action Plan, 2017; California Air Resources Board 2021, 2000–2018 Emissions Trends Report; Bay Area Quality Management District, Bay Area Emissions Inventory Summary Report: Greenhouse Gases, 2015. 4-11Packet Page 111 of 390Attachment 6 Page 11 of 30

One significant source of GHG emissions that will need
to be addressed with haste in order for the State to
meet its climate goals is wildfires (See Chapter 10:

Wildfire). Trees and forests store massive amounts of
carbon; a healthy forest is one of the State’s key tools for reducing GHG emissions. When forests burn,
however, all of that carbon is released quickly into the atmosphere. As of September 2020, the historic 2020
wildfires—during which the hills surrounding Fairfield
burned and Travis Air Force Base was put under an
evacuation order—had emitted more 83 million metric
tons of CO2e, an 82.4 percent increase over emissions
attributed to 2018 wildfire emissions.20 Though it is
expected that local and statewide 2020 emissions in
the transportation sector will have dropped due to the
pandemic’s stay-at-home orders, emissions from wild-
fires may cancel out any reductions that resulted from
state policies or limited economic and transportation
activities.
20 Next10, 2020 California Green Innovation Index (2020), p.

19. Accessed at https://www.next10.org/publications/2020-gii , February 18, 2021.

TABLE 4-3: 2005 City of Fairfield Community GHG Emissions Inventory Emissions Sector
2005 Emissions
(metric tons)
Percent of 2005
Emissions
2020 BAU Emissions
(metric tons)
Energy 319,664 48.2%370,574
Electricity Subtotal 126,984 19.1%147,215
Residential 53,190 8.0%60,856
Commercial 70,016 10.6%81,936
Industrial 3,779 0.6%4,422
Natural Gas Subtotal 192,680 29.0%223,359
Residential 81,405 12.3%93,138
Commercial 107,674 16.2%126,007
Industrial 3,601 0.5%4,214
Transportation 267,177 40.3%276,624
Passenger Vehicles 212,804 32.1%214,237
Commercial Vehicles 54,373 8.2%62,387
Solid Waste 25,256 3.8%26,168
Off-Road Sources 22,066 3.3%29,556
Wastewater 21,436 3.2%25,086
Potable Water 7,920 1.2%9,134
TOTAL 663,519 100%737,141
Sources: AECOM 2016, City of Fairfield Climate Action Plan, 2017. 4-12 Packet Page 112 of 390Attachment 6 Page 12 of 30

4-13

4.4 Key Findings and Planning Considerations
1 THE CITY CAN PLAY A ROLE IN IMPROVING REGIONAL
AIR QUALITY.

Air quality in the Planning Area is generally good. Fairfield’s air qual- ity monitoring stations indicate that Fairfield’s air is within attainment status for all criteria pollutants, with the exception of PM10, a type of particulate matter.

Air pollutant emissions in and surrounding the Planning Area are gen- erated primarily by mobile sources. In particular, multiple highways and high-volume roadways traverse through the Planning Area, and pollut- ants from vehicles on these roadways can hinder BAAQMD’s ability to achieve attainment for the NAAQS and CAAQS. While BAAQMD bears responsibility for ensuring that the NAAQS and CAAQS are met, the City can provide supplemental assistance at the local level in its General Plan.

Because mobile sources are a major contributor to the degradation of air quality in the region, forward-thinking land use planning, such as creating denser and walkable neighborhoods; improving transit, bicycle, and walking access; planting trees that are effective at filtering pollut- ants from the air; encouraging employers to implement telecommuting and transportation demand management programs; and building more homes near jobs and services would reduce the number of miles trav- eled in cars and improve regional air quality. Implementation of the City’s newly adopted VMT policy will help meet these objectives as well. 2 LAND USE PLANNING SHOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE

NEED FOR PROTECTING THE COMMUNITY FROM SOURCES OF
AIR POLLUTANTS.

Both mobile and stationary sources are present in the Planning Area and result in emissions of TACs. The regulation of mobile and stationary sources are pri- marily the responsibilities of the CARB and BAAQMD, respectively, and thus the City cannot directly control emissions of TACs. Through conscientious land use planning, however, the General Plan can consider the locations of potential new residential and other sensitive land uses and try to reduce the amount of expo- sure they face to emissions of criteria pollutants and TAC emissions generated from the high-volume roads and stationary TAC sources in the city (see Figure 4-1). The siting of new residential projects and other new sensitive receptors (e.g., schools, day care centers, hospitals, retirement homes, etc.) should consider the siting distances recommended by CARB when these uses will be in the vicinity of major roadways and stationary sources to reduce health risks associated with exposure to TACs, particularly DPM, and other design strategies that mitigate the effects of TACs should be explored. For new sensitive land uses, the installation of indoor air quality equipment such as high-efficiency particulate filters should be considered if the recommended siting distances cannot be attained. Additionally, the potential siting of new land uses within the Planning Area that may emit TAC emissions or odors should take into consideration the proximity to the nearest sensitive receptors.

Indoor sources of air pollution are another major concern in the community, particularly in older and lower-income homes. The General Plan will explore strat- egies to promote high-quality housing as part of the Housing Element Update, which could include programs related to indoor air quality in existing homes.

Packet Page 113 of 390Attachment 6 Page 13 of 30

4-14
3 4

THE CLIMATE ACTION PLAN PRESENTS AN OPPORTU-

NITY FOR FAIRFIELD TO FOCUS ON REDUCING ITS GHG
EMISSIONS.

The Climate Action Plan Update and the General Plan EIR should con- sider how buildout of development can help the State meet its GHG reduction goals of achieving carbon neutrality as soon as possible, and no later than 2045. In this regard, new development can be designed with a number of features to reduce GHG emissions relative to business- as-usual. New buildings can improve energy efficiency, increase the reli- ance on renewable energy sources, decrease per-capita water consump- tion, increase tree canopy and native habitat coverage, and facilitate increased alternative modes of transportation through denser and more walkable, bikeable, and transit-friendly communities. A greater emphasis on lowering the carbon-footprint of planned new development would contribute to decreasing the magnitude of climate change impacts that development will ultimately experience. Because the General Plan will be prepared concurrently with the Climate Action Plan, land use, transpor- tation, and economic development strategies can be closely integrated and synergetic with the CAP’s GHG mitigation programs.

DESPITE LOCAL EFFORTS TO MINIMIZE POLLUTANTS,

FAIRFIELD WILL INEVITABLY FACE THE EFFECTS OF CLI-
MATE CHANGE AND MUST PLAN FOR ADAPTATION.

Because GHGs are mostly long-lived pollutants that circulate within the global atmosphere, localized effects of GHG emissions on sensitive receptors are not a concern; however, climate change has the potential to affect the Planning Area. Impacts throughout California from global climate change are expected, but the extent of these effects is still being defined as climate modeling tools become more refined. Regardless of the uncertainty in precise predictions, it is widely understood that substantial climate change is expected to occur in the future. Potential climate change impacts in the Bay Area include, but are not limited to, sea-level rise, extreme heat events, increased water and energy con- sumption, and changes in species distribution and range. The location of new development in the Planning Area should consider a wide range of potential climate and infrastructure scenarios in order to prepare for the unexpected. As required by State law (SB 375), The General Plan must plan for the effects of climate change and develop strategies related to climate change adaptation. The General Plan Safety element will also include strategies to keep residents and property safe and maintain function of critical services in the event of natural disasters.

Packet Page 114 of 390Attachment 6 Page 14 of 30

Geology
and Soils
Chapter 5
This chapter describes existing conditions and the regulatory framework associated with geology and soils and potential risks associated with fault rupture, seismic hazards, ground shaking, liquefaction, soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, ex- pansive soils, and landform/landslide within the Planning Area, in addition to prime agricultural lands. Information in this section is based on publicly available information, including information provided by the California Geological Survey, the United States Geological Survey, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Packet Page 115 of 390Attachment 6 Page 15 of 30

5-2
Background
Fairfield is situated along the eastern margin of the
seismically active Coast Ranges geomorphic province
of California. The area is characterized by folded and
faulted sedimentary and volcanic rocks that forms
the hills to the west and north and range in age from
Mesozoic to Pliocene, while more recent alluvial and
intertidal deposits are found in the southeast. Four
major formations make up the local geologic units: al-
luvial deposits that fill the level Suisun and Green val- leys; the Sonoma volcanics, which are relatively young
(Pliocene age) and comprise the steeper, higher hills
north and east of Green Valley; Markley sandstone
deposited during the Eocene Epoch, which comprises
the north-trending hills west of Interstate 680; and the Great Valley sequence rocks, which are Cretaceous
and Jurassic in age and mainly comprise the hills in the north of the Planning Area.

Agriculture
Agriculture is an important part of Fairfield’s histo-
ry, economy, and way of life. The fertile regional soils support an abundant variety of crops, which are show-
cased by local farmers at weekly markets and stands
throughout the Planning Area. The preservation of
Fairfield’s farmlands and agricultural viability is critical to the City’s success; as such, the City has maintained policies to preserve the agricultural land and open
space around the city limits. In 2003, the City of Fair- field passed Resolution No. 2003-204, which, pursuant
to the 2002 General Plan and EIR, established an agri-
cultural mitigation fee of $11,000 per acre of conver-
sion for all projects that would convert prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or unique farmland
to urban uses. Resolution No. 2006-81 strengthened
this requirement by requiring that all potential conver- sions of farmland be assessed by the same standard,
the 2002 California Department of Conservation Im-
portant Farmlands Map, which was used in the 2002
General Plan EIR analysis. This resolution may be
amended after the adoption of the General Plan Up-
date, as the updated General Plan will use a more re-
cent DOC Farmlands map for its land use classification
and policies.

FARMLAND MONITORING AND MAPPING

PROGRAM
The California Department of Conservation supports
the preservation of agricultural land by classifying farm- land into several categories based on soil type and cur- rent land use. Important Farmland Maps are compiled
by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
(FMMP), which defines the following categories: Prime
Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique
Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Grazing
Land. All categories exclude publicly owned land for
which there is an adopted policy preventing agricultur- al use. The FMMP designations are informational only
and do not constitute any regulatory policy.
•Prime Farmland is land that has the best com-
bination of physical and chemical characteristics
for crop production. It has the soil quality, growing
season, and moisture supply needed to produce
sustained high yields of crops when managed (in-
cluding water management) according to current
farming methods. Prime Farmland must have
been used for the production of crops within the
last three years. Sometimes land is classified by its
agricultural potential, for example, “Prime Farm-
land if Irrigated.”
•Farmland of Statewide Importance is land
other than Prime Farmland that has a good com-
bination of physical and chemical characteristics
for crop production. It must have been used for
crop production within the last three years.
•Unique Farmland is that which does not meet
the criteria for Prime Farmland or Farmland of
Statewide Importance, but which is currently used
for the production of specific high economic value
crops (as listed in the last three years of California
Agriculture, produced by the California Depart-
ment of Food and Agriculture). It has the special
combination of location, soil quality, growing sea-

5.1 Geology and Seismicity
Packet Page 116 of 390Attachment 6 Page 16 of 30

TABLE 5-1: Farmland Types and Acreages
City of Fairfield Unincorporated Area Total Planning Area Farmland Classification Acres Percentage Acres Percentage Acres Percentage Prime Farmland 216.6 0.8%7455.6 4.9%7672.2 4.3%
Farmland of Statewide
Importance 19.8 0.1%676.9 0.4%696.7 0.4%
Unique Farmland 31.8 0.1%1643.9 1.1%1675.7 0.9%
Grazing Land 8011.3 29.9%50744.0 33.5%58755.3 33.0%
Total Farmland 8279.5 30.9%60520.5 40.0%68799.9 38.6%
Total Land Area
(Acres)26761.0 151334 178095
Source: USDA Soil Series, 2021, FMMP 2017
10-5-3
son, and moisture supply to produce sustained
high quality or high yields of a specific crop when
treated and managed according to current farm-
ing practices. Examples may include oranges, ol-
ives, avocados, rice, grapes, and cut flowers.
•Farmland of Local Importance is either cur-
rently producing crops or has the capability to do
so. It is land other than Prime Farmland, Farmland
of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland, but
it may be important to the local economy due to
its productivity.
•Grazing Land is that on which the existing vege-
tation, whether grown naturally or through man-
agement, is suitable for livestock grazing.

Figure 5-1 shows the FMPP designations for the exist-
ing farmland in and around Fairfield. Within the Plan-
ning Area, farmland is found primarily between central
Fairfield and the western neighborhoods including the
Cordelia area. Most of the farmland within Fairfield’s
city limits is classified as prime farmland, though the State recommends irrigation or drainage of some land
in order to achieve a prime rating. South of the ur-
ban core there are parcels of Farmland of Statewide
Importance, as well as Grazing Land. The Planning
Area is surrounded on all sides except for the South,
where the Suisun Marsh is located, by Grazing Land
with patches of Unique Farmland and Prime Farmland
found on the hills to the north, and towards Vacaville.

Table 5-1 lists the acres by farmland type.

Williamson Act

CALIFORNIA LAND CONSERVATION ACT OF
1965 (WILLIAMSON ACT)
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, also
known as the Williamson Act, aims to discourage the
unnecessary and premature conversion of productive
agricultural land to other land uses. Farmers with land under Williamson Act contracts agree not to devel-
op their land for a minimum of 10 years, and in ex-
change, they are taxed according to the land’s farm in- come-producing value, as opposed to its “highest and
best use.” Contracts are automatically renewed every
year; however, the contract can be terminated through
the nonrenewal process, in which a “notice of nonre-
newal” starts the nine-year nonrenewal period and the
annual tax assessment continually increases each year
until it is equivalent to current tax rates at the end of the nonrenewal period. Cancellation of the contract
requires “extraordinary circumstances,” payment of a
penalty of 12.5 percent of the land’s fair market val-
ue, and a public hearing. Local governments receive
an annual subvention of foregone property taxes from
the State, through the Open Space Subvention Act of
1971.

Figure 5-1 shows land under Williamson Act contracts.

Within the city limits, there are 98.6 acres of land un- der Williamson Act contracts (0.4 percent of total incor- porated area). Outside of the city limits but within the Sphere of Influence, there are 62,933.6 acres of land
under Williamson Act contracts (41.6 percent of this
area). Outside of the Planning Area, many parcels are
under Williamson Act contracts, many of which border
the Planning Area boundary.

Packet Page 117 of 390Attachment 6 Page 17 of 30

5-4
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
Paradise Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park
Gary
Falati
Park

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\Farmland.mxd Prime Farmland
Farmland of Statewide Importance
Unique Farmland
Grazing Land
Urban and Built-Up Land
Water
Other Land
Williamson Act
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit LineMap Date: 5/3/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
X-X State Farmland Designation
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), California Department of Conservation, 2018; Williamson Act Parcels, Solano County 2018; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 AÝ
Figure 5-1: Farmlands
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 Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park
Gary
Falati
Park

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I

E
U

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
Busin 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
Gary
Falati
Park
Rancho
Solano
Park
Green Valley
Lake Park
N

P
A

Y
S

N
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
Seismic Hazards Program, California Geological Survey, California Department of Conservation J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\Faults.mxd Cordelia Fault Zone
Great Valley Thrust Fault System
Green Valley Fault
Lagoon Valley Fault
Rio Vista Fault
Earthquake Zones of
Required Investigation
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 5/3/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
6-1 Faults
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: USGS, 2018; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020Green Val ley Fau
lt Cordelia Fault ZoneGrea
t
Va
l
le
y
Th
ru
s
t
Fau
l
t
S
y
s
temLagoon Valley FaultRio Vista FaultAÝ
5-5
Seismic Conditions and
Hazards
The term “seismicity” describes the effects of seismic
waves that are radiated from an earthquake as it rup-
tures. The Planning Area is seismically dominated by
the presence of the active San Andreas fault system
(SAFS). The San Andreas fault system is the general
boundary between the northward moving Pacific Plate
and the southward moving North American Plate.

Movement of the plates relative to one another results
in the accumulation of strain along the faults, which
is released during earthquakes. Numerous moderate
to strong historic earthquakes have been generated
in northern California by the SAFS. This level of active seismicity results in a relatively high seismic risk in the San Francisco Bay Area. In their most recent evaluation, the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) Working Group
on California Earthquake Probabilities estimated that
there is a 72 percent likelihood that a 6.7 or greater
magnitude earthquake will occur in the San Francisco
Bay Area between 2014 and 2044. The faults with a
greater probability of movement, with a magnitude of

6.7 or higher earthquake, are the Hayward fault at 14
percent, the Calaveras fault at 7.4 percent, and the San Andreas fault at 6.4 percent.

The SAFS includes numerous faults found by the Cal-
ifornia Geological Survey in the Bay Area under the
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (A-PEFZA)
to be “active” (i.e., to have evidence of fault rupture in the past 11,000 years). Active regional faults include
the San Andreas, Hayward, Calaveras, Greenville, Rod-
gers Creek, and Green Valley faults. In addition to the regional faults, the Cordelia fault poses a potential
risk to city residents and property. The Cordelia fault zone crosses the western portion of the Planning
Area through Rockville Regional Park and the Corde-
lia neighborhood. The Vaca-Kirby Hills fault also pass- es through the eastern portion of the Planning Area,
but has not experienced displacement within the past
11,700 years. Due to its proximity to regional and local fault systems, the Planning Area is subject to various
seismic and geologic hazards, including surface rup-
ture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides.

SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE
Surface fault rupture can occur during significant seis- mic events. The process generally involves the sudden
failure and displacement of the Earth’s surface along a fault trace or fault zone. The magnitude and geometry
of such ground displacement is highly variable. Build-
ings or other manmade structures that lie atop the
fault can experience serious damage or catastrophic
failure during a strong earthquake.

If an earthquake would occur along the Green Valley
or Cordelia faults, which run through the western por-
tion of the Planning Area and city, fault rupture could occur along that fault line. To prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface
trace of active faults, the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act was passed to address the hazards
of surface fault rupture. Fairfield has two Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones as shown in Figure 5-2, one surrounding
the Green Valley fault line, and one surrounding the
Cordelia fault line.

Packet Page 119 of 390Attachment 6 Page 19 of 30

5-6
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
Vall
e
y
R
d
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
Gary
Falati
Park
Rancho
Solano
Park
Green Valley
Lake 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
Seismic Hazards Program, California Geological Survey, California Department of Conservation J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\Faults.mxd Cordelia Fault Zone
Great Valley Thrust Fault System
Green Valley Fault
Lagoon Valley Fault
Rio Vista Fault
Earthquake Zones of
Required Investigation
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Golf Course
Water
Map Date: 5/3/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
6-1 Faults
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: USGS, 2018; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020Green Val ley Fau
lt Cordelia Fault ZoneGrea
t
Va
l
le
y
Th
ru
s
t
Fau
l
t
S
y
s
temLagoon Valley FaultRio Vista Fault
AÝ
Figure 5-2: Faults and Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation 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 angelsBl2ndStMainStPeabodyRdOliv 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 Valley
Golf Course
Rancho Solano
Golf Course
Dunnell
Nature
ParkMeadow
Glen
Park
Cordelia
Park
Gary
Falati
Park
Rancho
Solano
Park
Green Valley
Lake Park

N A PA C O U N T Y

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I

N
E
U

5-7

GROUND SHAKING
Fairfield is located within a seismically active region and earthquakes have the potential to cause ground
shaking of significant magnitude. Ground shaking is a
general term referring to all aspects of motion of the
Earth’s surface resulting from an earthquake, and is
normally the major cause of damage in seismic events.

The extent of ground shaking is controlled by the mag-
nitude and intensity of the earthquake, distance from
the rupture, and local geologic conditions. Intensity is a subjective measure of the perceptible effects of seis- mic energy at a given point and varies with distance
from the epicenter and local geologic conditions. The
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI) is a commonly
used scale for measurement of the subjective effects
of earthquake intensity. It reports the intensity of shak- ing on a scale from not felt, “not felt except by a few un- der especially favorable circumstances” (I), to extreme, “damage total” (XII). The moment magnitude scale, ab-
breviated MW, is the scale typically used to report the objective size of an earthquake. It measures the total
moment release of the earthquake, where movement
is a product of the distance a fault moved and the force required to move it. Seismic ground shaking, if suffi-
ciently intense and sustained, can result in significant damage to, or catastrophic failure of buildings or other man-made structures.

Seismic activity along nearby or more distant fault
zones is likely to cause ground shaking within the city limits. If an earthquake were to occur, Fairfield could potentially feel ground shaking at a Modified Mercal-
li intensity of VII, very strong shaking with moderate
damage, though it would most likely be at a lower in-
tensity.3

LIQUEFACTION
Liquefaction occurs when loosely packed sandy or
silty materials saturated with water experience ground
shaking extreme enough to lose strength and stiffness.

Liquefied soils behave like a liquid and are responsi-
ble for tremendous damage in an earthquake. For
example, it can cause buildings to collapse, pipes to
leak, and roads to buckle. Since saturated soils are a
necessary condition for liquefaction, soil layers in areas where the groundwater table is near the surface have
higher liquefaction potential than those in which the
water table is located at greater depths.

As shown in Figure 5-3, the Planning Area includes
areas ranging from low to moderate liquefaction sus-
ceptibility. Due to their proximity to the Suisun Marsh, much of the Central Fairfield and Cordelia neighbor-
hoods have a moderate liquefaction susceptibility.4
3 United States Geological Survey, 2017. USGS Forecast for Ground Shaking Intensity from Earthquakes in 2017.

Online. https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/usgs-fore-
cast-ground-shaking-intensity-earthquakes-2017
4 United States Geological Survey, 2006. Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility in the Central San Francisco bay Region, California. Online. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/urban/sfbay/ liquefaction/sfbay/

LANDSLIDES
Earthquake-induced landslides are a secondary earth-
quake hazard that occurs from ground shaking. They
can destroy roads, buildings, utilities, and other critical facilities necessary to respond and recover from an
earthquake. Many communities in the Bay Area have
a high likelihood of encountering such risks, especial- ly in areas with steep slopes. While much of the city’s populated land area is relatively flat and has little to no identified landslide potential hazards, hilly areas
around Planning Area have varying degrees of land-
slide susceptibility. As shown in Figure 5-4, the slopes to the east and west of Green Valley are particularly
vulnerable to landslides. The hills of the Rancho Solano area have a lower landslide susceptibility.

Packet Page 121 of 390Attachment 6 Page 21 of 30

5-8
Figure 5-3: Liquefaction
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
Vall
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

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
U

R
B

L
I
M
I
T
L
I

E
U

U R B A N LIMIT
LIN
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\Liquefaction.mxd Very high
Moderate
Low
Very low
Highway
Major
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
WaterMap Date: 5/3/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
6-x Liquefaction Susceptibility
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: USGS, 2000 & 2006; 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 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 YS O L A N O C O U N T Y
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
U

R
B

L
I
M
I
T
L
I

N
E
U

E
U R B A N LIMIT LINE C e m e n tH 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 nS i s t e r s
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\Liquefaction.mxd Very high
Moderate
Low
Very low
Highway
Major
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
WaterMap Date: 5/3/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
6-x Liquefaction Susceptibility
012½
Miles
Source: USGS, 2000 & 2006; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 AÝ
Packet Page 122 of 390Attachment 6 Page 22 of 30

5-9
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 er
R
d
W Texas St
PittmanR dCordelia 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
R
d
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

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

R
B

N
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\Landslide.mxd Map Date: 5/3/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
6-x Landslide Susceptiblity
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: California Geological Survey, 2011; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 AÝ
Highway
Major
Local
Railroad
City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Water
Landslide Susceptibility Classes
0 III
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
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
PittmanR dCordelia 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
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 YS O L A N O C O U N T Y
Rockville
Cordelia
Suisun
Green
Valley Fairfield
City Hall
Solano County
Courthouse
Travis
Air
Force
Base
Travis AFB
Aero Club
U

R
B

L
I
M
I
T
L
I

E
U

TABLE 5-2: Soils Information
Soil Type Acres
Percentage of
Planning Area
Borrow Pit 428 0.24%
Quarries 158 0.09%
Borrow Areas and Quarries 587 0.33%
Altamont clay 402 0.23%
Altamont-Diablo clays 833 0.47%
Anita cobbly clay 1,642 0.92%
Clear Lake clay 2,268 1.27%
Diablo clay 5,284 2.97%
Diablo-Ayer clays 1,233 0.69%
Pescadero clay 67 0.04%
Ramelli clay 174 0.10%
Stockton clay 12,602 7.08%
Willows clay 28 0.02%
Clay 24,532 13.77%
Altamont-Nacimiento association 870 0.49%
Altamont-San Ysidro-San Benito complex 628 0.35%
Antioch-San Ysidro complex 5,082 2.85%
Brentwood clay loam 294 0.17%
Bressa-Dibble complex 65 0.04%
Conejo clay loam 300 0.17%
Dibble-Los Osos clay loams 11,916 6.69%
Fagan clay loam 69 0.04%
Goulding cobbly clay loam 1,114 0.63%
Joice muck 137 0.08%
5-10

5.2 Soils
Soil Types
Soil types within the Planning Area are shown in Figure 5-5. Table 5-2 provides a breakdown of the soil type
by acreage and percent of planning area. The surface
soils in the Planning Area have been mapped by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and
consist of many soil types. The Planning Area is primar- ily underlain by Loam, Clay, Clay Loam, Muck, and Silty Clay. Descriptions of the general characteristics of the primary soils are presented below
Packet Page 124 of 390Attachment 6 Page 24 of 30

Soil Type Acres
Percentage of
Planning Area
Kang-Beaughton families association 1 0.00%
Pescadero clay 0 0.00%
Pescadero soils 1,315 0.74%
Rincon clay loam 1,624 0.91%
Solano-Pescadero complex 213 0.12%
Clay Loam 23,627 13.27%
Lava flows 11 0.01%
Searles-Gwin families-Lava flow
complex 2 0.00%
Lava Flows 12 0.01%
Aiken very stony loam 1,387 0.78%
Arbuckle gravelly loam 7,626 4.28%
Churn gravelly loam 2,111 1.19%
Columbia loam 210 0.12%
Conejo soils 437 0.25%
Coombs gravelly loam 1 0.00%
Corning gravelly loam 128 0.07%
Dibble-Los Osos loams 16 0.01%
Endlich-Buell families association 0 0.00%
Guemes family 3 0.00%
Hambright loam 1 0.00%
Hambright-Toomes stony loams 2 0.00%
Henneke very rocky loam 8,458 4.75%
McCarthy very cobbly loam 377 0.21%
Millsholm loam 1,539 0.86%
Orland loam 41 0.02%
Soil Type Acres
Percentage of
Planning Area
Reiff gravelly loam 2,104 1.18%
Rincon loam 274 0.15%
San Ysidro loam 2,720 1.53%
Sobrante loam 226 0.13%
Tehama loam 14,366 8.07%
Toomes stony loam 2,958 1.66%
Vina loam 8 0.00%
Yolo loam 2,630 1.48%
Loam 47,624 26.74%
Haypress-Toiyabe loamy coarse sands 1,159 0.65%
Loamy Sand 1,159 0.65%
Joice muck 13,863 7.78%
Muck 13,863 7.78%
Hambright rock-Outcrop complex 451 0.25%
Rock outcrop 3 0.00%
Rock outcrop-Teewinot family
association 0 0.00%
Rock Outcrop 454 0.25%
Ahwahnee coarse sandy loam 1,121 0.63%
Arbuckle gravelly loam 11 0.01%
Auberry rocky coarse sandy loam 1,529 0.86%
Bidwell sandy loam 1,001 0.56%
Clallam, deep-Goldridge, gravelly
families association 3 0.00%
Columbia fine sandy loam 345 0.19%
Gaviota sandy loam 481 0.27%
5-11Packet Page 125 of 390Attachment 6 Page 25 of 30

Soil Type Acres
Percentage of
Planning Area
McCarthy stony sandy loam 1,134 0.64%
McCarthy-Iron Mountain complex 110 0.06%
Millsap sandy loam 815 0.46%
Ruclick-Deven families complex 4 0.00%
San Ysidro sandy loam 2,871 1.61%
Trojan stony sandy loam 676 0.38%
Tyndall very fine sandy loam 1,819 1.02%
Sandy Loam 11,918 6.69%
Dibble silt loam 2,379 1.34%
Valdez silt loam 265 0.15%
Silt Loam 2,644 1.48%
Capy silty clay 2,116 1.19%
Marvin silty clay 58 0.03%
Reyes silty clay 11,717 6.58%
Silty Clay 13,892 7.80%
Sycamore silty clay loam 2,118 1.19%
Valdez complex 56 0.03%
Valdez silty clay loam 6,931 3.89%
Yolo silty clay loam 0 0.00%
Silty Clay Loam 9,105 5.11%
Water 28,619 16.07%
Water (Miscellaneous)58 0.03%
Water 28,677 16.10%
GRAND TOTAL 178,094*100.00%
* Totals have been rounded to a range within +/- one acre.

Source: USDA 20180920 (FY2019 official release)
5-12 Packet Page 126 of 390Attachment 6 Page 26 of 30

5-13
Loam soils comprise 26.74 percent of the Planning
Area. Loam soils are composites that contain relatively 7 to 27 percent clay, 28 to 50 percent silt, and less than 52 percent sand. Loam soils are widely considered to
be the best type of soil for plant growth because their composition of sand, silt, and clay provide desirable
texture and drainage characteristics.3 Tehama Loam
and Henneke Very Rocky Loam are the most common
types of loam soils in the Planning Area; Tehama Loam
is found in the southern portion of the Planning Area
surrounding the Suisun Marsh and Henneke Very
Rocky Loam tops large portions of the Rockville Hills.

Tehama soils are very deep, well drained soils that are formed in mixed alluvium. They are considered farm-
land of statewide importance, meaning that they are
considered by the state to be important soils for grow- ing crops. Henneke Very Rocky Loam is a shallow, well
drained soil that is found on hills with slopes of 15 to 60 percent and rock fragments comprise 35 to 60 per-
cent of the soil volume.4
Clay soils, primarily categorized as Stockton Clay, com- prise 13.77 percent of the Planning Area. These soils
are characterized as well draining with slow runoff
when soil is dry, medium to rapid when soils are moist, and slow permeability.
3 Michigan State University Geology Department, Soils. Ac- cessed at: https://project.geo.msu.edu/geogmich/soils.html , March 2021.
4 University of Michigan, Guide for Preparing Soil Profile De- scriptions, 2003. Accessed at: http://www.umich.edu/~nre430/ PDF/Soil_Profile_Descriptions.pdf, March 10, 2021.

Clay loam soils, primarily categorized as Dibble Los
Osos soils, are a composite soil that contain 27 to 40
percent clay and 20 to 45 percent sand. These soils are located along the slopes of the Vaca Mountains north
of I-80 and Downtown Fairfield, and are characterized
as well drained, slow to rapid runoff, and slow permea- bility. This soil type covers 13.2 percent of the Planning Area.

Silty clay soils, primarily categorized as Reyes silty clay, cover 7.8 percent of the Planning Area. Reyes soil is
very deep and poorly drained soil that formed in allu-
vium along the margin of bays, and they are found in
the Suisun Marsh wetlands in the Planning Area. Reyes
silty clay found in the Suisun Bay have a more than 50
percent organic matter composition, and are capable
of supporting vegetation.

Muck is an organic soil that is saturated for more than 30 cumulative days of the year, and comprises 7.78
percent of the Planning Area, all of it Joice Muck. Joice Muck is located in the Suisun Marsh wetlands. This
type of soil is nutritionally rich and therefore ecologi- cally important; muck is not suitable for building upon as it cannot support heavy loads.5
5 USDA Soil Series, 2020.

SOIL EROSION
Soil erosion is the process by which soil materials are worn away and transported to another area, either by
wind or water. Not accounting for slope and ground-
cover factors, soils high in clay have low susceptibility to erosion because they are resistant to detachment.

Coarse textured soils, such as sandy soils, also have
low erosion potential despite their easy detachment,
because of low runoff. Medium textured soils, such as
the silt loam soils, are moderately susceptible to ero- sion, while soils with a high silt content are the most susceptible.6
Most of the Planning Area—92,768 acres, or 64 per-
cent—is underlain by soils have low erosion suscepti-
bility. Further, since the Planning Area is primarily flat, the risk of soil erosion due to water runoff is relatively low. Stormwater drainage can be a significant cause of
soil erosion, if stormwater is not managed well, espe-
cially during construction. Excessive soil erosion can
eventually damage building foundations and roadways.
6 Institute of Water Research. (2002). RUSLE On-line Soil Ero- sion Assessment Tool. Retrieved from Michigan State University Institute of Water Research: http://www.iwr.msu.edu/rusle/ Packet Page 127 of 390Attachment 6 Page 27 of 30

5-14
St
DlE
MmG2
MmE
RnC
HtE
AcE
DlE HaF
AmE2
RoA
DbC
DlE
DlC
DbC
ToG2
Cn Re
GIE Ta
Re
An
Ta
Ta
Ta
Ta
Ta Ta
Ta
Ja
Ja
Ja
JaYr
W
Re
Re
AnRoA
RoA
ClA
ClA
ClA
An
An
An
Sr
Sr
Sr
Sr Sp
St
St
St
Ys Ys
Pc
Pc
Pc
Ja Jb
Jb
Ja
St
AoA Pc
AoCAsC
AsAAsC
W Ma Sh
ShSkPcPcAn
Jb
Ta
AoA
W
W
W MkA MIC
An SmAsA
Cc
AsA
AoA
AsA
AoA

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
U

N
L
I
M
I
T

L
I

E
U

U R B A N L IM IT LIN
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
DlF2so
DlF2so
HaF
BP
HaF
AsA
DbF2
Pe
CeA
CeB
W
BP
TrE
M-W
Pc
123n
Sr Ca
Pc
Ss
Sr
ToG2152n
Ys
HaF
SeA
CeB
AmE2
QU
DbF2
DbC
MmG2
AmE2
DbF2
MmG2
Cc
Ss
179n
181n
DlERnC
SeB
DlE
DlF2 DlE
MkA
DlE
DbE
DbF2
DbF2
TrE
HaF
St
DbF2
179n W
CeB
Sr
RnC
151n
AoA
Cn
Ss
MkA
Ys
Ca151n
Cs
CeA
AoAToG2
Cn
CeA
Ss
GlE
AcE
CeA
DbC
DbF2
Ys
DbE
DbE
Ys
CeB
Sr
TrE
W
MmE
SeA
DaE2
RoA
TrEDlC
CeA
Wc
AsCToG2
GlE DaCRoC
GlE
St
RoC
MmE
DaE2
W
RoC
HaF
DbE
RoC
W
BrC
CeB
152n
Ca
AsC
RoC
DlF2134n
AsA
178n
DlE
RnCDlE
Sk
AoA
DbE
DlF2
DlE
AsC
DlE
Sr
Cn
W
Ra
Cn
AmE2
Co
AoC
AoA
W
CeA
Ss
DlE
BP
Ys
SeA
RoC SeB
W
AsARoCToG2 AsC
CeA
CeB
CeB
Sr
DlF2
Ss
CeA
HtE
W
Co
ToG2
DbF2
ClA
DlE
MmG2
Yr
RoC
DbF2
AmE2
AoA
DbF2
132n
DlF2
AsADlF2
CeB
Cs
151n
HtE
CeA
CeA
178n
AsA
AmC
AsA
Pe
Ma
TrE TrE
DlF2
W
DlE
RoA
MmG2
RoA
DlF2
RoCDlF2
CeA
HaF
HaFCeA
RoA
DaE2ToG2
RoA
MmG2
W
W
RoC
Ys
SeB
DlF2
SeA
W
HaF
W
178n DlE
AcE
DbE
SeB
CeB
MmG2
SeA
MmG2
Ss
Yr
Ys
Sr
HtE
178n
Sr
AcC
BrA
Ss
HaF
RoC
RoA DlC
TrE
AmE2
MmG2
RoA
DlC
AoA
BP
DlF2
SeA
AsA
MkA
DbE
GlE Pc
DlF2
DlE
TrE
151n
RoC
ToG2
Ss
AcE
RoA
MmE
AoA
AcE
CvD2
AsA
MmG2
SrW
Pe
MmG2
St
RnC
Ca
CeA
W
DlE
BrC
AsA
QU
DlF2
AsA
RoC
MmG2
W
DlF2
MmG2
DlF2
MkA
ToG2
Om
Sr
DbE
Yr
DlE
HtE DbE
SfA
DlE
Pe
DlE
Sr
ToG2
Co
RoA DlCRnC
RoA
Sk
Ra
DbE
BP
RoA
HtE
Ca
DbE
AmE2
ClA
ToG2
AoA
St
DlE
RoC
DlF2
DlF2
DbF2
BP
AoA
GaG2
Ys
DlE
MmG2
DlE
AoA
MmE AoA
GlE
DlE
Sm
MmG2
DbE
CeB
ToG2
DlE
AsA
114n
RoC
HaF
DbC
SfA
W
MmG2 Cs
AoA
BrA
HtE
Co
HtE
RoA Ca
Ss
BP
152n
Pc
MkACc
CeA
W
Sr
AoA
GlE
GlE
ToG2
HaF
152n
BrC
SeA
W
Ca
DbERnC
RoC
AoA
DlF2
DbF2
RoC CeB
DbC
GlE
TrE
Cr
DlE
GlE
MmE
DbE
CeB
RoC
CeA
DlEAoC
PcDlE
GlE
SfA
CeA
Wc
CeBRoC
QU
BP
179n
AcC
BrA
AoA
AcC
AcE
ToG2HtE
BP
CaRoC
RoC
HtE
DbE
DbC
SeB
DbF2
RoA
RnC
W
DbC
CeA
DbE
MmG2 CeA
MmG2
DbF2
W
AmE2
CeB
DlEGaG2
SfA
AsA
AIC
SeA
Sh
DbE
DlF2
RoA
GlE HtE
Ss
AoA
DbC
MmG2
BrA
Sr BP
Ca
GlE
AsA
DlE
AcF2
AmE2
RnC
Pe
GlE
W
DbE RoC
AcC
HtE
QU
Cr
AmE2
J:\GISData\578_Fairfield_GPU\GIS\Projects\ECR\Soils.mxd Map Date: 5/3/2021
AÝ
!"c$
!"c$
%&p(
6-2 Soils
0 1 2½
Miles
Ahwahnee coarse sandy loam
Aiken very stony loam
Altamont clay
Altamont-Diablo clays
Altamont-Nacimiento
association
Altamont-San Ysidro-
San Benito complex
Anita cobbly clay
Antioch-San Ysidro complex
Arbuckle gravelly loam
Auberry rocky coarse
sandy loam
Bidwell sandy loam
Borrow Pit
Brentwood clay loam
Bressa-Dibble complex
Capy silty clay
Churn gravelly loam
Clallam, deep-Goldridge,
gravelly families association
Clear Lake clay
Columbia fine sandy loam
Columbia loam
Conejo clay loam
Conejo soils
Coombs gravelly loam
Corning gravelly loam
Diablo clay
Diablo-Ayar clays
Dibble silt loam
Dibble-Los Osos clay loams
Dibble-Los Osos loams
Endlich-Buell families association
Fagan clay loam
Gaviota sandy loam
Goulding cobbly clay loam
Guemes family
Hambright loam
Hambright rock-Outcrop complex
Hambright-Toomes stony loams
Haypress-Toiyabe loamy coarse sands
Henneke very rocky loam
Joice muck
Kang-Beaughton families association
Lava flows
Marvin silty clay
McCarthy stony sandy loam
McCarthy very cobbly loam
McCarthy-Iron
Mountain complex
Millsap sandy loam
Millsholm loam
Orland loam
Pescadero clay
Pescadero soils
Quarries
Ramelli clay
Reiff gravelly loam
Reyes silty clay
Rincon clay loam
Rincon loam
Rock outcrop
Rock outcrop-
Teewinot family association
Ruclick-Deven families complex
San Ysidro loam
San Ysidro sandy loam
Searles-Gwin families-
Lava flow complex
Sobrante loam
Solano-Pescadero complex
Stockton clay
Sycamore silty clay loam
Tehama loam
Toomes stony loam
Trojan stony sandy loam
Tyndall very fine sandy loam
Valdez complex
Valdez silt loam
Valdez silty clay loam
Vina loam
Water
Water (Miscellaneous)
Willows clay
Yolo loam
Yolo silty clay loam
Highway
City Limit
Sphere of
Influence
Planning Area
Urban Limit Line
Park
Source: USDA, 2019; Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020 151
152
MmE
MlC
MkA
MmG2
Om
Pe
Pc
QU
Ra
ROA
Re
Ma
RoC
MnE
RnC
175n
175
178/179
ToG2
TrE
Vc
Td
SeA/SeBSfA
Sh
178n/179n
Sk
Va
Ve
Vd
W
M-W
Wc
181n/Yr/Ys
Ysso
247
Sm/Sp/Sr/Ss
St
Ta
Cr
Cs
123
DbC/DbF2
DaC/DaE2
DbE
DlC/DlE/DlF2
DbEso/DbF2so
123
132n/
134n
GaG2
GlE
134
CvD2
HaFso
151n/152n
HtEso
HtE
HaF
Ja
AcC
AcE
AmE2
AcF2
AmC
AlC
An
AoC/AsA
AoA
AsC
BrA
BP
BrC
114n
Ca
CeA/CeB
114
Cc/CIA
Cn
Co
AÝ
Figure 5-5: Soils
Packet Page 128 of 390Attachment 6 Page 28 of 30

5-15
2 1
3 FAIRFIELD MUST BALANCE PROTECTION OF FARMLAND WITH
NEW DEVELOPMENT AREAS.

Preservation of viable agricultural land is an important part of Fairfield’s regional economy and an important factor in defining the visual char- acter of the city. Nearly a third of the city is classified as farmland, and there are 98.6 acres of land under Williamson Act contracts (0.4 percent of total incorporated area), and outside the City limits are extensive ex- tents of Prime Farmland, as well as farmland in other categories. As the General Plan Update considers new growth areas to meet housing and economic needs, it will also need to balance protection of valuable agri- cultural lands around Fairfield from the rapidly increasing development pressures within the region, as well as maintain and enhance the City’s desired image through a well-balanced pattern of development.

FAIRFIELD MUST ACCOUNT FOR SEISMIC RISK IN NEW DEVEL-
OPMENT AND LAND USE DESIGNATIONS.

The SAFS is a significant active regional fault capable of causing a large earthquake. Areas located on or immediately adjacent to the fault re- quire thorough investigation in accordance with the Alquist-Priolo Act and California Building Code (CBC) prior to any development to ensure that fault rupture hazards can be avoided or mitigated to a less than significant impact. Throughout the Planning Area there is potential for strong ground shaking. Current geotechnical practices and seismic de- sign criteria in State regulations and the CBC can minimize potential damage and injury from seismicity. Land use designations in the Gen- eral Plan should be considerate of seismic risks, especially in areas that are more susceptible to landslides, liquefaction, and along active fault lines, including the hilly areas around the Planning Area, areas near the Suisun Marsh, and the Cordelia neighborhood. However, because soil types can vary considerably and depth to groundwater is an important factor in liquefaction potential, site-specific geotechnical studies should be used to determine whether a specific location may be subject to liq- uefaction hazard.

LANDSLIDES POSE A THREAT TO SAFETY IN THE PLANNING

AREA AND SHOULD BE ADDRESSED THROUGH POLICIES IN THE
GENERAL PLAN.

Geographic areas containing weaker soils are more susceptible to land- slide. Development in areas that are at risk of landslide, including seis- mically induced landslide, may require special techniques during exca- vation to shore up excavated areas and reduce likelihood of inducing future landslide. The General Plan Update provides an opportunity to emphasize constraints within hazard zones and provide policy direction for future development within and in close proximity to sensitive and hazardous areas.

5.3 Key Findings and Planning Considerations
Packet Page 129 of 390Attachment 6 Page 29 of 30

5-16 Packet Page 130 of 390Attachment 6 Page 30 of 30

Biological
Resources
This chapter provides an overall description of the existing biological resources within the Planning Area. The following provides a description of the vegetation communities and associated wildlife habitats, wildlife movement corridors, sensitive natural communities, special-status species, and potential federal and state jurisdictional wetlands and other waters. Where appropriate, this chapter identifies opportu- nities or challenges to be addressed in the updated General Plan via policy, goals or best management practices (BMPs).

Chapter 6
Packet Page 131 of 390Attachment 7 Page 1 of 4

Valley floor grassland
Coastal brackish marsh
The City lies in the southwestern portion of Solano
County and borders the northern edge of Suisun
Marsh (Figure 6-1). The City is fully within the Suisun Bay HUC-8 watershed (CWIP 2021). All rainwater
and runoff from the City enter the San Francisco Bay
through Suisun Bay. The Planning Area within the City
Limit consists of mainly flat lands as it lies in the foot- hills of the Inner North Coast Range. Outside the City
Limit, the Planning Area includes large tracts of Suisun Marsh and Vaca Mountains. Though a majority of the
Planning Area currently encompasses residential,
commercial, and other urban development, a mosaic
of natural communities in open space areas support
a suite of special-status plant and wildlife species, des- ignated critical habitat, and federal/state protected
aquatic resources. General descriptions of natural
communities, special-status species, and protected
habitat areas discussed below are based a review of
environmental documents, including:
•California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic
Inventory (CNPS 2021)
•CDFW California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB) (CDFW 2021)
•Fairfield Train Station Specific Plan EIR (AECOM
2011)
•Hawthorne Mill Project Draft EIR/EIS (Michael
Brandman Associates 2011)
•Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan Draft EIR (City of
Fairfield 2017)
•Solano County Habitat Conservation Plan (SWCA
2012)
•USFWS List of Federal Endangered and Threatened
Species (USFWS 2021)
Natural Communities
This section provides a brief description of natural
communities in the Planning Area and is consistent
with the Solano Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP; pre-
pared 2012 by Solano County Water Agency, but pub-
lished as Draft) that represents the most recent and
comprehensive vegetation mapping and classification
efforts that have been undertaken within the Planning
Area (Figures 6-2 and 6-3). Vegetation is divided into
four broad natural communities: (1) valley floor grass- land and vernal pool natural community; (2) inner coast range natural community; (3) riparian, stream, and
freshwater marsh natural community; and (4) coastal
marsh natural community. While not technically a nat-
ural community, agriculture is a dominant cover type,
particularly in the northeastern portion of the Planning Area and along the Suisun Creek, and provides
important habitat for several covered species (e.g.,
Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl). Therefore, agri-
culture is treated as a fifth natural community (SCWA
2012). Developed lands encompassing approximately
18,840 acres of the Planning Area are not included
in the following discussion. Natural communities and
their associated vegetation types within the Planning
Area are described in the following sections.

6.1 Natural Communities, Special
Status Species, and Habitat
Packet Page 132 of 390Attachment 7 Page 2 of 4

6-3
R o c k v ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia St S
ui
s
unVa
l
l
e
y
RdWaltersRdMankas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridianRdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
R
d
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
EastTaborAv
Railroad
Av
Ohio St
Co u r age D 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
Manu e l CamposPk
w
y
Travis Av
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
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
U

N
L
I

M
I

T
L
I

E
U

B
A

N
L

T
L

E
Rancho Solano
Municipal
Golf Course
Cement
Hill
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Suisun
Hill
Twin
Sisters
680
80 12
80 12
L:\Acad 2000 Files\30000\30235\GIS\ArcMap\30235Base11x17.aprx Map Date: 3/23/2021
!"^$A¸A³
Figure 6-1: Vicinity Map
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020File Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\30000\30235\GIS\ArcMap\30235Base11x17.aprx City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Urban Limit Line
Planning Area Boundary
Parks / Open Space
Suisun Marsh
Sources: DWR, Solano County, City of Fairfield, WRAR o c k v ille R d Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
l
l
e
y
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
Busi nessC enterDrClayBank Rd
Cement Hill Rd
Manu 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
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
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
U

L
I

M
I

L
I

E
U

B
A

N
L

T
L

E
Rancho Solano
Municipal
Golf Course
Cement
Hill
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Suisun
Hill
Twin
Sisters
680
80 12
80 12
L:\Acad 2000 Files\30000\30235\GIS\ArcMap\30235Base11x17.aprx Map Date: 3/23/2021
!"^$A¸A³Figure 6-1: Vicinity Map
012½
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020File Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\30000\30235\GIS\ArcMap\30235Base11x17.aprx City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Urban Limit Line
Planning Area Boundary
Parks / Open Space
Suisun Marsh
Sources: DWR, Solano County, City of Fairfield, WRAFigure 6-1: Planning Boundary Packet Page 133 of 390Attachment 7 Page 3 of 4

Inner coast range natural community
6-4

VALLEY FLOOR GRASSLAND AND VERNAL

POOL NATURAL COMMUNITY
Approximately 36,657 acres of the Planning Area are
comprised of valley floor grassland and vernal pool
natural community, located along the western edge
of California’s Central Valley and in Suisun Marsh. This community is distinguished by unique soil types and
relatively low lying landscape position, characterized
as broad flat areas marked with low hills. Grasslands
are the typical vegetative community found within this
habitat designation. The distinction between the two
types, valley floor and vernal pool, are based on soil
types. Soils that retain moisture and develop shal-
low pools during and after rains (Antioch, San Ysidro,
Pescadero, and Clear Lake) are found in vernal pool
grassland area. More easily desiccated soils (Altamont
and Diablo) comprise the valley floor grasslands.

Vegetation types within the valley floor grassland
and vernal pool natural community that occur in the
Planning Area are described below (SCWA 2012).

Valley Floor Grassland
Plants typically found in valley floor grasslands include wild oats (Avena spp.), various bromes and bar-
leys (Bromus spp. and Hordeum ssp.), Italian wildrye
(Lolium multiflorum), filarees (Erodium spp.), mustards (Brassica rapa, B. niger, Hirschfeldia incana), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), mallows (Malva spp.), vetches (Vicia spp.), star thistles (Centaurea spp.), and others. Native species that commonly occur with nonnative plants
include small-flowered lupine (Lupinus bicolor), fiddle- neck (Amsinckia spp.), California goldfields (Lasthenia californica), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), and owl’s-clovers (Castilleja spp., Triphysaria spp.)
(Solano 2012).

Approximately 14,688 acres of the Planning Area con-
sist of valley floor grassland. These areas are spread
throughout the Planning Area with the highest con-
centration occurring surrounding Travis Air Force Base
and north area of Suisun Marsh. Additional pockets of
this grassland are located west of I-680 and around
Business Center Drive and throughout the developed
areas around the downtown area.

Vernal Pool Grassland
Vernal pool grasslands include the same plant species
listed above for valley floor grasslands, but also con- tain seasonal wetland features known as vernal pools.

Vernal pools are small, ephemeral wetlands that occur
in ground depressions underlain by hardpan that fill
with rainwater and runoff during wet winter months.

When water in the pools begins evaporating, concen-
tric bands of vegetation begin growing in the newly
dried area. Much of the area of vernal pool habitat has been converted to agricultural uses.

The majority of the 8,402 acres of vernal pool grass-
land within the Planning Area occur to the east and
north of Travis Air Force Base, south of State Route 12 in the vicinity of Potrero Hills, as well as east of Beck Avenue. These areas are within the Jepson Prairie and
Suisun Marsh core recovery areas designated in the
Vernal Pool Recovery Plan released by USFWS.

Inner Coast Range Natural Community
The Inner Coast Range natural community is distin-
guished from other natural communities within the
Planning Area by its geography and topography, rather
than plant community composition. This community
is found in the higher elevation areas of the Planning
Area. Approximately 10,1016 acres of the Planning
Area are part of the Inner Coast Range natural com-
munity. These areas consist of the majority of the lands to the west of I-80 in the northeastern section of the
Planning Area and the undeveloped areas west of
I-680 in the southeastern section of the Planning Area
(Figure 6-2). Vegetation types within the Planning Area that fall under this association are discussed below.

Packet Page 134 of 390Attachment 7 Page 4 of 4

6-5
R o c k v ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
l
l
e
y
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
Busin essC enterDrClayBank Rd
Cement Hill Rd
Manu 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
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
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
U

N
L
I

M
I

L
I

E
U

B
A

N
L

T
L

E
Rancho Solano
Municipal
Golf Course
Cement
Hill
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Suisun
Hill
Twin
Sisters
680
80 12
80 12
L:\Acad 2000 Files\30000\30235\GIS\ArcMap\30235Base11x17.aprx Map Date: 3/22/2021
!"^$A¸A³
Figure 6-2: Natural Communities
0 0.9 1.80.45
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020File Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\30000\30235\GIS\ArcMap\30235Base11x17.aprx City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Urban Limit Line
Planning Area Boundary
Natural Communities in the Planning Area
Irrigated Agriculture (14,968 ac.)
Coastal Marsh (60,241 ac.)
Inner Coast Range (38,336 ac.)
Riparian, Stream and Freshwater Marsh (5,371 ac.)
Valley Floor Grassland/Vernal Pool (36,657 ac.)Sources: Solano County Habitat Conservation Plan, City of Fairfield, WRAFigure 6-2: Natural Communities Packet Page 135 of 390Attachment 8 Page 1 of 2

Oak savanna
6-6
Scrub/Chaparral
Scrub/chaparral communities are structurally homog-
enous plant communities characterized by dense
growth of low growing shrubs and brushes. Percent
canopy cover can reach 80 percent with plants typi-
cally remaining below 13 ft in height. Typical plant
species found in chaparral communities include scrub
oak (Quercus berberidifolia), manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.), chaparral pea (Pickeringia montana), and chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) (SWCA 2012). Scrub habi-
tats are similar to chaparral, but are better suited for moister conditions. Plant species found in scrub hab-
itat include coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis), California sagebrush (Artemesia californica) and sticky monkey
flower (Mimulus aurantiacus).

Approximately 1,018 acres of the Planning Area
are composed of scrub/chaparral plant communi-
ties (Figure 6-3). This community occurs in the Vaca
Mountains and in small patches northwest of I-80.

Oak Savanna
Oak savanna is composed of many of the grassland
species mentioned above, but also includes 10 to 30
percent canopy cover of mature oak trees. The most
common oak species that are likely to be found in the
Planning Area include valley oak (Quercus lobata) and
blue oak (Quercus douglasii). Understory shrub plants
typically associated with oak savanna includes poison
oak (Toxicodendron diversalobum), gooseberries (Ribes
spp.), and/or toyon (Heteromales arbutifolia).

Oak savanna comprises 3,628 acres of the Planning
Area. The entire area between Cordelia Road and Dan
Wilson Creek that lies outside of the City limits but
within the Sphere of Influence is characterized as oak
savanna habitat (Figure 6-3). Areas of oak savanna are
scattered northeast of I-80 in the Vaca Mountains.

Oak Woodlands
Oak woodlands are composed of similar species as
oak savanna habitats, but the canopy cover is greater
than 30 percent. The exact percentage of canopy cov-
erage is dependent upon topography, climate, and soil
composition. Additional tree species associated with
oak woodlands include interior live oak (Q. wislezenii), black oak (Q. kelloggii), California bay (Umbellularia cal- ifornica), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and walnut (Juglans spp.).

Approximately 10,916 acres of the Planning Area are
comprised of oak woodlands. The woodlands are inter-
spersed with the oak savanna, upland grassland, and
scrub/chaparral habitat to the northeast I-80 in the
Vaca Mountains along the north and west border of
the Planning Area (Figure 6-3).

Upland Grasslands
Within the Inner Coast Range natural community,
upland grasslands occupy approximately 18,132 acres
of the Planning Area. This vegetation type shares sim-
ilar plant species composition to valley floor grassland described previously. However, upland grasslands
occur on well drained soils and are subject to drier
conditions typically associated with hillsides, slopes, ridges, and foothill terraces.

RIPARIAN, STREAM, AND FRESHWATER

MARSH NATURAL COMMUNITY
This natural community is associated with freshwater
systems that flow along streams, rivers, creeks and
marshes throughout approximately 5,371 acres of the
Planning Area. The vegetation types found within this
natural community are discussed below.

Riparian Woodland, Scrub, and Herbaceous
Riparian communities occur along intermittent and
perennial streams, lakes, and ponds. Riparian vege-
tation can also occur where the water table is high
enough to supply roots with water year-round. Riparian
communities can be further broken down into wood-
lands, scrub, or herbaceous areas. A mixture of herba-
ceous riparian and riparian woodlands can be found in
the Planning Area. Species commonly found in riparian
woodlands include cottonwoods (Populus spp.), willows
(Salix spp.) mixed with bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), Packet Page 136 of 390Attachment 8 Page 2 of 2

Coastal brackish marsh
6-7
Oregon ash (Fraxinus latifolia), box elder (Acer negundo), and California sycamore (Platanus racemosa).

Riparian communities cover approximately 274 acres
of the Planning Area. This includes the areas surround- ing Laurel Creek, Soda Springs Creek, the creeks near
Rolling Hills Park, Ledgewood Creek, Cordelia Slough,
American Canyon Creek, and other unnamed creeks
along the eastern edge of the Planning Area.

Freshwater Marsh
Freshwater marsh is an herbaceous community that
develops in shallow, standing, or slow-moving water
at the edges of ponds and streams and at other sites
that lack currents and are permanently flooded by
fresh water. Characteristic plant species include cat-
tails (Typha angustifolia, T. domingensis, T. latifolia), bul- rushes (Scirpus acutus, S. americanus, S. californicus), sedges (Carex spp.), flat-sedges (Cyperus spp.), bur-reed (Sparganium eurycarpum), and pennywort (Hydrocotyle
verticillata). Freshwater occurs along saturated low ter- races of perennial streams and open water features
throughout the Planning Area.

Open Water
This community is distinguished from other aquatic
habitats by the presence of deep water that prohibits
terrestrial plant growth. Approximately 25,609 acres of the Planning Area are covered with open water. These
areas include Lake Madigan, Lake Frey, streams asso-
ciated with the riparian habitats described above, and
unnamed ponds distributed throughout developed
areas.

COASTAL MARSH NATURAL COMMUNITY
Approximately 60,241 acres of coastal marsh natu-
ral community occur within the south portion of the
Planning Area (Figure 7-2). These areas include large
tracts of Suisun Marsh. Within the Planning Area, veg-
etation types within this natural community include
coastal brackish marsh and tidal flats.

Coastal Brackish Marsh
Coastal brackish marsh vegetation develops in shal-
low, standing, or slow-moving waters in coastal bays,
estuaries, and lagoons, where fresh water and salt
water converge in a tidal area. Brackish marsh gener-
ally contains similar species to both coastal salt marsh and freshwater marsh and is typically dominated by
perennial, emergent, herbaceous plants up to 6.5 ft in
height. Plant species commonly found in this commu-
nity include cattails, alkali rush (Scirpus robustus) as well as other bulrushes. Depending on the salinity other
species of sedge, rush (Juncus sp.), and pickleweed
(Salicornia spp.) can be found in this habitat.

Tidal Flats
Tidal flats within approximately 812 acres of the
Planning Area occur in Suisun Marsh. This community
is characterized by deep sloughs and intertidal mud-
flats exposed at low tides with occasional cordgrass
(Spartina spp.) and other species characteristic of
coastal brackish marsh.

Agriculture
Agricultural land comprises approximately 3,890
acres of the Planning Area (Figure 6-3). According to
the vegetative communities surrounding these lands,
agricultural lands were likely previously herbaceous
grasslands. Agricultural lands are found mostly in
the northeastern area around Vacaville Junction and
southwestern portions of the City near Subeet and
Vintage Green Valley Park.

Packet Page 137 of 390Attachment 9 Page 1 of 6

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
Busi n essC enterDrClayBank Rd
Cement Hill Rd
Manu 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
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
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
U

N
L
I

M
I

L
I

E
U

B
A

N
L

T
L

E
Rancho Solano
Municipal
Golf Course
680
80 12
80 12
L:\Acad 2000 Files\30000\30235\GIS\ArcMap\30235Base11x17.aprx Map Date: 3/22/2021
!"^$A¸A³
Figure -3: Vegetation Types
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020File Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\30000\30235\GIS\ArcMap\30235Base11x17.aprx City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Urban Limit Line
Planning Area Boundary
Vegetation Cover within Planning Area
Agriculture (14,408 ac.)
Approved Development (9 ac.)
Existing Development (18,840 ac.)
Grassland - Upland (18,132 ac.)
Grassland - Valley Floor (14,688 ac.)
Grassland - Vernal Pool System (8,402 ac.)
Marsh (60,205 ac.)
Oak Savanna (3,628 ac.)
Oak Woodland (10,916 ac.)
Open Water (25,609 ac.)
Preapproved Development (243 ac.)
Riparian (924 ac.)
Scrub/chaparral (1,018 ac.)
Tidal Flats (812 ac.)Sources: Solano County Habitat Conservation Plan, City of Fairfield, WRA6-8 Figure 6-3: Vegetation Cover
Packet Page 138 of 390Attachment 9 Page 2 of 6

6-9
Wildlife
The Planning Area supports an abundant and diverse
fauna. The combination of open grassland with avail-
able seasonal and perennial water sources attracts
many wildlife species commonly found in Solano
County, as well as special-status wildlife species, which are discussed separately below.

Common grassland species within the Planning Area
include bird species such as western meadowlark
(Sturnella neglecta) and Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus
cyanocephalus), raptors such as Swainson’s hawk
(Buteo swainsoni), and golden eagle (Aquila chrysae-
tos), and mammals such as coyote (Canis latrans) and
California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi).

Riparian, stream, and freshwater and coastal brackish
marsh habitats support a variety of birds, mammals,
reptiles, and amphibians (AECOM 2011, City of Fairfield 2017).

Special-Status Plant and
Wildlife Species

SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS
There are 42 special-status plant species that have
documented occurrences either within or in the vicin-
ity of the City of Fairfield. The special-status species addressed in this EIR are based on a review of records
from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), CNPS On-Line Inventory, and the Solano HCP Covered
Species database. CNDDB and CNPS searches were
based on the records in the Fairfield North, Fairfield
South, Elmira, Cordelia, and Denverton U.S. Geological
Survey 7.5-minute quadrangles (CNDDB 2021, CNPS
2021, SCWA, 2012). Table 6-1 lists these species alpha- betically by scientific name and defines their current
TABLE 6-1: Special-status plant species with potential to occur in the Planning Area
Species Status*Habitat
alkali milk-vetch
Astragalus tener var. tener
Rank
1B.2
Playas, valley and foothill grassland
(adobe clay), vernal pools. Elevation rang-
es from 0 to 195 feet (1 to 60 meters).

Blooms Mar-Jun.
heartscale
Atriplex cordulata var.
cordulata
Rank
1B.2
Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps,
valley and foothill grassland (sandy).

Elevation ranges from 0 to 1835 feet (0 to
560 meters). Blooms Apr-Oct.
crownscale
Atriplex coronata var.
coronata Rank 4.2
Chenopod scrub, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools. Elevation ranges
from 0 to 1935 feet (1 to 590 meters).

Blooms Mar-Oct.
brittlescale
Atriplex depressa
Rank
1B.2
Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps,
playas, valley and foothill grassland,
vernal pools. Elevation ranges from 0
to 1050 feet (1 to 320 meters). Blooms
Apr-Oct.
vernal pool smallscale
Atriplex persistens
Rank
1B.2
Vernal pools (alkaline). Elevation ranges
from 30 to 375 feet (10 to 115 meters).

Blooms Jun,Aug,Sep,Oct.

Congdon's tarplant
Centromadia parrvi ssp.
congdonii
Rank
1B.1
Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline).

Elevation ranges from 0 to 755 feet (0 to
230 meters). Blooms May-Oct(Nov).
pappose tarplant
Centromadia parrvi ssp.
parrvi
Rank
1B.2
Chaparral, coastal prairie, meadows and
seeps, marshes and swamps (coastal
salt), valley and foothill grassland (vernal-
ly mesic). Elevation ranges from 0 to 1380
feet (0 to 420 meters). Blooms May-Nov.
status, the habitat type they are associated with, and
their blooming period.

Packet Page 139 of 390Attachment 9 Page 3 of 6

6-10
TABLE 6-1: Special-status plant species with potential to occur in the Planning Area
Species Status*Habitat
Parry's rough tarplant
Centromadia parrvi ssp.
rudis Rank 4.2
Valley and foothill grassland, vernal
pools. Elevation ranges from 0 to 330 feet
(0 to 100 meters). Blooms May-Oct.
hispid bird's-beak
Chloropyron molle ssp.
hispidum
Rank
1B.1
Meadows and seeps, playas, valley and
foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from
0 to 510 feet (1 to 155 meters). Blooms
Jun-Sep.
soft bird's-beak
Chloropyron molle ssp.
molle

FE, SR,
Rank
1B.2
Marshes and swamps (coastal salt).

Elevation ranges from 0 to 10 feet (0 to 3
meters). Blooms Jun-Nov.

Bolander's water-hemlock
Cicuta maculata var.
bolanderi
Rank
2B.1
Marshes and swamps coastal, fresh or
brackish water. Elevation ranges from
0 to 655 feet (0 to 200 meters). Blooms
Jul-Sep.

Suisun thistle
Cirsium hydrophilum var.
hydrophilum
FE, Rank
1B.1
Marshes and swamps (salt). Elevation
ranges from 0 to 5 feet (0 to 1 meters).

Blooms Jun-Sep.
recurved larkspur
Delphinium recurvatum
Rank
1B.2
Chenopod scrub, cismontane woodland,
valley and foothill grassland. Elevation
ranges from 5 to 2590 feet (3 to 790 me-
ters). Blooms Mar-Jun.
dwarf downingia
Downingia pusilla
Rank
2B.2
Valley and foothill grassland (mesic),
vernal pools. Elevation ranges from 0
to 1460 feet (1 to 445 meters). Blooms
Mar-May.

Mt. Diablo buckwheat
Eriogonum truncatum
Rank
1B.1
Chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from
5 to 1150 feet (3 to 350 meters). Blooms
Apr-Sep(Nov-Dec).

Jepson’s coyote-thistle
Eryngium jepsonii
Rank
1B.2
Vernal pools, valley and foothill grass-
land. Elevation ranges from 5 to 1150 feet
(3 to 350 meters). Blooms Apr-Aug.

San Joaquin spearscale
Extriplex joaquinana
Rank
1B.2
Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps,
playas, valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation ranges from 0 to 2740 feet (1 to
835 meters). Blooms Apr-Oct.

TABLE 6-1: Special-status plant species with potential to occur in the Planning Area
Species Status*Habitat
adobe-lily
Fritillaria pluriflora
Rank
1B.2
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley
and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges
from 195 to 2315 feet (60 to 705 meters).

Blooms Feb-Apr.
woolly-headed gilia
Gilia capitata ssp. tomen-
tosa
Rank
1B.1
Coastal bluff scrub, valley and foothill
grassland. Elevation ranges from 30
to 720 feet (10 to 220 meters). Blooms
May-Jul.

Brewer’s western flax
Hesperolinon breweri
Rank
1B.2
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, valley
and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges
from 640 to 2990 feet (195-910 meters).

Blooms May-Jun.

Carquinez goldenbush
Isocoma arguta
Rank
1B.1
Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline).

Elevation ranges from 0 to 65 feet (1 to
20 meters). Blooms Aug-Dec.

Contra Costa goldfields
Lasthenia conjugens
FE, Rank
1B.1
Cismontane woodland, playas (alkaline),
valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools.

Elevation ranges from 0 to 1540 feet (0 to
470 meters). Blooms Mar-Jun.

Ferris' goldfields Lasthenia
ferrisiae Rank 4.2
Vernal pools (alkaline, clay). Elevation
ranges from 65 to 2295 feet (20 to 700
meters). Blooms Feb-May.

Coulter's goldfields Lasthe-
nia glabrata ssp. coulteri
Rank
1B.1
Marshes and swamps (coastal salt), pla-
yas, vernal pools. Elevation ranges from
0 to 4005 feet (1 to 1220 meters). Blooms
Feb-Jun.

Delta tule pea Lathyrus
jepsonii var. jepsonii
Rank
1B.2
Marshes and swamps (freshwater and
brackish). Elevation ranges from 0 to 15
feet (0 to 5 meters). Blooms May-Jul(Aug-
Sep).
legenereLegenere limosa
Rank
1B.1
Vernal pools. Elevation ranges from 0
to 2885 feet (1 to 880 meters). Blooms
Apr-Jun.
woolly-headed lessingia
Lessingia hololeuca Rank 3
Broadleafed upland forest, coastal scrub,
lower montane coniferous forest, valley
and foothill grassland. Elevation ranges
from 45 to 1000 feet (15 to 305 meters).

Blooms Jun-Oct.

Packet Page 140 of 390Attachment 9 Page 4 of 6

6-11
TABLE 6-1: Special-status plant species with potential to occur in the Planning Area
Species Status*Habitat
Mason's lilaeopsis
Lilaeopsis masonii
SR, Rank
1B.1
Marshes and swamps (brackish or fresh-
water), riparian scrub. Elevation ranges
from 0 to 35 feet (0 to 10 meters). Blooms
Apr-Nov.
marsh microseris
Microseris paludosa
Rank
1B.2
Closed-cone coniferous forest, cismon-
tane woodland, coastal scrub, valley and
foothill grassland. Elevation ranges from
15 to 1165 feet (5 to 355 meters). Blooms
Apr-Jun(Jul).
little mousetail
Myosurus minimus ssp. apus Rank 3.1
Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools
(alkaline). Elevation ranges from 65 to
2100 feet (20 to 640 meters). Blooms
Mar-Jun.

Baker's navarretia
Navarretia leucocephala
ssp. bakeri
Rank
1B.1
Cismontane woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest, meadows and seeps,
valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools.

Elevation ranges from 15 to 5710 feet (5 to
1740 meters). Blooms Apr-Jul.

San Joaquin Valley Orcutt
grass
Orcuttia inaequalis

FT, SE,
Rank
1B.1
Vernal pools. Elevation ranges from 30
to 2475 feet (10 to 755 meters). Blooms
Apr-Sep.

Gairdner's yampah
Perideridia gairdneri ssp.
gairdneri Rank 4.2
Broadleafed upland forest, chaparral,
coastal prairie, valley and foothill grass-
land, vernal pools. Elevation ranges from
0 to 2000 feet (0 to 610 meters). Blooms
Jun-Oct.
bearded popcornflower
Plagiobothrus hystriculus
Rank
1B.1
Valley and foothill grassland (mesic), ver-
nal pools margins. Elevation ranges from
0 to 900 feet (0 to 274 meters). Blooms
Apr-May.

California alkali grass
Puccinellia simplex
Rank
1B.2
Chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps,
valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools.

Elevation ranges from 5 to 3050 feet (2 to
930 meters). Blooms Mar-May.

Keck’s checkerbloom
Sidalcea keckii
FE, Rank
1B.1
Cismontane woodland, valley and
foothill grassland. Elevation ranges 280
to 1660 feet (85 to 505 meters) Blooms
Apr-May.

TABLE 6-1: Special-status plant species with potential to occur in the Planning Area
Species Status*Habitat
long-styled sand-spurrey
Spergularia macrotheca var.
longistyla
Rank
1B.2
Meadows and seeps, marshes and
swamps. Elevation ranges from 0 to 835
feet (0 to 255 meters). Blooms Feb-May(-
Jun).
slender-leaved pondweed
Stuckenia filiformis ssp.
alpina
Rank
2B.2
Marshes and swamps (assorted shallow
freshwater). Elevation ranges from 980
to 7055 feet (300 to 2150 meters). Blooms
May-Jul.

Suisun Marsh aster
Symphyotrichum lentum
Rank
1B.2
Marshes and swamps (brackish and
freshwater). Elevation ranges from 0
to 10 feet (0 to 3 meters). Blooms (Apr)
May-Nov.
two-fork clover
Trifolium amoenum
FE, Rank
1B.1
Coastal bluff scrub, valley and foothill
grassland (sometimes serpentine). Eleva-
tion ranges from 15 to 1360 feet (5 to 415
meters). Blooms Apr-Jun.
saline clover
Trifolium hydrophilum
Rank
1B.2
Marshes and swamps, valley and foothill
grassland (mesic, alkaline), vernal pools.

Elevation ranges from 0 to 985 feet (0 to
300 meters). Blooms Apr-Jun.
oval-leaved viburnum
Viburnum ellipticum
Rank
2B.3
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower
montane coniferous forest. Elevation
ranges from 705 to 4595 feet (215 to 1400
meters). Blooms May-Jun.
* Key to status codes:

FE: Federal Endangered
FT: Federal Threatened
SE: State Endangered
ST: State Threatened
SC: State Candidate
CFP: California Fully Protected Species
California Native Plant Society (CNPS)
California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR)
Rank 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California
Rank 1B: Plants rare, threatened or endan-
gered in California and elsewhere
Rank 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in Cali-
fornia, but more common elsewhere
Rank 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or en-
dangered in California, but more common
elsewhere
Rank 3: Plants about which CNPS needs more
information (a review list)
Rank 4: Plants of limited distribution (a watch
list)
Additional Threat Ranks

0.1 Seriously threatened in California

0.2 Moderately threatened in California

0.3 Not very threatened in California
Packet Page 141 of 390Attachment 9 Page 5 of 6

6-12
Special-status plant surveys were conducted within the
Planning Area during the development of the Fairfield
Train Station Specific Plan EIR (AECOM 2011) and
Hawthorne Mill EIR within the northeastern edge of the
City Limit. The special-status plant species observed
during these surveys include Contra Costa goldfields
(Lasthenia conjugens), dwarf downingia (Downingia
TABLE 6-2: Special-status wildlife species with potential to occur in the Planning Area
Species Status*Habitat
Mammals
Townsend’s
big-eared bat
Corynorhinus
townsendii
SSC,
WBWG
High
Associated with a wide variety of habitats from
deserts to higher-elevation mixed and conifer-
ous forests. Females form maternity colonies
in buildings, caves and mines, and males roost
singly or in small groups. Foraging typically
occurs at edge habitats near wooded areas, e.g.
along streams.
western red bat
Lasiurus blossevillii
SSC,
WBWG
High
Highly migratory and typically solitary, roosting
primarily in the foliage of trees or shrubs. Roosts
are usually in broad-leaved trees including cot-
tonwoods, sycamores, alders, and maples. Day
roosts are commonly in edge habitats adjacent to
streams or open fields, in orchards, and some-
times in urban areas.
hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
WBWG
Medium
Prefers open forested habitats or habitat mosa-
ics, with access to trees for cover and open areas
or habitat edges for feeding. Roosts in dense
foliage of medium to large trees. Feeds primarily
on moths.
pusilla), Greene’s Legenere (Legenere limosa), saline
clover (Trifolium hydrophilum), Parry’s red tarplant
(Centromadia parryi ssp. rudis) and hogwallow starfish
(Hesperevax caulescens). These plant species are associ- ated with vernal pool habitats and were found in pools
and wetlands in the Noonan Ranch Conservation Bank
and surrounding areas.

TABLE 6-2: Special-status wildlife species with potential to occur in the Planning Area
Species Status*Habitat
salt-marsh harvest
mouse
Reithrodontomys
raviventris

FE, SE,
CFP
Endemic to emergent salt and brackish wetlands
of the San Francisco Bay Estuary. Pickleweed
marshes are primary habitat; also occurs in
various other wetland communities with dense
vegetation. Does not burrow, builds loosely
organized nests. Requires higher areas for flood
escape.

Suisun shrew Sorex
ornatus sinuosus SSC
Tidal marshes of the northern shores of San
Pablo and Suisun Bays. Require dense low-lying
cover and driftweed and other litter above the
mean hightide line for nesting and foraging.

American badger
Taxidea taxus SSC
Most abundant in drier open stages of most
shrub, forest, and herbaceous habitats, with
friable soils. Requires friable soils and open, un-
cultivated ground. Preys on burrowing rodents.

Birds
tricolored blackbird
Agelaius tricolor

ST, SSC,
BCC
Nearly endemic to California, where it is most
numerous in the Central Valley and vicinity.

Highly colonial, nesting in dense aggregations
over or near freshwater in emergent growth or
riparian thickets. Also uses flooded agricultural
fields. Abundant insect prey near breeding areas
essential.

SPECIAL-STATUS ANIMALS
There are 39 special-status animal species that have
documented occurrences either within or in the vicin-
ity of the City of Fairfield (CNDDB 2021). Table 6-2
lists these species alphabetically by scientific name
and defines their current status as well as habitat
requirements.

Packet Page 142 of 390Attachment 9 Page 6 of 6

6-13
TABLE 6-2: Special-status wildlife species with potential to occur in the Planning Area
Species Status*Habitat
grasshopper
sparrow
Ammodramus
savannarum SSC
Summer resident. Breeds in open grasslands in
lowlands and foothills, generally with low- to
moderate-height grasses and scattered shrubs.

Well-hidden nests are placed on the ground.
golden eagle
Aquila chrysaetos CFP, BCC
Occurs year-round in rolling foothills, mountain
areas, sage-juniper flats, and deserts. Cliff-
walled canyons provide nesting habitat in most
parts of range; also nests in large trees, usually
within otherwise open areas.
short-eared owl
Asio flammeus SSC
Occurs year-round, but primarily as a winter
visitor; breeding very restricted in most of
California. Found in open, treeless areas (e.g.,
marshes, grasslands) with elevated sites for for-
aging perches and dense herbaceous vegetation
for roosting and nesting. Preys mostly on small
mammals, particularly voles.
burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia SSC, BCC
Year-round resident and winter visitor. Occurs
in open, dry grasslands and scrub habitats with
low-growing vegetation, perches and abundant
mammal burrows. Preys upon insects and small
vertebrates. Nests and roosts in old mammal
burrows, most commonly those of ground squir-
rels.
ferruginous hawk
Buteo regalis BCC
Winter visitor to open habitats, including grass-
lands, sagebrush flats, scrub, and low foothills
surrounding valleys. Preys on mammals. Does
not breed in California.

Swainson’s hawk
Buteo swainsoni ST, BCC
Summer resident in California’s Central Valley.

Nests in tree groves and isolated trees in riparian
and agricultural areas, including near buildings.

Forages in grasslands and scrub habitats as well
as agricultural fields, especially alfalfa. Preys on
arthropods year-round as well as smaller verte-
brates during the breeding season.

TABLE 6-2: Special-status wildlife species with potential to occur in the Planning Area
Species Status*Habitat
northern harrier
Circus hudsonius SSC
Year-round resident and winter visitor. Found
in open habitats including grasslands, prairies,
marshes and agricultural areas. Nests on the
ground in dense vegetation, typically near water
or otherwise moist areas. Preys on small verte-
brates.
yellow rail
Coturnicops novebo-
racensis SSC, BCC
Summer resident in eastern Sierra Nevada in
Mono County, breeding in shallow freshwater
marshes and wet meadows with dense vegeta-
tion. Also a rare winter visitor along the coast
and other portions of the state. Extremely
cryptic.
snowy egret
Egretta thula
none
(breeding
sites pro-
tected by
CDFW)
Year-round resident. Nests colonially, usually
in trees, at times in sequestered beds of dense
tules. Rookery sites usually situated close to
foraging areas: marshes, tidal-flats, streams, wet
meadows, and borders of lakes.
white-tailed kite
Elanus leucurus CFP
Year-round resident in coastal and valley low-
lands with scattered trees and large shrubs,
including grasslands, marshes and agricultural
areas. Nests in trees, of which the type and set-
ting are highly variable. Preys on small mammals
and other vertebrates.
saltmarsh com-
mon yellowthroat
Geothlypis trichas
sinuosa SSC, BCC
Resident of the San Francisco Bay region, in fresh
and salt water marshes. Requires thick, continu-
ous cover down to water surface for foraging; tall
grasses, tule patches, willows for nesting.

California black rail
Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus

ST, CFP,
BCC
Year-round resident in marshes (saline to
freshwater) with dense vegetation within four
inches of the ground. Prefers larger, undisturbed
marshes that have an extensive upper zone and
are close to a major water source. Extremely
secretive and cryptic.

Suisun song
sparrow
Melospiza melodia
maxillaris SSC, BCC
Year-round resident of brackish-water marshes
along Suisun Bay. Inhabits cattails, tules, bul-
rushes and other emergent vegetation, including
pickleweed. Nests typically placed in shrubs.

Packet Page 143 of 390Attachment 10 Page 1 of 12

6-14
TABLE 6-2: Special-status wildlife species with potential to occur in the Planning Area
Species Status*Habitat
black-crowned
night heron
Nycticorax nycti-
corax
none
(breeding
sights
protected
by
CDFW)
Year-round resident. Nests colonially, usually in
trees but also in patches of emergent vegetation.

Rookery sites are often on islands and usually
located adjacent to foraging areas: margins of
lakes and bays.

California
Ridgway’s rail
Rallus obsoletus
obsoletus

FE, SE,
CFP
Year-round resident in tidal marshes of the San
Francisco Bay estuary. Requires tidal sloughs
and intertidal mud flats for foraging, and dense
marsh vegetation for nesting and cover. Typical
habitat features abundant growth of cordgrass
and pickleweed. Feeds primarily on molluscs and
crustaceans.

Amphibians and Reptiles
California tiger
salamander
Ambystoma
californiense FT, ST
Populations in Santa Barbara and Sonoma coun-
ties currently listed as endangered; threatened
in remainder of range. Inhabits grassland, oak
woodland, ruderal and seasonal pool habitats.

Adults are fossorial and utilize mammal burrows
and other subterranean refugia. Breeding occurs
primarily in vernal pools and other seasonal
water features.
foothill yellow-
legged frog
Rana boylii SE, SSC
Found in or adjacent to rocky streams in a variety
of habitats. Prefers partly-shaded, shallow
streams and riffles with a rocky substrate;
requires at least some cobble-sized substrate
for egg-laying. Needs at least 15 weeks to attain
metamorphosis. Feeds on both aquatic and
terrestrial invertebrates.

TABLE 6-2: Special-status wildlife species with potential to occur in the Planning Area
Species Status*Habitat
California red-
legged frog
Rana draytonii FT, SSC
Lowlands and foothills in or near permanent
sources of deep water with dense, shrubby or
emergent riparian vegetation. Requires 11 to
20 weeks of permanent water for larval devel-
opment. Associated with quiet perennial to
intermittent ponds, stream pools and wetlands.

Prefers shorelines with extensive vegetation.

Disperses through upland habitats after rains.
western pond turtle
Actinemys
marmorata SSC
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds, marshes,
rivers, streams and irrigation ditches with aquatic
vegetation. Require basking sites such as partially
submerged logs, vegetation mats, or open mud
banks, and suitable upland habitat (sandy banks
or grassy open fields) for egg-laying.

Insects
Crotch bumble bee
Bombus crotchii SC
Range largely restricted to California, favoring
grassland and scrub habitats. Typical of bumble
bees, nests are usually constructed underground.
western bumble
bee
Bombus occidentalis SC
Formerly common throughout much of west-
ern North America; populations from southern
British Columbia to central California have nearly
disappeared (Xerces 2015). Occurs in a wide
variety of habitat types. Nests are constructed
annually in pre-existing cavities, usually on the
ground (e.g. mammal burrows). Many plant
species are visited and pollinated.
monarch butterfly
Danaus plexippus
none
(winter
roosts
protected
by
CDFW)
Winter roost sites extend along the coast from
northern Mendocino to Baja California, Mexico.

Roosts located in wind-protected tree groves
(eucalyptus, Monterey pine, Monterey cypress),
with nectar and water sources nearby.
valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus FT
Occurs only in the central valley of California, in
association with blue elderberry (Sambucus spp.).

Prefers to lay eggs in elderberrry 2 to 8 inches in
diameter; some preference shown for "stressed"
elderberry.

Packet Page 144 of 390Attachment 10 Page 2 of 12

6-15
TABLE 6-2: Special-status wildlife species with potential to occur in the Planning Area
Species Status*Habitat
Delta green ground
beetle
Elaphrus viridis FT
Restricted to the margins of vernal pools in the
grassland area between Jepson Prairie and Travis
Air Force Base. Prefers the sandy mud substrate
where it slopes gently into the water, with
low-growing vegetation, 25 to 100% cover.
callippe silverspot
butterfly
Speyeria callippe
callippe FE
Two populations in San Bruno mountain and the
Cordelia Hills are recognized. Hostplant is Viola
pedunculata, which is found on serpentine soils.

Most adults found on east-facing slopes; males
congregate on hilltops in search of females.

Crustaceans
Conservancy fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta con-
servatio FE
Endemic to the grasslands of the northern two-
thirds of the Central Valley; found in large, turbid
pools. Inhabit astatic pools located in swales
formed by old, braided alluvium; filled by winter/
spring rains, last until June.
vernal pool fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta lynchi FT
Endemic to the grasslands of the Central Valley,
central coast mountains, and south coast
mountains, in astatic rain-filled pools. Inhabit
small, clear-water sandstone-depression pools
and grassed swale, earth slump, or basalt-flow
depression pools.
vernal pool tadpole
shrimp
Lepidurus packardi FE
Inhabits vernal pools and swales in the Sacra-
mento Valley containing clear to highly turbid
water. Pools commonly found in grass bottomed
swales of unplowed grasslands. Some pools are
mud-bottomed and highly turbid.

California
linderiella
Linderiella
occidentalis none
Seasonal pools in unplowed grasslands with old
alluvial soils underlain by hardpan or in sandstone
depressions. Water in the pools has very low
alkalinity, conductivity, and TDS.

TABLE 6-2: Special-status wildlife species with potential to occur in the Planning Area
Species Status*Habitat
Fish
Steelhead – Central
Valley ESU
Oncorhynchus
mykiss FT
Preferred spawning habitat for steelhead is in
perennial streams with cool to cold water tem-
peratures, high dissolved oxygen levels and fast
flowing water. During the winter or early spring,
spawning fish reach suitable gravel riffles (shallow
areas with gravel or cobble substrate) in the
upper sections of streams and dig their redds.

Abundant riffle areas for spawning and deeper
pools with sufficient riparian cover for rearing
are necessary for successful breeding. Steelhead
nearly always return to the stream in which they
were hatched for spawning.

Sacramento splittail
Pogonichthys
macrolepidotus SSC
Formerly endemic to the lakes and rivers of the
Central Valley, but now confined to the Sacra-
mento Delta, Suisun Bay and associated marshes.

Occurs in slow-moving river sections and dead-
end sloughs. Requires flooded vegetation for
spawning and foraging for young. A freshwater
species, but tolerant of moderate salinity (10-18
parts per thousand).
longfin smelt
Spirinchus
thaleichthys FC, ST
Euryhaline, nektonic and anadromous. Found
in open waters of estuaries, mostly in middle or
bottom of water column. Prefer salinities of 15 to
30 ppt, but can be found in completely freshwa-
ter to almost pure seawater.
* Key to status codes:

FE Federal Endangered
FT Federal Threatened
SE State Endangered
ST State Threatened
SC State Candidate
SR State Rare
CFP California Fully Protected Species
BCC Bird of Conservation Concern
SSC CDFW Species of Special Concern
WBWG Western Bat Working Group Status
Packet Page 145 of 390Attachment 10 Page 3 of 12

6-16
Special-status wildlife surveys have been conducted
throughout the Planning Area for various projects,
including the Fairfield Train Station Specific Plan
EIR (AECOM 2011) and Hawthorne Mill EIR (Michael
Brandman Associates 2011) covering approximately
3,000 acres of the Planning Area. The presence of
several federal and/or state listed and otherwise spe-
cial-status wildlife species has been confirmed during
these studies, including (but not limited to) California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), burrowing owl (Athene cunicu-
laria), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), and white-
tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Descriptions of the habi- tats that these species utilize are provided in Table 6-2 above.

Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is a geographic area containing features determined by USFWS to be essential to the conserva-
tion of a species listed as threatened or endangered
under the ESA. Critical habitat does not have to be
occupied by that species at the time it is designated,
but it may be considered necessary for the recovery of
the species. Critical habitat has been designated in the Planning Area for Contra Costa goldfields, conservancy
fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, vernal pool tad- pole shrimp, delta smelt, and California red-legged frog (Figure 6-4).

Sensitive Natural Communities
CDFW and CNPS have identified several native plant
communities that are rare and unique to California.

Sensitive plant communities identified by CDFW in
Solano County are Coastal and Valley Freshwater
Marsh, Coastal Brackish Marsh, Northern Coastal
Saltmarsh, Northern Claypan Vernal Pool, Northern
Hardpan Vernal Pool, and Valley Needlegrass Grassland
(CNDDB 2021). Sensitive natural community types
in the Planning Area include Valley Floor Grassland/
Vernal Pool, Riparian, Stream, and Freshwater Marsh,
Inner Coast Range, and Coastal Marsh (Figure 6-2).

These habitats are protected under state regulations
including CDFW’s Streambed Alteration Program and
CEQA, local ordinances and policies (e.g. City tree ordi- nances and General Plan elements), and conservation
goals and measures outlined in the Solano HCP. In
addition, portions of the Planning Area are within the
Suisun Marsh and Jepson Prairie core areas identified
in the vernal pool recovery plan (USFWS 2005). Core
areas are the specific sites that USFWS has deemed
necessary to recover federally endangered and threat-
ened vernal pool species.

Waters of the U.S. and Waters
of the State
The Solano HCP identifies approximately 875 acres of
aquatic communities throughout the Planning Area
that may be regulated as waters of the United States
and waters of the state by the Corps and RWQCB,
respectively. This includes streams and their tributar- ies, seasonal wetlands, vernal pools, riparian scrub and woodland, fresh and coastal marsh, and other aquatic
features (Figure 6-6). It is important to note that the estimate aquatic feature acres is based on aerial pho-
tographic interpretation of a large geographic area; a
jurisdictional determination would be made on a site-
specific, project basis through the Corps’ formal delin- eation and verification processes.

Freshwater marsh
Packet Page 146 of 390Attachment 10 Page 4 of 12

6-17
R o c k v ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
l
l
e
y
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
Manu 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
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
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
U

N
L
I

M
I

T
L
I

E
U

B
A

N
L

T
L

E
Rancho Solano
Municipal
Golf Course
Cement
Hill
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Suisun
Hill
Twin
Sisters
680
80 12
80 12
L:\Acad 2000 Files\30000\30235\GIS\ArcMap\30235Base11x17.aprx Map Date: 3/22/2021
!"^$A¸A³
Figure 6-4: USFWS Critical Habitat
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020File Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\30000\30235\GIS\ArcMap\30235Base11x17.aprx City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Urban Limit Line
Planning Area Boundary
USFWS Species Critical Habitat
California red-legged frog
Conservancy fairy shrimp
Contra Costa goldfields
Delta smelt
Vernal pool fairy shrimp and Vernal pool tadpole shrimp R o c k v ille R d
Shiloh RdAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
l
l
ey
RdWaltersRdMa
nkas
Corner
Rd LyonRdMeridianRdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
RedTopRd
Travis Bl
EastTaborAv
Railroad
Av
Ohio St
C o u rageD 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
Busi nessC enterDrClayBank Rd
Cement Hill Rd
Manu 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
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
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
U

L
I

M
I

L
I

N
E
U

E
U

B
A

N
L

T
L

E
Rancho Solano
Municipal
Golf Course
Cement
Hill
Kirby
Hill
Luco
Hill
Suisun
Hill
Twin
Sisters
680
80 12
80 12
L:\Acad 2000 Files\30000\30235\GIS\ArcMap\30235Base11x17.aprx Map Date: 3/22/2021
!"^$A¸A³Figure 6-4: USFWS Critical Habitat
012½
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020File Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\30000\30235\GIS\ArcMap\30235Base11x17.aprx City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Urban Limit Line
Planning Area Boundary
USFWS Species Critical Habitat
California red-legged frog
Conservancy fairy shrimp
Contra Costa goldfields
Delta smelt
Vernal pool fairy shrimp and Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Figure 6-4: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Critical Habitat Packet Page 147 of 390Attachment 10 Page 5 of 12

6.2 Regulatory Setting
6-18
Federal and State Regulatory
Setting

VEGETATION AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
CEQA provides protections for particular vegetation
types defined as sensitive by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and aquatic communities
protected by laws and regulations administered by
the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and Regional Water
Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). The laws and regu-
lations that provide protection for these resources are summarized below.

Sensitive Natural Communities
Sensitive natural communities include habitats that
fulfill special functions or have special values. Natural communities considered sensitive are those identified
in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW. CDFW ranks sensitive communities as “threat-
ened” or “very threatened” (CDFW 2021) and keeps
records of their occurrences in its California Natural
Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2021). CNDDB
vegetation alliances are ranked 1 through 5 based
on NatureServe’s (2021) methodology, with those alli-
ances ranked globally (G) or statewide (S) as 1 through 3 considered sensitive. Impacts to sensitive natural
communities identified in local or regional plans, pol- icies, or regulations or those identified by the CDFW
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must be con-
sidered and evaluated under CEQA (CCR Title 14, Div.
6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). In addition, this general class includes oak woodlands that are protected by local
ordinances under the Oak Woodlands Protection Act.

Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) reg-
ulates “Waters of the United States” under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Waters of the United
States are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) as including the territorial seas, and waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce,
such as tributaries, lakes and ponds, impoundments
of waters of the U.S., and wetlands that are hydrologi- cally connected with these navigable features (33 CFR
328.3). Potential wetland areas, according to the three criteria used to delineate wetlands as defined in the
Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental
Laboratory 1987) are identified by the presence of (1)
hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wet-
land hydrology. Unvegetated waters including lakes,
rivers, and streams may also be subject to Section
404 jurisdiction and are characterized by an ordinary
high water mark (OHWM) identified based on field
indicators such as the lack of vegetation, sorting of
sediments, and other indicators of flowing or standing
water. The placement of fill material into Waters of
the United States generally requires a permit from the
Corps under Section 404 of the CWA.

Waters of the State, Including Wetlands
The term “Waters of the State” is defined by the Porter- Cologne Act as “any surface water or groundwater,
including saline waters, within the boundaries of the
state.” The State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control
Boards (RWQCB) protect waters within this broad reg-
ulatory scope through many different regulatory pro-
grams. Waters of the State in the context of a CEQA
Biological Resources evaluation include wetlands and
other surface waters protected by the State Wetland
Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged
or Fill Material to Waters of the State. The SWRCB and RWQCB issue permits for the discharge of fill material
into surface waters through the State Water Quality
Certification Program, which fulfills requirements of
Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act. Projects that require a Clean
Water Act permit are also required to obtain a Water
Quality Certification. If a project does not require a federal permit, but does involve discharge of dredge or fill material into surface waters of the State, the SWRCB and RWQCB may issue a permit in the form of Waste
Discharge Requirements.

Sections 1600-1616 of California Fish and Game
Code
Streams and lakes, as habitat for fish and wildlife spe- cies, are regulated by CDFW under Sections 1600-1616
of California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). Alterations to or work within or adjacent to streambeds or lakes gen-
erally require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration
Packet Page 148 of 390Attachment 10 Page 6 of 12

6-19
Agreement. The term “stream”, which includes
creeks and rivers, is defined in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life
[including] watercourses having a surface or subsur-
face flow that supports or has supported riparian veg-
etation” (14 CCR 1.72). The term “stream” can include
ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with
subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support
aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent
terrestrial wildlife (CDFG 1994). Riparian vegetation
has been defined as “vegetation which occurs in and/or
adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs
because of, the stream itself” (CDFG 1994). Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake
and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW.

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Endangered and Threatened Plants, Fish, and
Wildlife.

Specific species of plants, fish, and wildlife species may be designated as threatened or endangered by the
federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Specific protections
and permitting mechanisms for these species differ
under each of these acts, and a species’ designation
under one law does not automatically provide protec-
tion under the other.

The ESA (16 USC 1531 et seq.) is implemented by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). The USFWS
and NMFS maintain lists of “endangered” and “threat-
ened” plant and animal species (referred to as “listed
species”). “Proposed” or “candidate” species are those that are being considered for listing, and are not pro- tected until they are formally listed as threatened or
endangered. Under the ESA, authorization must be
obtained from the USFWS or NMFS prior to take of any
listed species. Take under the ESA is defined as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”
Take under the ESA includes direct injury or mortality to individuals, disruptions in normal behavioral patterns
resulting from factors such as noise and visual distur- bance, and impacts to habitat for listed species.

Under Section 7 of the FESA, federal agencies are
required to consult with the USFWS if their actions,
including permit approvals or funding, could adversely
affect an endangered species (including plants) or its
critical habitat. Through consultation and the issuance of a biological opinion, the USFWS may issue an inci-
dental take statement allowing take of the species that is incidental to another authorized activity provided
the action will not jeopardize the continued existence
of the species. Consultation would be triggered if a
particular project affects wetlands or waters of the
U.S., requiring the Corps to issue a 404 permit. Section 10 of FESA provides for issuance of incidental take per- mits to private parties provided a habitat conservation plan is developed.

The ESA also provides for designation of critical hab-
itat, which are specific geographic areas containing
physical or biological features “essential to the con-
servation of the species”. Protections afforded to des- ignated critical habitat apply only to actions that are funded, permitted, or carried out by federal agencies.

Critical habitat designations do not affect activities by private landowners if there is no other federal agency
involvement.

The CESA (California Fish and Game Code 2050 et
seq.) prohibits a “take” of any plant and animal species that the California Fish and Game Commission deter-
mines to be an endangered or threatened species in
California. CESA regulations include take protection
for threatened and endangered plants on private
lands, as well as extending this protection to “candi-
date species” which are proposed for listing as threat- ened or endangered under CESA. The definition of a
Packet Page 149 of 390Attachment 10 Page 7 of 12

Sacramento splittail. Photo credit: UC Davis
6-20
“take” under CESA (“hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”) only applies to direct impact to individuals, and does not
extend to habitat impacts or harassment. CDFW may
issue an Incidental Take Permit under CESA to autho-
rize take if it is incidental to otherwise lawful activity and if specific criteria are met. Take of these species is also authorized if the geographic area is covered by a
Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), as long
as the NCCP covers that activity.

Fully Protected Species and Designated Rare Plant
Species
This category includes specific plant and wildlife spe- cies that are designated in California Fish and Game
Code (CFGC) as protected even if not listed under
CESA or the ESA. Fully Protected Species includes spe- cific lists of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish designated in CFGC. Fully protected species may
not be taken or possessed at any time. No licenses
or permits may be issued for take of fully protected
species, except for necessary scientific research and
conservation purposes. The definition of “take” is the same under the California Fish and Game Code and
the CESA. By law, CDFW may not issue an Incidental
Take Permit for Fully Protected Species. Under the
California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA), CDFW
has listed 64 “rare” or “endangered” plant species, and prevents “take”, with few exceptions, of these species.

CDFW may authorize take of species protected by the
NPPA through the Incidental Take Permit process, or
under a NCCP.

Special Protections for Nesting Birds and Bats
The federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act pro-
vides relatively broad protections to both of North
America’s eagle species (bald [Haliaeetus leucocepha-
lus] and golden eagle [Aquila chrysaetos)] that in some regards are similar to those provided by the ESA. In
addition to regulations for special-status species, most native birds in the United States, including non-sta-
tus species, have baseline legal protections under the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and CFGC, i.e., sec-
tions 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Under these laws/codes,
the intentional harm or collection of adult birds as well as the intentional collection or destruction of active
nests, eggs, and young is illegal. For bat species, the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG) designates con-
servation status for species of bats, and those with a
high or medium-high priority are typically given special consideration under CEQA.

Essential Fish Habitat
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) provides for
conservation and management of fishery resources in
the U.S., administered by NMFS. This Act establishes
a national program intended to prevent overfishing,
rebuild overfished stocks, ensure conservation, and
facilitate long-term protection through the establish-
ment of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). EFH consists of
aquatic areas that contain habitat essential to the long- term survival and health of fisheries, which may include the water column, certain bottom types, vegetation
(e.g. eelgrass (Zostera spp.)), or complex structures
such as oyster beds. Any federal agency that autho-
rizes, funds, or undertakes action that may adversely
affect EFH is required to consult with NMFS.

Species of Special Concern, Movement Corridors,
and Other Special Status Species under CEQA
To address additional species protections afforded
under CEQA, CDFW has developed a list of special
species as “a general term that refers to all of the taxa the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status.” This list includes lists devel- oped by other organizations, including for example,
the Audubon Watch List Species, the Bureau of Land
Management Sensitive Species, and USFWS Birds
of Special Concern. Plant species on the California
Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare and Endangered Plant
Inventory (Inventory) with California Rare Plant Ranks
(Rank) of 1 and 2, as well as some with a Rank of 3, are also considered special-status plant species and must
be considered under CEQA. Some Rank 3 species and
all Rank 4 species are typically only afforded protec-
tion under CEQA when such species are particularly
unique to the locale (e.g., range limit, low abundance/ Packet Page 150 of 390Attachment 10 Page 8 of 12

6-21
low frequency, limited habitat) or are otherwise con-
sidered locally rare. Additionally, any species listed as sensitive within local plans, policies and ordinances are likewise considered sensitive. Movement and migra-
tory corridors for native wildlife (including aquatic cor- ridors) as well as wildlife nursery sites are given special consideration under CEQA. Migratory corridors are
linkages between habitat areas that allow for move-
ment of resident and migratory species and facilitate
genetic interchange between populations. Corridors
can consist of a sequence of stepping-stones across
the landscape (i.e. discontinuous areas of habitat, such as isolated wetlands and roadside vegetation), linear
strips of vegetation and habitat (such as riparian cor- ridors and ridge lines), or they may be parts of larger habitat areas selected for their known or likely impor- tance to local wildlife.

Regional and Local Plans
and Policies

FAIRFIELD TREE CONSERVATION

ORDINANCE
The City of Fairfield Tree Ordinance was established to protect significant trees and encourage the replace-
ment of trees lost due to human activity, damage, or
disease (Fairfield 2020). The ordinance defines pro-
tected trees as those that:

1. Are on public property.

2. Were planted or preserved on private property
or within a public right-of-way which are either
required to be preserved as a condition of project
approval or shown on project plans approved by
the City.

3. Are Native Oak, Bay Laurel, Madrone, and Buckeye
trees that exceed 6 inches diameter at breast
height on undeveloped private property.

4. Have demonstrated habitat value, historical or cul-
tural value, important aesthetic value, uniqueness
or rarity, or unusual size or age.

FAIRFIELD CREEKSIDE PROTECTION PLAN
Article VIII (Creekside Protection Plan) of the Fairfield Municipal Code is intended to provide for the main-
tenance, restoration, protection, and enhancement of
streams and riparian zones in identified areas within
the City. The Plan requires dedication and/or preser-
vation of a ‘creekside protection zone” along key natu- ral creeks in the City, including Green Valley Creek and American Canyon Creek. Implementation of this Plan
can be seen in the creekside parks in Cordelia.

SOLANO HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN
The City of Fairfield lies within Solano County and as
such will be subject to the regulations and mitigation
requirements identified in the forthcoming Solano
County Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan (Solano
HCP), estimated for completion in fall 2022. This HCP
was developed by the Solano County Water Agency
(SWCA) and its eight member agencies and adopted
in 2012 to ensure the protection of threatened and
endangered species and their habitat within the SCWA
contract service area. The HCP is a framework for com- plying with state and federal endangered species reg-
ulations while accommodating future urban growth,
infrastructure development, and ongoing operation
and maintenance activities associated with flood con-
trol, irrigation facilities, and other public infrastructure.

The HCP accounts for all activities undertaken by, or
under the permitting authority and control of, the plan participants (which includes the Planning Area) over
the next 30 years (SWCA 2012). One of the guiding
principles of the Solano HCP involves streamlining the
local, state, and federal regulatory processes to pro-
vide consistent and predictable treatment of actions
requiring discretionary approval from participating
agencies (e.g., obtaining incidental take permits and
other required authorizations for modifications to nat- ural communities).

A Conservation Strategy has been developed for
Covered Species and Special Management Species
Packet Page 151 of 390Attachment 10 Page 9 of 12

Jepson Prairie. Photo credit: UC Davis
6-22
and their associated natural communities that require
compensation or mitigation for covered activities com-
patible with regional conservation goals and objec-
tives. Covered activities include:

1. Approximately 13,050 acres of planned urban
development within the boundaries of Vacaville,
Fairfield, Suisun City, Vallejo, Rio Vista, and Dixon;

2. The operation and maintenance of the approx-
imately 400 miles of flood control and irrigation
channels, 1,300 miles of pipelines, and numerous
pump stations, diversion dams, holding reservoirs,
water tanks, and other associated facilities owned
and operated by Solano County Water Agency
(SCWA), Solano Irrigation District (SID), Maine
Prairie Water District (MPWD), Reclamation District
2068 (RD 2068), Dixon Resource Conservation
District (RCD), Dixon Regional Watershed Joint
Powers Authority (JPA), Vallejo Sanitation and
Flood Control District (VSFCD), and Fairfield-Suisun
Sewer District (FSSD); and

3. Implementation of HCP conservation measures
such as establishment and management of
reserves and preserves, habitat restoration and
construction, scientific collection and monitor-
ing, relocation of covered species and associated
activities on an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 acres
of reserves, preserves, open space lands, and
other cooperative habitat restoration sites.

The Conservation Strategy includes goals and objec-
tives and provide measurable biological standards on
which the resource agencies will measure the overall
success of the HCP Conservation Program and will
be primarily implemented through project-specific
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation requirements
described in Chapter 6.0 and the monitoring and
adaptive management program described in Chapter

7.0 of the HCP.

RECOVERY PLAN FOR VERNAL POOL

ECOSYSTEMS OF CALIFORNIA AND

SOUTHERN OREGON
The Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of
California and Southern Oregon (USFWS 2005) was
released by USFWS on December 15, 2005. This plan
focuses on 33 species of plants and animals that occur
exclusively or primarily within vernal pool ecosystems, including the Federally listed vernal pool fairy shrimp, tadpole shrimp, and Contra Costa goldfields. The plan
outlines recovery priorities and provides goals, objec- tives, strategies, and criteria for recovery. While not regulatory in nature, the Recovery Plan should be taken into consideration when analyzing potential impacts
on vernal pools and associated biota to ensure that
projects do not prevent or impair the plan’s future
long-term implementation success.

Portions of the Planning Area are within the Jepson
Prairie core area and the Suisun Marsh core area
identified in the vernal pool recovery plan (USFWS
2005). Core areas are the specific sites that USFWS
has deemed necessary to recover federally endan-
gered and threatened vernal pool species. The Jepson
Prairie core area, a Zone 1 core area, is considered
vital to the preservation and recovery of Colusa grass, Contra Costa goldfields, Greene’s tuctoria, delta green ground beetle, Conservancy fairy shrimp, vernal pool
fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. The
vernal pool recovery plan goal is to preserve 85% of
the existing vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat and 95%
of the existing habitat for and the other listed spe-
cies within the Jepson Prairie core area. Habitat to
be protected includes both occupied and unoccupied
suitable habitat that serves as corridors for dispersal, opportunities for metapopulation dynamics, reintro-
duction/introduction sites, and protection of undiscov- ered populations.

Packet Page 152 of 390Attachment 10 Page 10 of 12

Jepson Prairie. Photo credit: UC Davis
6-23
The Suisun Marsh core area is ranked in Zone 2, mean-
ing that protection of this area would significantly con- tribute to the recovery of the most narrowly endemic
species. The species that are targeted for protection
in this core area include Contra Costa goldfields and
alkali milk vetch. The recovery plan goal is to preserve 85% of the habitat suitable for these species within the core area.

SUISUN MARSH PRESERVATION ACT (1974)
AND PROTECTION PLAN (1976)
The Suisun Marsh comprises approximately 85,000
acres of tidal marsh, managed wetlands and water-
ways. In order to preserve and enhance the quality and
diversity of marsh habitats and surrounding upland
areas, California Legislature passed the Suisun Marsh
Preservation Act (SMPA) in1977. This legislation serves to protect the Marsh by adopting provisions of the
Suisun Marsh Protection Plan (SMPP) as prepared by
the Bay Conservation and Development Commission
(BCDC). The Preservation Act also requires local gov-
ernments and districts having jurisdiction over the
Marsh to prepare a Local Protection Program for the
Marsh consistent with the SMPA and SMPP. The main
goal of the SMPP is to preserve, protect, enhance,
and restore Suisun Marsh resources. The SMPP
establishes land use policies for the Marsh and delin-
eates the Primary Management Areas and Secondary
Management Areas. The Primary Management Areas
consist of tidal marshes, seasonal marshes, and man-
aged wetlands. The Secondary Management Area is
comprised of upland grasslands and cultivated lands
which serve as significant buffers to Suisun Marsh.

The SMPA and SMPP ensure appropriate marsh pres-
ervation policies are incorporated into local plans and ordinances. These include provisions for the manage-
ment of wildlife habitat; agricultural use; preservation of water quality; recreation and marsh access; as well
as standards for natural gas, utilities, and water-related industrial development. Portions of the Planning Area
are within the Suisun Marsh Primary and Secondary
Management Areas.

In February 2020, in partnership with Fairfield, Solano County, Benicia, and Suisun City, the Solano Local
Agency Formation Commission, the Solano County
Mosquito Abatement District, the Suisun Resource
Conservation District, and other stakeholders, BCDC
launched a comprehensive review of the Commission’s
Suisun Marsh policies to determine if updates are
needed to ensure the continued preservation and
protection of the Suisun Marsh. This work is still ongo- ing. If amendments are deemed necessary, BCDC will
again engage stakeholders as they move forward with
updates to Suisun Marsh policies. The City intends to
continue participating in BCDC’s efforts to review and
potentially update the SMPP. At the conclusion of this effort and after any needed amendments to the SMPP
have been finalized, updates to the City’s LPP compo-
nent may be necessary to maintain consistency with
the SMPA and SMPP.

Packet Page 153 of 390Attachment 10 Page 11 of 12

6.3 Key Findings and Planning Considerations
1 CONSIDERATION OF HCP CONSERVATION AREAS.

Several planned development areas within undeveloped portions of the Planning Area, including north of Travis AFB and east of Peabody; between Suisun Marsh and I-80; and north of Cordelia, east of Green Valley Road; are located within HCP conservation areas for covered spe- cies and natural communities.

Within areas North of Travis AFB and east of Peabody, the Vacaville Fairfield Green Belt wildlife corridor provides connectivity between the lowlands of the Valley Floor/Jepson Prairie and the Vaca Mountains.

Habitat within this corridor includes vernal pool and valley floor grass- lands, Inner Coast Range grasslands, oak savanna, and oak woodland.

Between the Suisun Marsh an I-80, Contra Costa Goldfield core and potential population areas can be found, as well as vernal pool critical habitat.

North of Cordelia and east of Green Valley Road includes low and median vernal pool conservation areas. There are also priority water- shed areas north of Cordelia/east of Green Valley Road and west of Lopes Road, identified as areas where maintaining the integrity of watershed lands is critical for preserving ecological integrity of streams.

West of Lopes Road, there are low and medium value vernal pool con- servation areas, priority watersheds, and conservation areas for the calippe silverspot butterfly and critical red-legged frog habitat.

It is recommended the General Plan Update include appropriate poli- cies in the Open Space/Conservation Element to address Solano HCP Conservation Strategy goals and objectives.
6-24 Packet Page 154 of 390Attachment 10 Page 12 of 12

Hydrology
and Water
Quality
This chapter describes the Planning Area’s hydrological sys- tem, which includes its watersheds and water bodies, topog- raphy and climate, and groundwater. It also describes water quality is-sues and Fairfield’s regulatory setting.

Chapter 7
Packet Page 155 of 390Attachment 11 Page 1 of 2

Watersheds
The City of Fairfield lies nearly entirely within the Su- isun Hydrologic Unit of the San Francisco Bay Hydro-
logic Region (Figure 7-1). A very small area to the north and east of Travis Air Force Base drains to the lower
Sacramento River, but the rest of the City (including the SOI and ULL) contribute runoff to Suisun Bay. The local sub-watersheds surround and discharge to the Suisun
Bay Estuaries, including American Canyon and Green
Valley Creek on the west, Ledgewood Creek and Laurel
Creek on the north and Union Creek from the north-
east (Figure 7-1). These sub-watersheds discharge to
the Grizzly Bay arm of Suisun Bay east of the Carquinez Strait, ultimately flowing through San Pablo Bay and
San Francisco Bay to the Pacific Ocean.

Topography
The City is at the intersection of several geographical areas, geological provinces, and hydrologic and eco-
logical regions. The majority of the City is relatively flat, with surface elevations ranging from 5 to 35 feet above sea level. The relatively low-lying lands of the City’s core are bordered on the west and north by moderate el-
evation hills and ridges of the Coast Ranges, including portions of the Vaca Mountains to the north that range
to about 600 feet in elevation. The Coast Range ridges in this vicinity include both rolling, rounded hills, as well as rugged, steep mountainous sections. There are nar-
row intervening valleys generally parallel to the north- west trending ridges (e.g. Green Valley). The Potrero
Hills are a distinct, isolated ridge about 6 miles long and around 400 feet maximum in elevation southeast
of the City, between I-80 and Suisun Marsh. In general, the topography all along the crescent-shaped south-
ern margin of the City rapidly levels out to meet the
tidally-influenced low elevation marshes and channels
in the Suisun Marsh.

Surface Water Features
The surface water features in the City and vicinity in- clude a mixture of natural channels, and modified sys-
tems for municipal and agricultural water supply deliv- ery, as well as water control infrastructure for irrigation and drainage functions.

A number of intermittent and perennial streams drain
south and/or east through the City to the Suisun
Marsh, the dominant surface water feature of the re-
gion. The east half of the City is drained by McCoy,
Union, Pennsylvania Avenue, Ledgewood, Laurel, and
Union Avenue Creeks, which discharge into tidal chan-
nels tributary to Suisun Slough (City of Fairfield, 2017).

Areas north and west of Fairfield are drained by Amer-
ican Canyon, Jameson Canyon, Suisun, Dan Wilson,
and Green Valley Creeks, which pass through the City
and discharge into tidal channels tributary to Corde-
lia Slough (Figure 7-2). A number of stream alignment
modifications have been constructed at lower eleva-
tions leading to Suisun Marsh to increase flow capacity in channels and reduce flooding hazard (City of Fair-
field, 2001).

7.1 Hydrology
Packet Page 156 of 390Attachment 11 Page 2 of 2

Packet Page 157 of 390Attachment 12 Page 1 of 1

F ig u re 7-2: Stream Network
~ \. 1 L
~ C •
u -----=--=-..:. ~ ..-..i.,,
~ M.>p D~1o l 11.10~1
VlF~ P;,1h: l:\Ac.>d 2000 Fil.,,,(3C000\3C23S\G~r~:;~~p\JOBSBa,cl ht 1.~pn □ City Urnit
~ Sphere of Influence
D Planning Area r
f_"_"_"_"j Urban Limit Line
-- Waterways
- Packet Page 158 of 390Attachment 13 Page 1 of 3

The upper reaches of the two largest streams in the
area, the Suisun and Green Valley Creeks, originate
in the Vaca Mountains. Both of these streams flow
through fertile stream valleys with excellent soil and
are used for agricultural irrigation.

The Putah South Canal (PSC) is a Federal (US Bureau
of Reclamation) water conveyance facility that flows
from northeast to southwest across the City, delivering water from Lake Berryessa. The PSC is a concrete lined
channel with a maximum capacity of about 956 cfs.

The Solano Irrigation District (SID) distributes irrigation water delivered via the PSC to agricultural lands in the vicinity of Fairfield, primarily in the Suisun Valley (City of Fairfield, 2001 ). The other major water conveyance
facility is the North Bay Aqueduct (NBA) which conveys
State Water Project water as water supply to the City.

The NBA runs generally parallel to the PSC from north-
east to southwest, but it is a large underground pipe-
line, rather than a surface water feature (SCWA, 2016)
Suisun M arsh south of the City is the largest remain-
ing brackish water marsh on the west coast of North
Am erica, enco m passing 116,000 acres including man-
aged wetlands, upland grasses, tidal wetlands, bays
and sloughs (A udubon, 2021) Suisun M ar.sh is pro -
tected under state law (the Suisun M arsh Preserv ation Act of 1977 ) in reco gnition of its irreplaceable value as wildlife and aquatic habitat (City of Fairfield, 2001 ).

Climate Characteristics
As noted in Chapter 4 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases,
and Energy , the City of Fairfield has a M editerranean clim ate typical fo r the region with co ol, wet winters and warm , dry sum m ers. Annual precipitation in the area
ranges fr om ro ughly 16 to 24 inches, decreasing in the higher elevations on the nort hw est to aro und 20 inch- es along the m argins of the Suisun M arsh (NO AA Altas, 2021 ). The m ajority of the annual precipitation fa lls as rain between the m onths of Novem ber and April (City of Fairfield, 2017). Sum m er tem peratures can include ex- trem e high tem peratures like the nearby Central Valley, but sum m er m ay also include periods when extrem e
heat in the Central Valley draw s co astal fo g thro ugh the Carquinez Strait and the fo g acts as a m oderating influ- ence the reduces air tem peratures in Fairfield.

The topography, air m ass paths, and seasonal air
tem perature gradients of the region create a distinct
wind regim e in this area with co nsistent winds fr om
the west-southw est (W SW ) that are particularly stro ng during spring and sum m er m onths (W CCC, 2021)
The average annual wind speed at the Fairfield-Travis
Air Force Base weather station is 12.7 m iles per hour
(m ph), one of the highest in the state (County of Solano, 2011 ). M onthly average wind speeds exceed 16 m ph in
the sum m er (lune, July, and August) (W CCC, 2021 ).

Flooding and Stormwater
The low -lying areas in and aro und Fairfield have a long history of flooding, as stream s carry ing runoff fro m the Coast Range hills m eet the valley floors, slow dow n,
spread, and interact with tidally-influenced water levels in the adjacent dow nstream m arshlands (Figure 7-3).

Early agricu ltural land uses in the uplands increased
Packet Page 159 of 390Attachment 13 Page 2 of 3

Figure 7-3: Floodplains and Levees
\
I • 8
i
j
~
]
i ~
~
"' ~
!
~ ~
~
j
f ~
l
1 " • I
!
" i
& ~ j?
iii'
i
1 I EB ~· ;,' --==-------- e ,1 .. J H•~ D~rvc 2/l6,'2!.i21 Pl~n"ti1fh~A1lfff F,le~\30000\3023S\GIS\AicM<1p\3023SBJ~elbl7.apr• t
~
~-1
g I_ - ~
L -'" J--v::~.~ . (~0
-::.J \J'-.-../ I.'"'/ -
~/~~ ~
~✓/ ",
(_
l
,r.ijt
a • hu,,v< ~~i.....l.-l-lTrav,~Af8 ~ Atro Club
' r
-~~
Dcitylimit
=:J Sphere of Influence
Planning Area
[~~~] Urban Limit Line
-- Levees
• I% Annual Chance Flood Hazard (Zone AE)
~ Regulatory Floodway (Zone AE)
,11.·,i.,;,"''""''··"·"·'""'
- Packet Page 160 of 390Attachment 13 Page 3 of 3

runoff and sedim ent loads carried by local stream . Ex- tensive dike and levee building also occurred thro ugh- out the Suisun Marsh to m anage water flows and inun-
dation pattern s within the m arsh and allow pro ductive land uses (i.e., grazing and gro wing cr ops). Ad verse floods occurred in som e parts of the vicinity even be- fo re extensive urban developm ent.

In the 196 0s, the U.S. Arm y Corps of Engineers (USACE) co nstructed the Green Valley Flood Contro l Pro ject
(GVFCP) to incr ease the capacity of Green Valley and
Dan W ilson Creeks at and upstream of their co nfluence with Cordelia Slough (CB EC, 2020). The GVFCP design
standard was m odest (40-year flood), and subsequent
sedim ent accu m ulation has reduced its flood pro tec- tion function, pro m pting the Solano County W ater
Agency (SCW A) to study existing and potential future
flooding in the Lower Cordelia Floodplain (CB EC, 2020).

M id and late 20th century urbanization co ntinued and
intensified changes to the natural hydro logy, during
the sam e period of tim e that channel dredging in the
m arshlands decreased. The City experienced flooding
in 1982, 1983, 1986, 1996 , 1998 and 2005 (City of Fair- field, 2017). Several segm ents of creeks thro ugh the
City are pro ne to flooding and have Special Flood Haz- ard Areas (SFHA) designated by the Federal Em ergency
Managem ent Agency (FEM A) (Figure 7-3). Green Valley
Creek, Dan W ilson Creek, Suisun Creek, Ledgewood
Creek, and Union Creek have SFHAs subject to flood-
ing by a 1-percent chance flood (100-year flood event).

Ledgewood Creek, Pennsylvania Avenue and Union
Avenue cr eek are mapped within Zone AE (1 o/o annual
flood zo ne). Ledgewood creek has base flood eleva-
tions within the Planning Area ranging fro m 23 to 31
feet. Pennsylvania Avenue and Union Avenue Creek
have base flood elevations in the planning area run-
ning from 13 to 18 feet. Pennsylvania Ave and Union
Ave Creek have mapped areas of Zones AO (1 o/o annual
flood zone) and X (0.2% annual flood zone).

The majority of the Suisun Marsh is at or below mean
tide elevation, and there are extensive dikes and levees thro ughout and aro und tracts within the Suisun M arsh.

The levee co nfigurations, materials, dim ensions, stabil- ity and integrity vary, but are generally vulnerable. The ownership, m aintenance and im pro vem ents to levees
in the Suisun Marsh is the responsibility of various local Reclam ation Districts, private wetlands m anagers, the Califo rn ia Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the Califo rn ia Departm ent of Water Resources (DW R)
Potential failure of levees in the marshlands south
of Fairfield and neighboring Suisun City co uld affect
flooding within the City.

Sim ilarly, while the City of Fairfield does not include large areas of tidally-influenced Suisun Marsh directly, future sea-level rise in the marshlands (predicted to be about 3.0 feet by late century) would induce increased
tidal elevations along the City's south m argin (Figure 7-4). This would worsen present sedim entation trends
in the lower stream channels and raise backwater in-
Packet Page 161 of 390Attachment 14 Page 1 of 3

Figure 7-4: Projected Sea Level Rise Circa 2070
LJCitylimit
- l J Sphere of Influence '\
.... ~ LJ Planning Area
r_·_-_-_-_-j Urban Limit Line
NOAA Sea Level Rise 3ft - 2070'--
,.,- - High \_ --
- Packet Page 162 of 390Attachment 14 Page 2 of 3

flu e n ce s on flo o d in g alo ng City strea m s in th e futu re (CB EC, 20 2 0 ).

Groundwater Resources
T h e City overlie s the Su isu n -Fairfie ld G ro u n d w ater Su b -b asin (Fig u re 7-5) w ith a to ta l su rface area of ro u g h ly 13 3 ,6 0 0 acres. T h e basin is bo u n d e d by th e fo o th ills of th e Co ast Ran g es to th e w e st, th e sou th e rn exten t of th e Vaca M o u n tain s on th e no rth, lo w rid g es o f co n so lid ate d ro ck to th e east, an d th e Su isu n Bay to th e so u th (C ity of Fairfie ld , 20 17 ).

T h e So la n o Co u n ty W ater Agen cy (S C W A ) divid e s the Su isu n -Fairfie ld basin in to seven hyd ro g eolo g ic su b -ar- ea s, in clu d in g Su isu n Valle y, T o le n as B en ch, Pu tah cre e k Fan , Lo s Pu to s Fo o th ills, So u thw est Pu tah plain , En g lish H ills/V aca Valley an d G ree n V alley (S CW A , 20 2 1 ). T h e m ajo rity of th e City falls w ith in th e To le n as Be n ch su b -are a, a trap e zo id al area locate d betw e en Fairfie ld to the w est, Travis A ir Fo rce Base to th e east, State H ig hw ay 12 to th e so u th , an d Pu tah So u th Ca n al to the no rth . Ot h e r hyd ro g e o lo g ic su b areas w ith in the City in cl u d e th e En g lish H ills/V aca Valley, So u thw est Pu tah Plain , Su isu n Valley, an d G ree n Valley su b -ar- eas (Fig u re 7-5). T he Su isu n V alley to th e w est co n sists of allu vial de p o sits fr o m th e Su isu n an d Le d g ew o o d C re eks ato p o ld e r se d im e n tary an d vo lcan ic ro cks.

T h e se allu vial de p o sits occu rred du rin g th e sam e geo - lo g ic tim e pe rio d as th e ne arby Pu tah Cre ek Fan allu - viu m , bu t are fin e r grain e d an d less pe rm eable, w h ich is m o re restrictive fo r rech a rge (C ity of Fairfie ld , 2017 ).

T he Su isu n -Fairfield V alley Basin is a lo w priority ba- sin , no t req u irin g gro u nd w ater m an agem en t (SCW A, 20 2 1 ). T h e su b basin that co vers m o st of the City of Fairfie ld , To le n a s Bench, is a lim ited, hig hly m in eralized gro u n d w ater su p ply not used fo r irrigation an d no t co n side red a viable sou rce fo r dom estic w ater du e to brackish co n ditions fro m tid al inflo w in Su isu n Valley basin. Brackish co n d itio n s usually req u ire pro h ib i- tively exp e n sive treatm ent befo re drin king use. The ea rly 19 5 0 's da ta indicate that the overall grad ien t of gro u n d w ater w as fr o m no rth to so uth. The gro u n dw a- te r su rface slo pe w as paralle l to the slo p e of the land su rface an d ab ou t 10 0 feet abo ve sea level. A fter the 19 5 0 s, th e gro u n d w ater level dro p ped du e to exces- sive pu m p in g . Construction of the Putah So u th Can al (196 1) an d the North Bay A qu ed u ct (19 85 ) to rep lace gro un d w ater su p p lies w ith im p orted su rface w ater re- co vered natu ral gro u n dw ater levels.

Re ce n t gro u n d w ater use in the vicinity is relatively lim - ited to sh allo w w ells for dom estic use thro ug ho ut the City of Fairfie ld an d so m e ow ned by the Solan o Irriga- tio n District (S ID ) to sup p le m en t their su rface w ater su p ply fo r the So lan o Pro je ct (City of Fairfie ld , 20 01 ).

G ro u n d w ate r elevations have declin ed sin ce 20 12 du e to re ce n t dro ug ht co n d itio n s (SCW A, 2021 ).

A reas of Fairfie ld alo ng stream co rridors, rip arian hab itats, w etla n d s, parkland s, sto rm w ater basin s an d oth e r op e n sp aces rem ain functio n al fo r gro u n dw ater rech a rg e. T h e im po rtan ce of fr esh w ater recharge to th e lo ca l aq u ifer w ould be expected to in cr ease as sea level rise pro m p ts saline in trusio n.

Packet Page 163 of 390Attachment 14 Page 3 of 3

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
Red TopRd
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
Busin essC enterDrClayBank Rd
Cement 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
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
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
U

L
I

M
I

T
L
I

E
U

B
A

N
L

T
L

E
Rancho Solano
Municipal
Golf Course
VII
VI
V
IV
III
L:\Acad 2000 Files\30000\30235\GIS\ArcMap\30235Base11x17.aprx Map Date: 2/16/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020File Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\30000\30235\GIS\ArcMap\30235Base11x17.aprx City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Urban Limit Line
Hydrogeologic Sub-Areas
III-Southwest Putah Plain
IV-English Hills / Vaca Valley
V-Tolenas Bench
VI-Suisun Valley
VII-Green Valley
Groundwater Basin Name
Sacramento Valley
Suisun-Fairfield Valley
Sources: Solano County GIS, Solano County Water Agency, City of Fairfield, WRA.Figure 7-5: Groundwater Planning Area
7-10
Figure 7-5: Groundwater Basins
Packet Page 164 of 390Attachment 15 Page 1 of 3

7-11
Groundwater Water Quality
The Suisun-Fairfield basin study area is one of six
study areas within the Southern Sacramento Val-
ley Ground-Water Ambient Monitoring Assessment
(GAMA) Program providing a comprehensive assess-
ment of groundwater quality of the basin (USGS,
2018). The basin is minimally used for drinking water
because of its low yields and poor water quality. Poor
water quality in the watershed is a result of the impact- ed creeks and wetlands from urban development and
hydromodification. Groundwater quality is also consid-
ered poor due to its high salt content. The salt content, expressed as total dissolved solids (TDS), varies from
300–6,000 milligrams per liter (mgl), within average val- ues above 900 mgl (City of Fairfield 1999). The state
secondary drinking water standard for taste concerns
is 500 mgl if other drinking water sources are available.

Salt content should be below 1,000 mgl for agricultural purposes (City of Fairfield, 2001).

Surface Water Quality
Much of the watershed area remains in agricultur-
al land uses, but the intensity and type of agriculture has shifted (e.g., vineyards), housing development and
commercial land uses have increased, with associated
increased erosion, sedimentation, and degradation of
runoff, of both urban and agricultural origins.

Ledgewood Creek, which has the capacity to provide
beneficial cold freshwater habitat, is classified on the State’s 303(d) list for diazinon, a pesticide (Table 7-1).

Ledgewood Creek meanders through intensive agri-
cultural land before entering City limits, where other
aspects of water quality are affected by urban sources
such as runoff and storm sewers. Ledgewood Creek
discharges into Suisun Slough, which is also listed on
the State’s 303(d) list for diazinon. Ledgewood Creek
and Suisun Slough are both listed under the Category
4a Criteria, which refers to water segments where all

10.2 Water Quality
303(d) listings are being addressed, and at least one of the listings is being addressed by a U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) approved Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL). The Ledgewood Creek TMDL was
approved by the EPA on 5/16/2007, and the Suisun
Slough TMDL was approved on 12/31/2018 (California
Water Boards, 2020).

Suisun Creek is classified on the State’s 303(d) list for impaired dissolved oxygen and water temperature
TABLE 7-1: Fairfield Vicinity Water Body Pollutants
Water Body Name
Estimated Size
Affected
Integrated
Report Category Pollutants
Ledgewood Creek 12.54 miles 4a Diazanon
Suisun Slough 1,124 acres 4a Diazanon
Suisun Creek 21.27 miles 5 Dissolved Oxygen
Water Temperature
Suisun Marsh
Wetlands
66,339 acres 5 Mercury
Nutrients
Organic Enrichment/ Low Dissolved Oxy-
gen Salinity/ TDS/ Chlorides
Suisun Bay 25,335 acres 5 Chlordane
DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane)
Dieldrin
Mercury
PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)
Selenium
Dioxin compounds (including 2,3,7,8-TCDD)
Furan Compounds
Invasive Species
Source: EPA, 2016
Packet Page 165 of 390Attachment 15 Page 2 of 3

photo credit: Delta Stewardship Council
7-12
that it meets the strict standards set for drinking water (City of Fairfield, 2001).

The cities of Fairfield and Suisun City are co-permittees on a Municipal Regional Stormwater National Pollu-
tion Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) Permit
(MRP #CAS612008), under which they implement an
Urban Runoff Management Program (URMP) including
discharge prohibitions, receiving water limitations, pre- scribed approaches to reduce violations, and reporting
requirements (City of Fairfield DPW, 2010).

The Travis Air Force Base (AFB), in the northeast por-
tion of Fairfield-Suisun groundwater basin and the
Union Creek watershed, operates storm drainage fa-
cilities and groundwater water quality treatment sys-
tems. The upper reach of Union Creek is impounded
as a recreational pond on the AFB and the lower reach
is routed through a storm drainage system discharg-
ing to the open channel of Union Creek downstream
of the AFB. The AFB monitors water quality of surface
water and groundwater. Approximately four million
gallons of contaminated groundwater are extracted
and treated each month (USAF , 2019). The treated
groundwater is drained into the east branch of Union
Creek, which flows into Hill Slough and Suisun Marsh.

Groundwater treatment and discharge is under regu-
lation of the EPA, the California Department of Toxic
Substance Control (DTSC) and the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
(Table 7-1). As of April 6, 2018, Suisun Creek is listed under the Category 5 Criteria, which refers to a water
segments where standards are not met and a TMDL
is required, but not yet completed, for at least one of the pollutants being listed for the segment. (California Water Boards, 2020).

Suisun Marsh wetlands are listed on the State’s 303(d)
list as being impaired by metals, nutrients, dissolved
oxygen, organic enrichment, and salinity. Suisun Bay
is listed as being impaired by DDT, dioxins, metals,
PCBs, and a number of other compounds (Table 7-1).

As of April 6, 2018, both water bodies are listed under the Category 5 Criteria, indicating that their standards have not been met and a TMDL is required, but has not
yet been completed for at least one of the pollutants
listed. (California Water Boards , 2020).

Maintaining and enhancing water quality in the City’s
streams is important because all runoff and wastewa-
ter from the City is eventually discharged into Suisun
Marsh. The water quality of Suisun Marsh is influenced
mainly by temperature, turbidity, contaminants, and
salinity. Salinity is steadily increasing because of fresh water diversions from the Delta, increasing the impor-
tance of local freshwater inflow from groundwater,
runoff, and wastewater discharge. Treated wastewater
from the Fairfield treatment plant is discharged to Su- isun Marsh and receives a tertiary-level of treatment so Packet Page 166 of 390Attachment 15 Page 3 of 3

10-7-13
Federal Agencies And
Regulations
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (USACE)
Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a re-
quirement to obtain a permit before conducting any
activity that involves any discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including
wetlands. The USACE is responsible for issuing permits
for the placement of fill or discharge of material into waters of the United States pursuant to Sections 401
and 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA).

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY (USEPA)
Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
Section 401 of the CWA states that any applicant for
a federal permit or license that may result in the dis- charge of pollutants into waters of the United States
must obtain certification showing that the activity
complies with all applicable water quality standards,
limitations, and restrictions (EPA, 2021). In California, the authority to either grant water quality certification or waive the requirements is delegated by the EPA
through the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) to the nine Regional Water Quality Control
Boards (RWQCBs).

In 1990 the EPA published final regulations pursuant
to Section 402 of the CWA that establish stormwater
permit application requirements. The regulations, also known as Phase I of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater program for
larger municipalities and to provide that discharges of stormwater to waters of the United States from con-
struction projects that encompass five or more acres
of soil disturbance are effectively prohibited unless the discharge complies with an NPDES permit.

In 2007 Phase II of the NPDES program expanded the
requirements by requiring operators of small Munic-
ipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) in urban-
ized areas and small construction sites to be covered
under NPDES permits, and to implement programs
and practices to control polluted stormwater runoff.

The cities of Fairfield and Suisun City joined together as Permittees subject to NPDES Permit No. CAS0612008
issued in 2009, as later amended, regulating discharge
of stormwater runoff from storm drains and water-
ways in their jurisdictions (SF Bay RWQCB, 2015). The
Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program
(URMP) is administered by the Fairfield-Suisun Sanitary District.

Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to develop
lists of water bodies (or segments of water bodies)
that will not attain water quality standards after imple- mentation of minimum required levels of treatment
by point source dischargers (e.g., municipalities and
industries) (California Water Boards , 2020). The 303(d) list identifies the pollutant(s) causing impairment and establishes a schedule for developing a control plan to address the impairment, called a Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL). A TMDL serves as the means to attain
and maintain water quality standards for the impaired
water body. TMDL is a calculation of the maximum
amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive
and still safely meet water quality standards.) The list of impaired water bodies is typically reviewed/updat-
ed by the State and Regional Water Quality Control
Boards every two years, prior to submittal to the EPA
for approval. The EPA decisions on Section 303(d) lists of impaired waters from states may be dated a couple
of years after submission (Figure 7-6).

The EPA’s National Toxics Rule (1992 and amended
1995) and California Toxics Rule (2000) led to State Im- plementation Policy for implementation of toxics stan-
dards for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and es- tuaries of California to standardize regulation through relevant regulatory approaches and permits including
pollutant objectives in the RWQCB basin plans (Califor- nia Water Boards , 2017).

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

AGENCY (FEMA)
National Flood Insurance Act and Flood Disaster
Protection Act
In response to increasing losses from flood hazards
nationwide, the United States Congress passed the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, which estab-

7.3 Regulatory Framework
Packet Page 167 of 390Attachment 16 Page 1 of 3

7-14
R o c k v ille R d
dR holihSAbernathyRdSunsetAvM an gelsBlMainStCordelia StSui s
unVa
l
l
e
y
RdWaltersRdMa
nkas
CornerRd LyonRdMeridianRdGr
e
e
n
Va
ll
e
y
Rd
Red TopRd
Travis Bl
EastTaborAv
Railroad Av
Ohio St
C o u r ageD r
Dickson

H
i
l
l Rd
North Texas StHilbornRd
Chadbourne RdBurganBlDoverAv2ndStPeabody RdOliv
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

S O L A N O C O U N T Y
Joice Island St
Game Refuge
Allen
Witt
Park
Lee
Bell
Park
Tolenas
Park
Fairfield
Linear
Park
Hillview
Park
Rolling
Hills
Park
Laurel Creek
Park
Vintage
Green
Valley
Park
Dover
Park
Mankas
Park
Rockville
Hills
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
U

N
L
I

M
I

T
L
I

E
U

B
A

N
L

T
L

E
Rancho Solano
Municipal
Golf Course
L:\Acad 2000 Files\30000\30235\GIS\ArcMap\30235Base11x17.aprx Map Date: 2/19/2021
0 1 2½
Miles
Source: Solano County GIS, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2020; Dyett & Bhatia, 2020File Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\30000\30235\GIS\ArcMap\30235Base11x17.aprx City Limit
Sphere of Influence
Urban Limit Line
Impaired Waters
Waterways
Sources: EPA Office of Water (OW): 303(d) Listed Impaired Waters NHDPlus Indexed Dataset (2015-05-01), CARI, WRA, City of FairfieldFigure 7-6: Impaired Water Bodies Suisun Creek
Ledgewood Creek
Suisun SloughCordelia Slough
Union Creek
Planning Area
Figure 7-6: Impaired Waters
Packet Page 168 of 390Attachment 16 Page 2 of 3

7-15
lished the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

The 1968 Act was expanded by the Flood Disaster Pro-
tection Act of 1973, in part to increase the awareness
of floodplain mapping needs throughout the country.

The 1973 Act added the mandatory flood insurance
purchase requirement for individuals, businesses, and
others buying, building, or improving property located
in identified areas of special flood hazards within par- ticipating communities as a prerequisite for receiving
any type of direct or indirect federal financial assis- tance when the building or personal property is the
subject of or security for such assistance.). The Fed- eral Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prepares
Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that depict the spa-
tial extent of Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) and
other features related to flood risk assessment. FEMA
is responsible for maintaining the FIRMs as new scien-
tific and technical data concerning flood risks become
available (FEMA, 2020).

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION (USBR)
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) is part of the
U.S. Department of the Interior and is responsible for
development and conservation of most water resourc-
es in the western United States. The Federally owned
Solano Project, operated under a cooperative agree-
ment by the Solano County Water Agency and the So-
lano Irrigation District, provides water for irrigation and domestic supplies for the cities of Suisun City, Vacaville, Vallejo, and Fairfield. The operation and maintenance
of the Solano Project, and regulations regarding the fa- cility and its easement are enforced by the USBR and//
or delegated through SCWA and SID.

State And Regional Regulations

PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY
CONTROL ACT (1969)
The Porter-Cologne Act is the principal State law gov-
erning water quality regulation in California. It applies to surface waters, wetlands, and groundwater, as well
as regulation of both point and nonpoint sources of
pollution. The Porter-Cologne Act establishes State
policy on water quality and implements provisions of
the CWA via comprehensive and tiered programs and
plans. It designated the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) as the lead for state wide planning and
gave authority to nine Regional Water Quality Control
Boards (RWQCBs) to implement provisions in both
statewide and basin plans.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
The SWRCB and its nine RWQCBs administer water
rights and enforce pollution control standards through- out the state and are housed within the California Envi- ronmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). The SWRCB has
four divisions, two of which are focused on drinking wa- ter. The other two divisions address Water Rights and
Water Quality. The Water Rights division is responsible for granting water right permits and licenses through
an appropriation process following public hearings and
appropriate environmental review by applicants and
responsible agencies. The Water Quality division sets
statewide standards, issues statewide permits, con-
ducts statewide assessments and planning, and works
in coordination with the nine RWQCBs to preserve, pro-
tect, enhance and restore water quality.

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) (Region 2)
The City of Fairfield is within the SWRCB’s Region 2,
the San Francisco Bay Region. The SF Bay RWQCB is
responsible for the preparation and implementation of
water quality basin plans consistent with federal and
state law, setting standards, issuing waste discharge
requirements and permits, determining compliance
and conducting enforcement. The RWQCB issues NP-
DES permits to dischargers of municipal and industrial
stormwater runoff and operators of large construction
sites. In coordination with permittees of the San Francis- co Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, including
Fairfield, RWQCB staff performs an annual performance
review and evaluation of stormwater management and
permit compliance activities (City of Fairfield, 2017).

DAM SAFETY
California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
The Department of Water Resources (DWR) works to
prevent and respond to floods, droughts, and cata-
strophic events that would threaten public safety, wa-
ter resources and management systems, the environ-
ment, and property. Specifically, the DWR Division of
Safety of Dams has, since 1929, had regulatory power
Packet Page 169 of 390Attachment 16 Page 3 of 3

7-16
over ‘dams’ in the State. Dams generally fall under juris- dictional oversight if the height is more than 6 feet and holds more than 50 acres-feet or if the 25 feet or high- er and impounds more than 15 acres-feet of water.

Under current definitions, state jurisdiction extends
over 1,200 dams (California DWR, 2021).

WATER DELIVERIES AND FLOOD CONTROL
Solano County Water Agency (SCWA)
The Solano County Water Agency (SCWA) was originally
formed in 1951 as a flood control and water conserva-
tion district addressing water supply and flood control, modified in 1989 to include additional representatives
on their Board. SCWA is the wholesale water agency
providing untreated water to cities, agricultural dis-
tricts, and institutions in Solano County, including the City of Fairfield. SCWA’s water contract with the USBR for Solano Project was executed in 1955 and SCWA
completed repayment of the capital coasts in 2006;
the contracted water supply is distributed by SID for
both urban and agricultural uses (SCWA, 2021). State
Water Project water delivered through the NBA are for
urban uses only. SCWA and its member agencies have
comprehensive urban and agricultural water conser-
vation programs. SCWA does not supply groundwater
and does not have a groundwater management plan.

SCWA operates and maintains the Green Valley Flood
Control Project (GVFCP), portions of which within the
City have been upgraded to protection from 100-year
floods (SCWA, 2021). The channels are almost entire-
ly on private property, and SCWA has easements for
vegetation clearing, dredging and plant growth control.

SCWA also sponsors a small grant flood control pro-
gram to fund actions by landowners, managed by the
Solano Resource Conservation District (Solano RCD)
(Solano RCD, 2021).

GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA)
On September 16, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed
into law a three-bill legislative package, composed of
AB 1739 (Dickinson), SB 1168 (Pavley), and SB 1319
(Pavley), collectively known as the Sustainable Ground- water Management Act (SGMA). This sets a framework
for sustainable, groundwater management - “manage-
ment and use of groundwater in a manner that can
be maintained during the planning and implementa-
tion horizon without causing undesirable results” (Cal- ifornia Department of Water Resources , 2021). SGMA
requires governments and water agencies of high and
medium priority basins to halt overdraft and bring
groundwater basins into balanced levels of pump-
ing and recharge. SGMA empowers local agencies to
form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to
manage basins sustainably and requires those GSAs
to adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) for
crucial groundwater basins in California.

While the Solano Sub-basin is a medium priority basin,
subject to SGMA, most of the City of Fairfield overlies the Suisun-Fairfield Valley sub-basin and is not subject to SGMA. The northeast fringe of Fairfield’s ULL north and east of Travis AFB lies along the boundary to the Solano Sub-Basin. An 11-member Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
was approved in 2017 and is a multi-agency GSA, col-
lectively called the Solano Collaborative (SCWA, 2018).

SUISUN MARSH PRESERVATION ACT
In 1977, the California State Legislature enacted the
Suisun Marsh Preservation Act (Marsh Act; Public Re-
sources Code, § 29000 et seq.), which implements
most of the recommendations contained in the 1976
Suisun Marsh Protection Plan. The Suisun Marsh Pro-
tection Plan aims to “preserve and enhance the quality
and diversity of the Suisun Marsh aquatic and wildlife
habitats and to assure retention of upland areas adja-
cent to the Marsh in uses compatible with its protec-
tion” (BCDC, 2019).

The Marsh Act defines the boundaries of the Suisun
Marsh and establishes primary and secondary man-
agement areas within the Marsh (BCDC, 2019). The
Marsh Act requires that the individual agencies with
jurisdiction in the Marsh, including the City of Fairfield, bring their plans, ordinances, regulations and stan-
dards into conformity and that these efforts of all the local agencies constitutes the Local Protection Plan
(LPP) for the Suisun Marsh for review by Solano County
and certification by the San Francisco Bay Conserva-
tion and Development Commission (BCDC).

Packet Page 170 of 390Attachment 17 Page 1 of 3

7-17

7.4 Key Findings and Planning Considerations
1 ADDRESS FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT.

Future land use decisions, as well as natural factors from climate change and wildfire in the unincorporated lands northwest of the City in the upper watersheds of Green Valley Creek, Suisun Creek and Ledgewood Creek could adversely affect the hydrology, sediment loads, channel conditions and flooding within the lower reaches of the creeks as they pass through Fairfield. Additionally, the hilly uplands areas on the north and west margins of the City are attractive areas for develop- ment in terms of avoiding direct flood risks, but require careful land use planning and controls to prevent adverse hydrology changes and limit wildfire risk (see Chapter 10).

While the City has some regulated floodplains, the development pat- terns have not created extensive ‘legacy’ housing vulnerable to flooding.

Some of the remaining open space lands on the margins of the City are in uplands of the local watersheds that provide an opportunity to proactively manage these lands to limit hydromodification in the future.

This creates the opportunity for pro-active floodplain management policies and regulation to reduce the potential for future development to worsen flooding and/or increase the residential areas exposure to flooding. More information on localized flooding can be found in Chap- ter 12: Wet Utilities.
2 3 PLANNING FOR SEA LEVEL RISE.

While the developed portions of the Planning Area are outside of land likely to be subject to sea level rise over the next 50 years, several of the low density or undeveloped lands in the City and its ULL are areas with- in the present 100-year floodplain (and several areas are in the 500- year floodplain or areas that may have an increased flood hazard under future sea level rise). The relatively low-lying valley corridors along local creeks include locations that either are presently within floodplains or could experience worse flooding and/or sedimentation in the future due to upslope wildfires or backwater from downstream from sea lev- el rise. This includes the southern margin of the City from downtown westward toward the Link Road/Cordelia Road area and along the Su- isun Marsh, which may experience adverse changes to local flooding as sea level rises, reducing the effectiveness of local drainage networks and potentially increasing the frequency and/or depth of flooding.

ADDRESS SURFACE WATER QUALITY ISSUES.

Surface water quality within the City is generally good, although a few of the streams flowing through Fairfield and all of the downstream re- ceiving waters have experienced degradation in the past and/or have continuing water quality problems. Water quality of stormwater and runoff flowing through the City must be maintained and improved in order to effectively protect and restore water quality in downstream impaired water bodies, yet there are few areas suitable in size and lo- cation for treatment prior to discharging into the sensitive sloughs and marsh channels.

Packet Page 171 of 390Attachment 17 Page 2 of 3

7-18 Packet Page 172 of 390Attachment 17 Page 3 of 3

Hazardous
Materials
Chapter 8
This chapter discusses exposure to hazards and hazardous materials or conditions within the Planning Area.

Photo credit: Jordan Ollanik
Packet Page 173 of 390Attachment 18 Page 1 of 8

8-2
Certain chemical compounds located on, or below, the
ground surface have the potential to contaminate the
soil and groundwater. Furthermore, excavation and
grading work has the possibility to expose the general
public to contaminated materials either through phys-
ical contact or hazardous vapors. Mismanagement or
mishandling of contaminated groundwater and soil
can propagate the spread of contamination through
surface water runoff or airborne dust, consequently
increasing the public’s exposure to these hazards.

The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) and the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control (DTSC) oversee the cleanup and
remediation requirements of sites that have been clas-
sified as hazardous waste sites or leaking underground
storage tanks (LUSTs) in the Planning Area.

Underground Storage Tanks
The California Water Resource Control Board main-
tains GeoTracker, a data management system that
can be accessed by State Boards, regional boards, and
local agencies to acquire information regarding the
location of underground storage tanks (USTs), leaking
underground storage tanks (LUSTs), land disposal
sites, as well as other areas that may require ground
water cleanup.

GeoTracker lists 109 LUST cleanup sites within the
Planning Area outside of Travis AFB. One of these
sites is being assessed and two are currently being
remediated, while 106 have had remediation measures
completed and are considered closed. One of the sites
being remediated, located at 2390 Auto Mall Parkway,
is currently pending final closure. On Travis AFB,
GeoTracker lists 60 Military UST sites. Military UST sites are those LUST cleanup sites located on existing mili-
tary bases and regulated by the State Water Resources
Control Board. One of these 60 sites is currently being assessed, seven are being remediated, and one is
undergoing verification monitoring. 51 Military UST
sites on Travis AFB have been remediated and are
considered closed. Open LUST sites within the Planning
Area are shown on Figure 8-1 and listed in Table 8-1.

8.1 Hazardous Materials
Photo credit: Fairfield Fire Dept.

Packet Page 174 of 390Attachment 18 Page 2 of 8

8-3
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S "S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S "S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S "S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S"S"S
"S"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S"S
"S"S"S"S
"S"S"S"S"S"S"S"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S"S "S"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 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
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
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

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\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
Figure 8-1: Hazardous Materials
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S "S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S "S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S "S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S"S"S
"S"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S
"S"S
"S"S"S"S
"S"S"S"S"S"S"S"S"S
"S
"S
"S
"S
"S"S"S "S"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 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
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

Fairfield City CouncilApril 11, 2023

Fairfield City Council
April 11, 2023