Agenda, first session — Fairfield City Council, August 15, 2023 (part 3 of 6)

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 61h day of December, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: MEMBERS: PRICE / BERTANI / MOY / PANDURO / TIMM / TONNESEN / VACCARO NOES: MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: MEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

CITY CLERK Q
NONE
NONE
Ce4
Packet Page 286 of 860Attachment 5 Page 2 of 9

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

SIXTH AMENDMENT TO

LEASE AND MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT FOR

RESTAURANT OPERATIONS
This sixth amendment to the Lease and Management Agreement (the "Amendment') is entered into as of U, .-- sz;' , 2022 by and between the CITY OF FAIRFIELD, a municipal corporation ("CITY") and SPORTS RESTAURANT OF FAIRFIELD, INC. (u ++ SRF) and SPORTS RESTAURANT OF RANCHO SOLANO, INC.

SRR") each a California corporation (collectively, SRF and SRR are referred to hereinafter as "LESSEE"), CITY and LESSEE, collectively referred to hereinafter as PARTIES", amends and supplements that certain Lease and Management Agreement dates as of January 1, 2009, between the City and the Lessee (the "AGREEMENT'):

RECITALS

1. CITY owns certain properties commonly referred to as the Paradise Valley Golf Course and the Rancho Solano Golf Course (together, the "GOLF COURSES").

2. The GOLF COURSES are improved with several buildings and other improvements, including restaurants, bars, banquet facilities and other improvements.

3. Pursuant to that certain Lease and Management Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2009 (the "Management Agreement'), CITY has leased a portion of the GOLF COURSES to LESSEE (such portion being the "Facilities") for food and beverage service.

4. The PARTIES have entered into five amendments to the AGREEMENT (the AGREEMENT, as amended, being the "Amended Management Agreement').

5. The PARTIES wish to further amend the Amended Management Agreement to acknowledge January 1, 2023, as the "Reinstatement Date" for Rent to revert back to ten percent (10%) and resumption of performance measures.

6. The PARTIES also wish to extend the contract for one additional year to December 31, 2023.

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt of sufficiency of which is acknowledged by both parties, the CITY and Lessee agree as follows:

1. AMENDMENTS

1.1. Article 1.4, Section 4.1, Rent of the Amended Management Agreement is hereby amended by removal of paragraphs (e) (f) (g) and (h).

Packet Page 287 of 860Attachment 5 Page 3 of 9

1.2. Article 3, Section 3.1, Term of the Agreement is hereby amended by extending the term one year to December 31, 2023.

1.3. Article 8, Operation of Food and Beverage Service of the Amended Management Agreement is hereby amended by removal of Section 8.12 Suspension of Performance Standards.

1.4. Article 12, Section 12.4, Ownership of Banquet Deposits is hereby amended to remove current language and replace language that allows SRI retention of 10% of banquet sales occurring January through June 2024 that have been booked prior to December 31, 2023.

2. MISCELLANEOUS

2.1. Lessee acknowledges a Request for Qualifications/Proposals is slated to occur prior to the termination of this extension. If CITY commences, in its sole andexclusiverighttodoso, to change Operator(s)/Lessee, Lessee agrees to the following:
a) Establish positive working relationship with incoming Operator(s)/Lessee. b) Fully cooperate with CITY and Incoming Operators)/Lessee to ensure smooth transition.
c) Understand the cooperative transition planning and implementation process may commence as early as April 2023.

2.2. if CITY commences a change in Operator(s)/Lessee, Lessee agrees to ensure CITY receives access to POS and other operating systems during the transition period.

2.3. Lessee understands the importance of Banquet and Party bookings with respect to both revenue generation and customer service. As such, Lessee agrees to continue promoting and meeting with prospective renters and agrees to book parties/event dates that may extend out into the future beyond December 2023 asrequestsaresubmittedanddepositsarecollectedonorbeforeDecember31, 2023.

2.4. Lessee agrees to provide to CITY no later than December 31, 2022, the following:
a) Comprehensive inventory of supplies, equipment, and any other property owned by SRI or staff members.
b) List of third -party contract/service agreements that reflect CITY obligation(s) that extend beyond December 31, 2023.
c) List of outstanding account receivables with estimated dates of receipt due to CITY that extend beyond December 31, 2023.

Packet Page 288 of 860Attachment 5 Page 4 of 9

2.5. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall be deemed one and the same Amendment.

2.6. This Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

2.7. Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, all provisions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

2.8. The captions or headings in this Amendment are for convenience only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of any provisions of this Amendment.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment at Fairfield, California as of the date first written above.

CITY: LESSEE:

CITY OF FAIRFIELD, CA SPORTS RESTAURANT OF FAIRFIELD, INC. a municipal cor o tin a Califo corporation
C
Y: BY:

NAME: David Gassaway NAME: Geor a Marshall
ITS: Interim City Manager ITS: President
LESSEE:

SPORTS RESTAURANT OF RANCHO

SOLANO, INC
a Calif corporation
B
NAME: Georg6 Marshall
ITS: President
Packet Page 289 of 860Attachment 5 Page 5 of 9

CITY OF FAIRFIELD
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-331

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD APPROVING THE EIGHTH

AMENDMENT TO THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT WITH KEMPER SPORTS MANAGEMENT, INC. FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF GOLF COURSES AND FACILITIES WHEREAS, the City owns certain properties commonly referred to as the Paradise Valley Golf Course and the Rancho Solano Golf Course (together, the "Golf Courses"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to a Management Agreement entered on or about January 1, 2008, Management Agreement), the City retained Kemper Sports Management, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company (Kemper Sports Management, Inc.) (Operator) to provide for: The overall management and operations of the Golf Courses; improvements to existing facilities; a collection of fees; and other related golf services to ensure the highest quality of golf programs for the public; and
WHEREAS, there have been 7 previous amendments to the Management Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to amend the Management Agreement to extend the current contract term through December 31, 2023.

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

Section 1. The Eighth Amendment to the Management Agreement for the Operation and Maintenance of Golf Courses and Facilities is hereby approved.

Section 2. The city manager is authorized and directed to execute the Eighth Amendment and do all things necessary to implement this Resolution and Eighth Amendment.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 611 day of December, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: MEMBERS: PRICE / BERTANI / MOY / PANDURO / TIMM / TONNESEN / VACCARO NOES: MEMBERS:

ABSENT: MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: MEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

NONE
NONE
NONE
r

CITY CLERK (
Packet Page 290 of 860Attachment 5 Page 6 of 9

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

EIGHTH AMENDMENT TO

THE MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF

GOLF COURSES AND FACILITIES
This eighth amendment o the Management Agreement (the "Amendment") is entered into as of 1", , 2022 by and between the CITY OF FAIRFIELD, a municipal corporation ("CITY") and KEMPER SPORTS MANAGEMENT LLC., a Delaware limited liability company (aka "Kemper Sports Management, Inc." ("OPERATOR"), and amends and supplements the Management Agreement entered into between the parties on or about January 1, 2008. The terms of this amendment are:

RECITALS

1. City owns certain properties commonly referred to as the Paradise Valley Golf Course and the Rancho Solano Golf Course (collectively, "GOLF COURSES").

2. Pursuant to a Management Agreement, entered into on or about January 1, 2008 (the Management Agreement"), CITY retained OPERATOR to provide for the overall management and operations of the GOLF COURSES, improvements to existing facilities, collection of fees and other related golf services to ensure the highest quality of golf programs for the public.

3. A first amendment was made to the Management Agreement on or about August 8, 2008, which provided supplemental language to Section 1.10(a), Section 7.1(A)(1) and 2) and Section 7.5(A)

4. A second amendment was made to the Management Agreement on or about December 15, 2015, extending the Management Agreement through March 31, 2016.

5. A third amendment was made to the Management Agreement on or about February 11, 2016, providing supplemental performance measures, and extending the Management Agreement through December 31, 2017.

6. A fourth amendment was made to the Management Agreement on or about December 1, 2017, extending the Management Agreement to February 28, 2018.

7. A fifth amendment was made to the Management Agreement on or about February 28, 2018, extending the Management Agreement through December 31, 2022, and providing supplemental language to sections 1.4, 2.4, 4.1, 4.2, 6.0, 8.3, and 10.1.

8. A sixth amendment was made to the Management Agreement on or about May 19, 2020, implementing a temporary reduction in Management fees due to the COVID pandemic.

Packet Page 291 of 860Attachment 5 Page 7 of 9

9. A seventh amendment was made to the Management Agreement on or about November 16, 2021, authorizing a demand -based pricing model allowing adjustment of golf fees up to 20%.

10. The City and Operator wish to extend the Management Agreement for one additional year to December 21, 2023, and make other amendments listed below.

AMENDMENTS
Section 1.4 is hereby amended to read:

Section 1.4 Director. "Director" shall mean the Director of the City of Fairfield Parks and Recreation Department. The Director and her or his assigned representative is assigned oversight of the GOLF COURSES.

Section 4.1 is hereby amended to read:

Section 4.1 Term. The expiration date of this Agreement is December 31, 2023.

MISCELLANEOUS
The CITY and OPERATOR agree as follows:

1. The term of the Management Agreement is hereby extended to December 31, 2023.

2. OPERATOR acknowledges a Request for Qualifications/Proposals is slated to occur prior to the termination of this extension. If CITY commences, in its sole and exclusive right to do so, to change to a new operator for the GOLF COURSES either in whole or in part, OPERATOR agrees to the following:
a. To use good faith efforts to establish a positive working relationship with incoming Operator(s).
b. To fully cooperate with CITY and Incoming Operator(s) to help facilitate a smooth transition.
c. Understand the cooperative transition planning and implementation process may commence as early as April 2023, provided, however the foregoing shall not impact the term extension to December 31, 2023

3. If CITY commences a change in Operator(s), OPERATOR agrees to ensure CITY receives access to Point of Sale and other operating systems during the transition period.

4. OPERATOR understands the importance of Tournaments with respect to both revenue generation and customer service. As such, OPERATOR agrees to continue promoting and meeting with prospective tournament hosts/directors and agrees to book tournaments out into the future beyond December 2023 as requests are submitted.

5. OPERATOR agrees to provide to CITY no later than December 31, 2022, the following:
a. Comprehensive inventory of supplies, equipment, and any other property owned by Kemper.

Packet Page 292 of 860Attachment 5 Page 8 of 9

b. List of third -party contract/service agreements that reflect CITY obligation(s) that extend beyond December 31, 2023.
c. List of outstanding account receivables with estimated dates of receipt due to CITY that extend beyond December 31, 2023.

Except as expressly set forth in this Amendment, all remaining provisions of the Management agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment in Fairfield, California as of the date written above.

CITY:

CITY OF FAIRFIE
r atamunicialcor
Y: "
I,
David Gassaway
OPERATOR:

KEMPER SPORTS MANAGEMENT, LLC.
a Delaware limited liability company
BY:

Jere o latt
Interim City Manager Chief Operating Officer
Packet Page 293 of 860Attachment 5 Page 9 of 9

Packet Page 294 of 860Attachment 6 Page 1 of 2

Packet Page 295 of 860Attachment 6 Page 2 of 2

Agenda Item No: 20.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:August 15, 2023
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, City Manager
SUBJECT:Resolution 2023218 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Allowing the City of Fairfield to Hire Lynette Syme as a PartTime Senior Transportation Technician Retired Annuitant Without a SixMonth Break in Service
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt resolution.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
Public Works Transportation Division (Transportation) is working to implement a fare increase and a new transportation mode called microtransit (on demand bus service) that were approved unanimously by City Council in September 2022. The council has prioritized these as goals to be completed during fiscal year (FY) 202324. Transportation will unveil microtransit in two zones in September 2023.

To successfully implement microtransit, staff recommends hiring Lynette Syme as a Senior Transportation Technician retired annuitant.

DISCUSSION
Transportation has seven budgeted positions. Senior Transportation Technician, Lynette Syme, has notified the city of her intent to retire on July 15, 2023. After her retirement, 40% of Transportation’s positions will either be newly filled or vacant. The staffing situation will make it difficult to perform the extensive coordination required between Transportation and FAST riders, other City departments, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, outside agencies, consultants, contractors, and vendors to implement microtransit by September 2, 2023.

Other tasks are also critical for completing implementation of upcoming fare changes and microtransit.

Uninterrupted coordination of outreach activities, maintaining appropriate documentation, assistance with the annual Transportation Development Act (TDA) for sufficient funding and ensuring compliance with reporting requirements are all pertinent to the success of these projects.

After serving over 12 years in Transportation, Ms. Syme is highly qualified to perform these key components. Her institutional and specific knowledge about transportation requirements make her uniquely qualified to perform the required tasks. Current City staff do not have the same knowledge Packet Page 296 of 860

Agenda Item No: 20.AGENDA REPORTDATE:August 15, 2023 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, City ManagerSUBJECT:Resolution 2023218 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Allowing the City ofFairfield to Hire Lynette Syme as a PartTime Senior Transportation Technician RetiredAnnuitant Without a SixMonth Break in ServiceRECOMMENDED ACTIONAdopt resolution.STATEMENT OF ISSUEPublic Works Transportation Division (Transportation) is working to implement a fare increase and anew transportation mode called microtransit (on demand bus service) that were approved unanimouslyby City Council in September 2022. The council has prioritized these as goals to be completed duringfiscal year (FY) 202324. Transportation will unveil microtransit in two zones in September 2023.To successfully implement microtransit, staff recommends hiring Lynette Syme as a SeniorTransportation Technician retired annuitant.DISCUSSIONTransportation has seven budgeted positions. Senior Transportation Technician, Lynette Syme, hasnotified the city of her intent to retire on July 15, 2023. After her retirement, 40% of Transportation’spositions will either be newly filled or vacant. The staffing situation will make it difficult to perform theextensive coordination required between Transportation and FAST riders, other City departments,Metropolitan Transportation Commission, outside agencies, consultants, contractors, and vendors toimplement microtransit by September 2, 2023.Other tasks are also critical for completing implementation of upcoming fare changes and microtransit.Uninterrupted coordination of outreach activities, maintaining appropriate documentation, assistancewith the annual Transportation Development Act (TDA) for sufficient funding and ensuring compliancewith reporting requirements are all pertinent to the success of these projects.

Due to the high priority of these projects and the necessity to fill these critical roles without interruption, staff recommends hiring Lynette Syme as a parttime Transportation Technician Senior retired annuitant under Government Code Sections 7522.56 and 21224. The City requires Ms. Syme’s highly specialized skills for a limited duration, August 2023 through June 2024, without the prescribed 180day break in service.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The total estimated cost is $50,000 and would be funded by the Transportation Enterprise Fund (Fund 45160002 and 45260002). There would be no impact to the General Fund.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The City Council may direct staff to seek a different method or hire a consultant to work on these high priority projects. However, this is not recommended due to the learning curve necessary for someone to become familiar with Transportation’s systems and processes. Furthermore, the time it would take one to become effective would result in a significant cost increase as well as a delay implementing initiatives.

STAFF CONTACT
Farbod Pirouzmand, Director of Human Resources
(707) 4287397
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
City Manager's Office, Public Works Department
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Proposed Resolution
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Henry, Alicia Approved 5/26/2023 1:11 PM
Henry, Alicia Approved 5/26/2023 1:16 PM
Beavers, Esther Approved 5/26/2023 10:19 AM
Packet Page 297 of 860

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-218

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD ALLOWING THE CITY OF

FAIRFIELD TO HIRE LYNETTE SYME AS A PART-TIME SENIOR TRANSPORTATION TECHNICIAN

RETIRED ANNUITANT WITHOUT A SIX-MONTH BREAK IN SERVICE

WHEREAS, in compliance with Government Code section 7522.56 of the Public Employees’ Retirement Law, the City Council of the City of Fairfield must provide CalPERS this certification resolution when hiring a retiree before 180 days has passed since their retirement date; and

WHEREAS, Lynette Syme will retire from the City of Fairfield in the position of Transportation Technician, Senior, effective July 15, 2023; and

WHEREAS, Lynette Syme has specialized skills and knowledge required for upcoming high- priority projects; and

WHEREAS, section 7522.56 requires that post-retirement employment commence no earlier than 180 days after the retirement date without this certification resolution; and

WHEREAS, section 7522.56 provides that this exception to the 180-day wait period shall not apply if the retiree accepts any retirement-related incentive; and

WHEREAS, the council and Lynette Syme certify that Lynette Syme has not and will not receive a Golden Handshake or any other retirement-related incentive; and

WHEREAS, the council hereby appoints Lynette Syme as an extra help retired annuitant to perform the duties of a Transportation Technician Senior for the City of Fairfield under Government Code section 21224, effective August 1, 2023, and

WHEREAS, no matters, issues, terms, or conditions related to this employment and appointment have been or will be placed on a consent calendar; and

WHEREAS, the employment shall be limited to 960 hours per fiscal year; and

WHEREAS, the hourly rate paid to Lynette Syme will be $49.95; and

WHEREAS, Lynette Syme has not and will not receive any other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefit, or other forms of compensation in addition to this hourly pay rate.

Packet Page 298 of 860Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2

RES. NO. 2023-218

Page 2 ends

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

Section 1. Lynette Syme can be appointed by the City of Fairfield as an extra help Transportation Technician Senior, PERS retired annuitant without a six-month break in service.

Section 2. Lynette Syme’s appointment as a PERS retired annuitant is done in accordance with all other PERS requirements and restrictions related to the appointment of retired annuitants including, but not limited to the following:

(a) Limited, temporary appointment under Government Code Section 21224(a) due to Ms.

Syme’s specialized skills and experience.
(b) Appointment term is from August 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024, and her appointment will not exceed 960 hours.
(c) Compensation is set at the step 5 rate on the publicly available salary schedule for the Transportation Technician Senior position of $49.95 per hour. (d) Ms. Syme is not eligible for, nor will she receive any additional benefit or incentive such as paid time off or health and welfare benefits during her temporary, limited-term appointment; and
(e) Ms. Syme has verified that she has not received unemployment insurance within 12 months of this appointment.

Section 3. Lynette Syme’s appointment is for extra help on a temporary, limited-term basis to work on specialized projects (microtransit implementation and training).

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

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

NOES: MEMBERS:

ABSENT: MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: MEMBERS:

_________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________

CITY CLERK
Packet Page 299 of 860Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2

Agenda Item No: 21.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:August 15, 2023
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, City Manager
SUBJECT:Public Hearing; and Three Options Concerning the Green Valley 3 Apartment Project:

Option 1:

Resolution 2023219 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving a General Plan Amendment (GPA2021001), Development Review (DR2021013), and Certifying an Environmental Impact Report (ER2021036) for the Green Valley 3 Apartments Project Involving a Multifamily Residential Development with 185 Apartments on Approximately 5.78 acres at 4840 Business Center Drive (APN: 0148540350); and First Reading and Introduction of an Ordinance 202310 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Amending Chapter 25, Article I of the Fairfield City Code, also known as the City of Fairfield Zoning Map, to Rezone one parcel at 4840 Business Center Drive (APN: 0148540350) from Industrial Business Park – North Cordelia Overlay (IBP – NC) District to Residential, Very High Density – North Cordelia Overlay (RVH – NC) District
Option 2:

Resolution 2023220 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Denying a General Plan Amendment (GPA2021001), Zone Change (ZC2021003), and Development Review (DR2021013) for the Green Valley 3 Apartments Project Involving a Multifamily Residential Development with 185 Apartments on Approximately 5.78 acres at 4840 Business Center Drive (APN: 0148540350)
Option 3:

Continue the Public Hearing to a Future Date After the Council has Provided Direction on a Land Use Alternative for Cordelia as Part of the General Plan Update RECOMMENDED ACTION
Hold public hearing and select one of the options for the Green Valley 3 Apartment Project.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
Packet Page 300 of 860

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
Nicolas Ruhl of the Spanos Corporation (Applicant) requests a General Plan Amendment from Business and Industrial Park to Very High Density Residential and a Zone Change from Industrial Business Park – North Cordelia Overlay (IBP – NC) District to Residential, Very High Density – North Cordelia Overlay (RVH – NC) District for the proposed Green Valley 3 Apartments project at 4840 Business Center Drive (APN: 0148540350). Consideration of a Development Review request on referral from the Planning Commission for a multifamily residential development involving 185 apartments. Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should the council wish to approve the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Development Review requests for the project.

DISCUSSION
Background Information:

On August 23, 2021, the Community Development Department received applications for a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Planned Development, Development Review, and Environmental Review from the Applicant for the proposed Green Valley 3 Apartments project. The project originally involved a multifamily development with 268 apartments and a fivestory parking garage at a residential density of 46 units per acre. The density request was beyond the maximum of 32 units per acre permitted under the RVH zoning designation. Therefore, a Planned Development (Project) application was necessary to entertain the proposed density.

On October 13, 2021, the commission held a public hearing to initiate the Project for which it failed in a 05 vote.

On November 16, 2021, the council held a public hearing to initiate the Project for which it passed in a 70 vote. This council action did not constitute approval of the Project. This action effectively allowed the applicant to proceed with a Project design that was unattainable under the City’s conventional residential zoning districts. Subsequent council consideration of the Project is still required with this action.

The applicant then elected to substantially redesign the project and no longer pursue the Project. On February 28, 2022, the applicant submitted revised plans amending the density proposal to 32 units per acre and altering the project to 185 units with a twostory parking garage.

Project Development Description:

The proposed Project involves the development of a single fourstory apartment building with 185 rental units. The 49foottall building consists of three wings situated around a central clubhouse area. The Project also includes an 18foot twostory parking structure, private garages, and additional surface parking throughout the site for a total of 332 spaces. The unit makeup consists of 36 studio/onebath units, 66 onebedroom/onebathroom units, 77 twobedroom/twobathroom units, and six three bedroom/twobathroom units. The proposed apartment development provides various recreational amenities such as a pool/spa area with outdoor showers, an outdoor kitchen, table tennis, and corn hole game areas, an outdoor yoga area, a dog run, lawn areas for passive play, and more.

As proposed and conditioned, the Project is consistent with the City’s RVH development regulations for density, building setbacks, parking, open space, recreational amenities, and landscaping. An indepth analysis of the development requirements can be found in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report dated June 28, 2023.

General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Requests:

To facilitate the proposed multifamily residential development, the applicant has requested a General Plan Amendment from IBP to RVH and a Zone Change from IBP – NC District to RVH – NC District.

The current IBP designation anticipates employmentgenerating uses, such as research and development, professional and administrative offices, light industry, and business support establishments. The proposed RVH designation anticipates multifamily residential developments in highintensity areas with a density range of 22 to 32 units per gross developable acre.

Packet Page 301 of 860

It should be noted that the City’s comprehensive General Plan update initiative is currently underway and a future land use scenario for the Cordelia area is still being contemplated. The Alternatives Report published in October 2021, proposes three land use scenarios for the Green Valley Corporate Park: (1) Research and development/Medical jobsfocused center; (2) Jobs corridor: research and development, business park, flex office; and (3) Industrial.

Despite not having a specific land use alternative identified yet, the council still has the purview to entertain the Project’s General Plan Amendment and Zone Change requests. Should the council wish to approve the Project, action to amend the site’s General Plan and zoning designations would serve as input for the overall land use vision of the Green Valley Corporate Park in the General Plan Update process.

Environmental Review:

Following a review of the project, City staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would need to be prepared for the Project in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the EIR is to provide decisionmakers and the public with information about environmental impacts that are potentially significant and adverse resulting from the implementation of the Project. Barati Consulting, LLC, an environmental consulting firm, was retained to prepare the EIR. The 45day public review period for the draft EIR began on January 9, 2023, and ended on February 23, 2023.

The draft EIR addressed environmental impacts in the following resource areas: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services and recreation, transportation, utilities and service systems, wildfire, and other CEQA considerations. The draft EIR identified 19 separate significant impacts associated with the following environmental topic areas: air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, noise, and transportation.

The mitigation measures identified in the draft EIR reduce each impact to a lessthansignificant impact.

In addition to evaluating the environmental impacts of the Project, CEQA requires that the EIR identify and evaluate a range of alternatives to the project. The alternatives must meet the basic objectives of the project while reducing or avoiding one or more of its significant impacts. Following a review of the Project impacts, three alternatives were developed. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the draft EIR evaluates a “No Project” alternative in which no development occurs on the project site. The second alternative evaluates an office development with approximately 250,000 square feet consistent with the IBPNC District. The third alternative reduces the intensity of the proposed multifamily residential development from 185 to 130 units. Section 6.0: Alternatives of the draft EIR provides further details regarding each alternative.

The City received comments from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), Planning Commissioners, and members of the public following the publication of the draft EIR. It should be noted that the nature of the CDFW comments was that the draft EIR had addressed all its primary concerns.

The final EIR, published on June 15, 2023, includes responses to comments, text changes to the draft EIR, and a Mitigation Monitoring Report Program (MMRP). The MMRP lists each mitigation measure from the EIR, the responsible agency overseeing the completion of the mitigation measure, and a timeframe for completion. Should the council wish to approve the Project, the council would also need to certify the EIR.

A complete chronology of key EIR milestones can be found under the “Environmental Review Section C” of the attached commission staff report. Furthermore, the Final EIR is included as an attachment to this report for review.

Packet Page 302 of 860

Agenda Item No: 21.AGENDA REPORTDATE:August 15, 2023 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, City ManagerSUBJECT:Public Hearing; and Three Options Concerning the Green Valley 3 Apartment Project:Option 1:Resolution 2023219 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving a GeneralPlan Amendment (GPA2021001), Development Review (DR2021013), and Certifyingan Environmental Impact Report (ER2021036) for the Green Valley 3 ApartmentsProject Involving a Multifamily Residential Development with 185 Apartments onApproximately 5.78 acres at 4840 Business Center Drive (APN: 0148540350); andFirst Reading and Introduction of an Ordinance 202310 of the City Council of the Cityof Fairfield Amending Chapter 25, Article I of the Fairfield City Code, also known as theCity of Fairfield Zoning Map, to Rezone one parcel at 4840 Business Center Drive(APN: 0148540350) from Industrial Business Park – North Cordelia Overlay (IBP –NC) District to Residential, Very High Density – North Cordelia Overlay (RVH – NC)DistrictOption 2:Resolution 2023220 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Denying a General PlanAmendment (GPA2021001), Zone Change (ZC2021003), and Development Review(DR2021013) for the Green Valley 3 Apartments Project Involving a MultifamilyResidential Development with 185 Apartments on Approximately 5.78 acres at 4840Business Center Drive (APN: 0148540350)Option 3:Continue the Public Hearing to a Future Date After the Council has Provided Directionon a Land Use Alternative for Cordelia as Part of the General Plan UpdateRECOMMENDED ACTIONHold public hearing and select one of the options for the Green Valley 3 Apartment Project.STATEMENT OF ISSUENicolas Ruhl of the Spanos Corporation (Applicant) requests a General Plan Amendment fromBusiness and Industrial Park to Very High Density Residential and a Zone Change from IndustrialBusiness Park – North Cordelia Overlay (IBP – NC) District to Residential, Very High Density – NorthCordelia Overlay (RVH – NC) District for the proposed Green Valley 3 Apartments project at 4840Business Center Drive (APN: 0148540350). Consideration of a Development Review request onreferral from the Planning Commission for a multifamily residential development involving 185apartments. Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should the council wish to approvethe General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Development Review requests for the project.DISCUSSIONBackground Information: On August 23, 2021, the Community Development Department received applications for a GeneralPlan Amendment, Zone Change, Planned Development, Development Review, and EnvironmentalReview from the Applicant for the proposed Green Valley 3 Apartments project. The project originallyinvolved a multifamily development with 268 apartments and a fivestory parking garage at a residentialdensity of 46 units per acre. The density request was beyond the maximum of 32 units per acrepermitted under the RVH zoning designation. Therefore, a Planned Development (Project) applicationwas necessary to entertain the proposed density.On October 13, 2021, the commission held a public hearing to initiate the Project for which it failed in a05 vote. On November 16, 2021, the council held a public hearing to initiate the Project for which it passed in a70 vote. This council action did not constitute approval of the Project. This action effectively allowed theapplicant to proceed with a Project design that was unattainable under the City’s conventionalresidential zoning districts. Subsequent council consideration of the Project is still required with thisaction. The applicant then elected to substantially redesign the project and no longer pursue the Project. OnFebruary 28, 2022, the applicant submitted revised plans amending the density proposal to 32 units peracre and altering the project to 185 units with a twostory parking garage. Project Development Description: The proposed Project involves the development of a single fourstory apartment building with 185 rentalunits. The 49foottall building consists of three wings situated around a central clubhouse area. TheProject also includes an 18foot twostory parking structure, private garages, and additional surfaceparking throughout the site for a total of 332 spaces. The unit makeup consists of 36 studio/onebathunits, 66 onebedroom/onebathroom units, 77 twobedroom/twobathroom units, and six threebedroom/twobathroom units. The proposed apartment development provides various recreationalamenities such as a pool/spa area with outdoor showers, an outdoor kitchen, table tennis, and cornhole game areas, an outdoor yoga area, a dog run, lawn areas for passive play, and more. As proposed and conditioned, the Project is consistent with the City’s RVH development regulations fordensity, building setbacks, parking, open space, recreational amenities, and landscaping. An indepthanalysis of the development requirements can be found in the attached Planning Commission StaffReport dated June 28, 2023. General Plan Amendment and Zone Change Requests: To facilitate the proposed multifamily residential development, the applicant has requested a GeneralPlan Amendment from IBP to RVH and a Zone Change from IBP – NC District to RVH – NC District.The current IBP designation anticipates employmentgenerating uses, such as research anddevelopment, professional and administrative offices, light industry, and business supportestablishments. The proposed RVH designation anticipates multifamily residential developments inhighintensity areas with a density range of 22 to 32 units per gross developable acre. It should be noted that the City’s comprehensive General Plan update initiative is currently underwayand a future land use scenario for the Cordelia area is still being contemplated. The Alternatives Reportpublished in October 2021, proposes three land use scenarios for the Green Valley Corporate Park: (1)Research and development/Medical jobsfocused center; (2) Jobs corridor: research and development,business park, flex office; and (3) Industrial. Despite not having a specific land use alternative identified yet, the council still has the purview toentertain the Project’s General Plan Amendment and Zone Change requests. Should the council wish toapprove the Project, action to amend the site’s General Plan and zoning designations would serve asinput for the overall land use vision of the Green Valley Corporate Park in the General Plan Updateprocess. Environmental Review:Following a review of the project, City staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) wouldneed to be prepared for the Project in compliance with the requirements of the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the EIR is to provide decisionmakers and the public withinformation about environmental impacts that are potentially significant and adverse resulting from theimplementation of the Project. Barati Consulting, LLC, an environmental consulting firm, was retained toprepare the EIR. The 45day public review period for the draft EIR began on January 9, 2023, andended on February 23, 2023.The draft EIR addressed environmental impacts in the following resource areas: aesthetics, air quality,biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gasemissions, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public services and recreation,transportation, utilities and service systems, wildfire, and other CEQA considerations. The draft EIRidentified 19 separate significant impacts associated with the following environmental topic areas: airquality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, noise, and transportation.The mitigation measures identified in the draft EIR reduce each impact to a lessthansignificantimpact.In addition to evaluating the environmental impacts of the Project, CEQA requires that the EIR identifyand evaluate a range of alternatives to the project. The alternatives must meet the basic objectives ofthe project while reducing or avoiding one or more of its significant impacts. Following a review of theProject impacts, three alternatives were developed. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the draftEIR evaluates a “No Project” alternative in which no development occurs on the project site. The secondalternative evaluates an office development with approximately 250,000 square feet consistent with theIBPNC District. The third alternative reduces the intensity of the proposed multifamily residentialdevelopment from 185 to 130 units. Section 6.0: Alternatives of the draft EIR provides further detailsregarding each alternative.The City received comments from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), PlanningCommissioners, and members of the public following the publication of the draft EIR. It should be notedthat the nature of the CDFW comments was that the draft EIR had addressed all its primary concerns.The final EIR, published on June 15, 2023, includes responses to comments, text changes to the draftEIR, and a Mitigation Monitoring Report Program (MMRP). The MMRP lists each mitigation measurefrom the EIR, the responsible agency overseeing the completion of the mitigation measure, and atimeframe for completion. Should the council wish to approve the Project, the council would also need tocertify the EIR.A complete chronology of key EIR milestones can be found under the “Environmental Review SectionC” of the attached commission staff report. Furthermore, the Final EIR is included as an attachment to this report for review.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
N/A
PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
The following public notifications were provided on August 2, 2023, for this council meeting: the Planning Division webpage posting on the website; hard copies mailed to all persons who own property within 500 feet of the project, the Siena Green Valley neighborhood, and interested members of the public who signup for notification; and published in the Daily Republic newspaper.

Members of the public provided written comments during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) and draft EIR review periods. Comments that were made during the NOP review period provided a basis for the scope of the EIR analysis. Comments that were made during the draft EIR review period have been addressed in the final EIR. Written comments that were received following the closure of the draft EIR review period and through the commission hearing are attached. Staff has not received any further written comments at the time of this writing.

On June 28, 2023, the commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the Development Review request and to make a formal recommendation to the council regarding the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change requests for the project. Following the closure of the public hearing and deliberations, the commission could not pass motions in either opposition or support of the project. Separate motions to approve and deny the project failed in a 33 vote. The commission ultimately passed a motion to refer the Project to the council with no action on the Development Review request or recommendations for the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, or Environmental Review requests. With no formal recommendation of support or denial from the commission, City staff felt it is appropriate for the council to consider a menu of options for the project.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
City staff recommends that the City Council select one of the following options for the project:

Option 1: Approval:Approve the General Plan Amendment request from IBP to RVH and the Development Review request for the multifamily residential development with 185 apartments; conduct the first reading of the Proposed Ordinance to facilitate a Zone Change request from IBPNC District to RVHNC District; and certify the EIR for the project. The second reading of the Proposed Ordinance would occur at a subsequent council meeting. Documentation to support the council’s approval of the Project is included as an attachment.

Option 2: Denial:Deny the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Development Review requests and deem the project exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270(a), which provides that projects disapproved or rejected by a public agency are statutorily exempt from environmental review. Certification of the EIR would not be required should the council wish to deny the Project. Documentation to support the council’s denial of the Project is included as an attachment. Under Zoning Ordinance Section 25.41.9, projects denied by the City cannot be considered within one year unless the council grants an exception.

Option 3: Continuance:Should the council wish to determine a land use scenario for Green Valley Corporate Park with the General Plan update process before acting on the Project, the council may continue this public hearing for consideration and action at a future date.

STAFF CONTACT
Jonathan Atkinson, Senior Planner
(707) 4287387
Packet Page 303 of 860

Description
Proposed Resolution for Approval
Exhibit A: Final Environmental Impact Report with Errata Exhibit B: California Environmental Quality Act Findings Exhibit C: General Plan Amendment Exhibit
Exhibit D: Conditions of Approval
Exhibit D: Other Conditions
Proposed Ordinance with Approval
Exhibit E: Zoning Exhibit
Proposed Resolution for Denial
Attachment 4: Proposed Plans
Attachment 5: Public Comments to Green Valley 3 Apartments Attachment 6: Response Letter to Public Comments
Attachment 7: 20230628 Planning Commission Staff Report REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Feinstein, David Approved 8/2/2023 8:54 AM
Beavers, Esther Approved 8/2/2023 11:16 AM
Beavers, Esther Approved 8/2/2023 11:21 AM
Packet Page 304 of 860

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-219

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA2021-001) AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (DR2021-013) AND CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (ER2021-036) FOR THE GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS PROJECT INVOLVING A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH 185 APARTMENTS ON APPROXIMATELY 5.78 ACRES AT 4840 BUSINESS CENTER DRIVE (APN: 0148-540-350)

WHEREAS, on August 23, 2021, General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Development Review, and Environmental Review applications for a proposed multifamily residential development involving 185 apartments and General Plan Amendment from Business and Industrial Park and a Zone Change from Industrial Business Park – North Cordelia Overlay (IBP-NC) District to Residential, Very High Density – North Cordelia Overlay (RVH-NC) District located at 4840 Business Center Drive (APN: 0148-540-350) (Project) was properly filed with the Community Development Department in accordance with the rules and regulations governing the official filing of such applications; and

WHEREAS, the City has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is necessary to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and

WHEREAS, the Final EIR is necessary to comply with the requirements of CEQA; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on June 28, 2023. The staff presented substantial factual information regarding the proposed Project in staff reports and through presentations before the commission, and the commission considered all public testimony and information presented during the public hearing regarding this application; and

WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 15, 2023. The staff presented substantial factual information regarding the proposed Project in staff reports and through oral presentations before the council; and

WHEREAS, the council has reviewed the proposed revisions to the General Plan Policy Document and Land Use Diagram and finds these revisions beneficial and consistent with the purpose and intent of the General Plan; and

WHEREAS, the council has determined that the following findings exist in support of the Development Review request:

(a) The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and any applicable Areawide or Specific Plan. Upon approval, the proposed amendments would change the General Plan designation of the Project site from Business and Industrial Park (IBP) to Residential Very High Density (RVH) and the zoning designation from IBP District to RVH District. The RVH District implements the Residential Very High-Density designation of the General Plan. The Project is consistent with the General Plan in that it anticipates multifamily residential developments in high-intensity areas with a density range of 22 to 32 units per gross developable acre. The Project is also consistent with the applicable development standards of the Zoning Ordinance, as proposed and conditioned.

Packet Page 305 of 860Attachment 1 Page 1 of 5

RES. NO. 2023-219

Page 2 ends

(b) The exterior design and appearance of the project will not cause the nature of the neighborhood to economically, physically, or visually decline. The Project will be developed to meet specific Zoning Ordinance and other City code requirements and standard and special Development Review conditions of approval to ensure that the architecture, site improvements, and lighting are compatible with developments within proximity of the Project site and the greater surrounding area.
(c) The project is of high-quality design consistent with applicable design policies and standards of the City. The Project is consistent with the applicable standards for development under the Zoning Ordinance and the City’s Design and Development Guidelines for multifamily residential projects, as proposed and conditioned. The building employs a variety of materials and elements, and complementary colors to create a high-quality design. The building utilizes stucco, stone, CMU block with a decorative ground face, engineered wood, metal, glass, canopies, elevation recesses, and parapets of varying heights to break up the expanse of the large wall planes. The building efficiently utilizes space on the site by concentrating parking along the periphery of the site and within a two-story parking structure. The Project complements existing developments in the vicinity in that the building is of a height and mass comparable to existing buildings in Green Valley Corporate Park. The Project establishes compatibility with the single-family residences to the northeast through the planting of new trees and screening shrubs along the property line and the siting of active recreational amenities on the opposite end to preserve privacy. Aesthetic quality is preserved using mechanical screening shield roof-mounted equipment from the public right-of-way. The Project maintains natural amenities through the preservation of several existing trees along the western periphery that contribute to a riparian corridor. Project landscaping consists of a variety of trees, shrubs, and groundcovers to soften and complement hardscape improvements. Detention basins that are landscaped will also be provided at the southern and western periphery of the site.
(d) Any potentially significant negative impacts on environmental quality and natural resources have been properly mitigated. For this reason, the proposed project complies with the CEQA.

The EIR (ER2021-036) (Exhibit A) properly identifies and mitigates potentially significant Project impacts related to air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, noise, and transportation. The Project would not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts; and
WHEREAS, the council has reviewed the EIR (ER2021-036) for the Project and all comments received and, based on the whole record before it, has determined that the following findings exist to support recommending the adoption of the EIR, to wit:

(a) The City has determined that an EIR is necessary to comply with the requirements of CEQA.

City staff in coordination with the Project applicant and a third-party environmental consulting firm determined that the EIR, prepared in compliance with CEQA, properly identified and mitigated all potentially significant environmental impacts related to the Project. (b) The City, acting through the Community Development Department Planning Division, is the “Lead Agency” for the project evaluated in the EIR. City staff finds that the EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The City finds that it has independently reviewed and analyzed the EIR for the project, that the Draft EIR circulated for public review Packet Page 306 of 860Attachment 1 Page 2 of 5

RES. NO. 2023-219

Page 3 ends

reflected its independent judgment, and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.
(c) The City finds that the EIR provides objective information to assist the decision makers and the public at large in their consideration of the environmental consequences of the Project.

The public review period provided all interested jurisdictions, agencies, private organizations, and individuals the opportunity to submit comments regarding the Draft EIR. The Final EIR was prepared after the review period and responds to comments made during the public review periods.
(d) The EIR evaluated potential Project and cumulative environmental impacts. The EIR evaluated the following potential project and cumulative environmental impacts: air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, noise, and transportation.

Additionally, the EIR considered, in separate sections, Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes and Growth Inducing Impacts. The significant environmental impacts of the project, as well as other alternatives, were identified in the EIR. (e) The staff evaluated comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA, staff prepared written responses describing the disposition of significant environmental issues raised. The Final EIR provides adequate, good faith, and reasoned responses to the comments. City staff reviewed the comments received and responses thereto and have determined that neither the comments received nor the responses to such comments add significant new information regarding environmental impacts to the Draft EIR.
(f) The Final EIR documents changes to the Draft EIR. Having reviewed the information contained in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, and the administrative record, City staff finds that there is no new significant impact, substantial increase in the severity of a previously disclosed impact, significant new information in the record of proceedings or other criteria under CEQA that would require additional recirculation of the Draft EIR, or that would require preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR. Specifically, the City finds that:
i. The Responses to Comments contained in the Final EIR fully considered and responded to comments claiming that the Project would have significant impacts or more severe impacts not disclosed in the Draft EIR and included substantial evidence that the Project would not result in changed circumstances, significant new information, considerably different mitigation measures, or new or more severe significant impacts than were discussed in the Draft EIR.

ii. The City has thoroughly reviewed the public comments received and has determined that there is no substantial evidence that would require recirculation of the EIR under the provisions of CEQA.

iii. None of the information submitted after publication of the Final EIR, including testimony at the public hearings on the Project constitutes significant new information or otherwise requires preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR. The City does not find this information and testimony credible evidence of a significant impact, a Packet Page 307 of 860Attachment 1 Page 3 of 5

RES. NO. 2023-219

Page 4 ends

substantial increase in the severity of an impact disclosed in the Final EIR, or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative not included in the Final EIR.

iv. The mitigation measures identified for the Project were included in the Draft EIR and Final EIR. As revised, the final mitigation measures for the Project are described in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). Each of the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP is incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the impacts of the Project have been mitigated to the extent feasible by the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP.

(g) CEQA requires the Lead Agency approving a project to adopt an MMRP or the changes to the Project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The MMRP includes all the mitigation measures and Project design features adopted by the City in connection with the approval of the Project and has been designed to ensure compliance with such measures during the implementation of the Project. In accordance with CEQA, the MMRP provides the means to ensure that the mitigation measures are fully enforceable. In accordance with the requirements of Public Resources Code § 21081.6. The commission, in its independent judgment, has determined that mitigation identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report will reduce all impacts of the proposed Project to a less than significant level. The EIR identified significant impacts on the following environmental resources: air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, noise, and transportation. In total, there were 19 individual significant impacts and 22 mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to less- than-significant levels. There are no significant and unavoidable impacts. The MMRP identifies each mitigation measure and outlines timeframes for each mitigation action to be taken.

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

Section 1. Final Environmental Impact Report (ER2021-036), including the response to comments, MMRP, and errata contained in the attached Exhibit A; and

Section 2. CEQA Findings (ER2021-036) in the attached Exhibit B; and

Section 3. General Plan Amendment (GPA2021-001) contained in the attached Exhibit C; and

Section 4. Development Review (DR2021-013) subject to the conditions contained in the attached Exhibit D.

Packet Page 308 of 860Attachment 1 Page 4 of 5

RES. NO. 2023-219

Page 5 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of August, 2023, by the following vote:

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

NOES: MEMBERS:

ABSENT: MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: MEMBERS:

_________
MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________

CITY CLERK

Packet Page 309 of 860Attachment 1 Page 5 of 5

June 2023

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS PROJECT

CITY OF FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2022030480

EXHIBIT A
Packet Page 310 of 860Attachment 2 Page 1 of 150

This page intentionally left blank

Packet Page 311 of 860Attachment 2 Page 2 of 150

June 2023

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS PROJECT

CITY OF FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2022030480

Submitted to:

City of Fairfield
Community Development Department
1000 Webster Street
Fairfield, California 94533

Prepared by:

Barati Consulting, LLC
35688 Barnard Drive
Fremont, California 94536

LSA
1504 Eureka Road, Suite 310
Roseville, California 95661
(916) 772-7450

Project No. BTI2101

Packet Page 312 of 860Attachment 2 Page 3 of 150

This page intentionally left blank
Packet Page 313 of 860Attachment 2 Page 4 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

1858064v1 P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

1.1 Purpose of the Final Environmental Impact Report .......................................................... 1-1

1.2 Document Organization .................................................................................................... 1-2

2.0 SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Project Location ................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.3 Project Description ............................................................................................................ 2-1

2.4 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................. 2-2

2.5 Topics of Known Concern .................................................................................................. 2-3

2.6 Issues to be Resolved/Areas of Controversy ..................................................................... 2-3

2.7 Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 2-4

2.8 Impact Summary ............................................................................................................... 2-6

3.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS .................... 3-1

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Comments on the Draft EIR .............................................................................................. 3-1

3.2.1 Index to Comments ............................................................................................................ 3-1

3.2.2 Draft EIR Comments and Responses .................................................................................. 3-2

4.0 DRAFT EIR TEXT REVISIONS .............................................................................. 4-1

5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .................................. 5-1

6.0 REPORT PREPARERS ......................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Lead Agency ...................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 EIR Consultants.................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.3 Other Technical Consultants ............................................................................................. 6-2

FIGURE
Figure 4-1: Location of Cumulative Projects ....................................................................................... 4-3

TABLES
Table 2.A: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ..................................................... 2-7 Table 2.B: Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives ................................................................. 2-19 Table 3.A: Index to Comments on the Draft EIR .................................................................................. 3-1 Table 3.B: Comparison of Trip Generation .......................................................................................... 3-6 Table 4.A: Cumulative Projects in the Vicinity of the Project Site ....................................................... 4-2 Table 5.A: Green Valley 3 Apartments Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ........ 5-2

Packet Page 314 of 860Attachment 2 Page 5 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) ii This page intentionally left blank
Packet Page 315 of 860Attachment 2 Page 6 of 150

1-1

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

1858064v1 P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23)

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Fairfield (City) is required to consult with and solicit comments from public agencies that have jurisdiction by law or discretionary approval power with respect to the proposed project prior to preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and provide the public agencies and the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR following its completion.

On January 9, 2023, the City, acting as the lead agency under CEQA, published the Green Valley 3 Apartments Project (proposed project) Draft EIR, which assessed and disclosed the potentially significant environmental impacts that could result from the implementation of the proposed project. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review for a 45-day comment period, which ended on February 23, 2023. The City held a public hearing on the Draft EIR on February 8, 2023 to provide the public an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of the information presented in the Draft EIR. Copies of all written and oral comments received on the Draft EIR during the comment period are contained in this document.

The Final EIR is an informational document prepared by the Lead Agency that must be considered by decision makers before considering approval of the proposed project. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 specifies that the Final EIR shall consist of the following:

1. The Draft EIR or a revision to the draft.

2. Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary form.

3. A list of the persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR.

4. The response of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.

5. Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

The Draft EIR, which is incorporated by reference, and this document (which includes revisions to the Draft EIR, responses to comments, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program [MMRP]), constitute the Final EIR. Copies of the Final EIR are available for review during normal business hours at the following locations:

City of Fairfield
Community Development Department
1000 Webster Street, Second Floor
Fairfield, California 94533
Fairfield Civic Center Library
1150 Kentucky Street
Fairfield, California 94533
Fairfield Cordelia Library
5050 Business Center Drive
Fairfield, California 94534
Packet Page 316 of 860Attachment 2 Page 7 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 1-2 The Final EIR can also be viewed online at: https://www.fairfield.ca.gov/government/city- departments/community-development/planning-division/development-activity/green-valley-3- apartments.

This document has been prepared pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines. This Response to Comments document, together with the Draft EIR, will constitute the Final EIR. The City of Fairfield City Council is responsible for reviewing and certifying the adequacy of this EIR and making a decision with respect to the proposed project.

1.2 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This document consists of the following chapters:
• Chapter 1.0: Introduction. This chapter discusses the purpose and organization of this document.
• Chapter 2.0: Summary. This chapter provides a summary description of the Green Valley 3 Apartments Project, including the project purpose, description, objectives, and alternatives, as well as the environmental impacts that could result from the implementation of the Green Valley 3 Apartments Project, and mitigation measures for impacts that were determined to be significant.
• Chapter 3.0: Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments. This chapter contains a list of agencies, organizations, and persons who submitted written comments or offered oral comments on the Draft EIR. This chapter also contains reproductions of all comment letters received on the Draft EIR, as well as oral comments received on the Draft EIR at the public hearing. A written response for each CEQA-related comment received during the review period is provided. Each response is keyed to its respective comment. • Chapter 4.0: Draft EIR Text Revisions. Corrections to the Draft EIR necessary in light of comments received and responses provided, or necessary to clarify any minor errors or omissions, are contained in this chapter.
• Chapter 5.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This chapter presents the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that will be adopted in conjunction with the approval of the proposed Green Valley 3 Apartments Project, should the City of Fairfield approve the project.
• Chapter 6.0: Report Preparers. This chapter lists persons involved in report preparation.

Packet Page 317 of 860Attachment 2 Page 8 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2-1

2.0 SUMMARY

2.1 PURPOSE
Before the City of Fairfield (City) can approve the proposed Green Valley 3 Apartments Project, the City, as the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), must evaluate and disclose the environmental impacts of approving and implementing the proposed project. As required by CEQA, this Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR): (1) presents the potentially significant environmental effects of the proposed Green Valley 3 Apartments Project, including cumulative impacts of the proposed project in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable development; (2) identifies feasible means of avoiding or substantially lessening significant adverse impacts; and (3) evaluates a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed Green Valley 3 Apartments Project, including the No Project Alternative.

State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15123) require that a summary be included in an EIR that identifies all major conclusions, identifies each significant effect, recommended mitigation measure(s), and alternatives that would minimize or avoid potential significant impacts. The summary is also required to identify areas of controversy known to the lead agency, including issues raised by agencies and the public and issues to be resolved. These issues include the choice among alternatives and whether or how to mitigate significant effects. This Summary is intended to address these CEQA requirements and provide the decision makers, responsible agencies, and the public with a clear, simple, and concise description of the proposed project and its potential significant environmental impacts. The City of Fairfield City Council has the principal responsibility for approving the proposed project.

2.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site consists of an undeveloped approximately 5.78-acre site in Fairfield at the northeast corner of the Business Center Drive and Green Valley Road intersection, approximately 0.25 mile north of Interstate 80 (I-80). The physical address of the site is 4840 Business Center Drive, and the site is composed of one parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 0148-540-350). Access to the project site is via Green Valley Road and Business Center Drive. A single-family residential neighborhood is located north of the project site; a business office complex (Fairfield Business Center consisting of two buildings and a parking lot) is located to the east of the project site; a 104-room hotel project under construction is located south of the project site, with Business Center Drive located just south of this parcel; and a riparian corridor associated with Green Valley Creek with Green Valley Road just beyond this area is located to the west of the project site.

2.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes the development of a single four-story, approximately 204,144-square-foot apartment building with 185 rental units situated around a central clubhouse area. The four-story building would consist of three wings and would be up to 49 feet tall. The proposed apartment building would include 36 studio/one bath units, 66 one bedroom/one bath units, 77 two-bedroom/two bath units, and 6 three-bedroom/two bath units. The building would contain a central lobby area with two elevators.

Packet Page 318 of 860Attachment 2 Page 9 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2-2 The proposed project would include common and private open spaces. Recreational amenities associated with the proposed project would include a pool/spa area with outdoor showers, picnic and barbeque areas, an outdoor kitchen, outdoor fireplace and fire table lounging areas, table tennis and corn hole game areas, an outdoor yoga area, a hammock lounge area, and lawn areas for passive play. A dog run would be located in the western portion of the project site adjacent to the open space area along the drainage ditch.

The project site would be accessed from an existing drive aisle that connects the Fairfield Business Center to Business Center Drive. From this drive aisle, the project would be connected via two access points “driveways.” The internal circulation of the project site would consist of a drive aisle that would loop around the perimeter of the apartment building and the two-story parking structure. The proposed project would include the development of an approximately 54,845-square-foot two-story parking structure (up to 18 feet tall) with additional surface parking areas surrounding the apartment building and clubhouse that would accommodate residents and visitors. Parking would also be provided in private garages and carports as well as surface parking spaces along the perimeter of the project site.

The City of Fairfield General Plan designates the project site as Business and Industrial Park (IBP), and per the Zoning Ordinance, the project site is zoned Industrial Business Park-North Cordelia Overlay (IBP-NC). As the proposed project includes residential uses which are not permitted under the current General Plan designation and zoning of this site, the project applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and rezone to redesignate the site as Residential Very High Density (RVH) and rezone as RVH-NC. Additional approvals required from the City include Development Review.

2.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The project applicant (Spanos Corporation) intends to develop a well-designed, economically feasible residential community that consists of a variety of apartment unit types and incorporates sustainable development features. The key objectives for the proposed project are to:
• Create a development of a scale and character that complements and is supportive of the surrounding uses;
• Develop a well-designed, economically feasible residential community that consists of a variety of unit types and sizes;
• Develop a residential project that contains a high density of residences to help meet City, regional, and State housing goals; and
• Improve the availability of rental housing in the Green Valley/Cordelia area of western Fairfield.

Packet Page 319 of 860Attachment 2 Page 10 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2-3

2.5 TOPICS OF KNOWN CONCERN
To determine which environmental topics should be addressed in the Draft EIR, the City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) between March 17 and April 18, 2022 in order to receive input from interested public agencies and the public. Based on the scoping comments and the preliminary analysis in the NOP, the Draft EIR addressed the following environmental topics:
• Aesthetics • Hydrology and Water Quality
• Air Quality • Land Use and Planning
• Biological Resources • Noise
• Cultural and Tribal Resources • Public Services and Recreation • Energy • Transportation
• Geology and Soils • Utilities and Service Systems
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Wildfire
The Draft EIR also included an analysis of alternatives to the proposed project, including the No Project Alternative.

2.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED/AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
Specific issues that were raised in scoping comments included the following:
• Aesthetics (building height, mass, etc.) of the proposed project. • Potential impacts to nesting birds and special-status plant and wildlife species, including loss or modification of habitat.
• Loss of on-site wetlands and potential impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities.
• Tribal consultation requirements and the potential for the project to affect tribal cultural resources.
• The project site’s location in close proximity to an active fault. • Potential for release of hazardous wastes/substances on the project site or encountering contaminated soils during construction.
• Emergency access to the project site.
• Land use compatibility and the proposed general plan amendment and rezone. • Capacity of local schools.
• Law enforcement service capacity and potential effects of the project. • Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) analysis and mitigation. • Traffic generated by the proposed project and potential effects on the local circulation system.

Packet Page 320 of 860Attachment 2 Page 11 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2-4 • Primary and secondary effects of the project on pedestrians, bicycles, travelers with disabilities and transit.
• Ability of sewer and water infrastructure to provide adequate service with the addition of the proposed project.
• Emergency evacuation of the project site in the event of a wildfire. • Suggested off-site alternative locations zoned for residential use.

The analyses included in the Draft EIR are based on current regulatory requirements, including the current State CEQA Guidelines. Comments related to building height, mass, and aesthetics were considered and addressed in Section 4.1: Aesthetics. Comments related to nesting birds, special- status plant and wildlife species, loss of habitat, and riparian and wetland impacts were considered and addressed in Section 4.3: Biological Resources. Comments pertaining to tribal cultural resources were considered and addressed in Section 4.4: Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources. The project site’s proximity to an active fault was considered and addressed in Section 4.6: Geology and Soils.

The potential for release of hazardous wastes/substances and emergency access to the project site were considered and addressed in Chapter 5.0: Other CEQA Considerations under the Hazards and Hazardous Materials resource topic. Comments related to land use compatibility and general plan amendment and zoning change were considered and addressed in Section 4.9: Land Use and Planning. Comments related to school capacity and law enforcement service were considered and addressed in Section 4.11: Public Services and Recreation. Comments related to VMT, local circulation effects, and primary and secondary on pedestrians, bicycles, transit and travelers with disabilities were considered and addressed in Section 4.12: Transportation. Comments pertaining to adequate sewer and water infrastructure to serve the proposed project were considered and addressed in Section 4.13: Utilities and Service Systems. Emergency evacuation of the project site and surrounding area during a wildfire event was considered and addressed in Section 4.14:

Wildfire. Finally, comments related to alternatives to the project (off-site locations zoned for residential use) were considered and addressed in Chapter 6.0: Alternatives.

2.7 ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6), a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project were considered and evaluated in the Draft EIR. Two alternatives that were considered to be potentially feasible were evaluated in detail along with the mandated No Project alternative. The alternatives evaluated in detail in Chapter 6.0 of the Draft EIR are summarized below.
• Alternative 1 No Project/No Development Alternative: Section 15126.6(e)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines states that “the purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project.” Under the No Project/No Development alternative, no grading or new construction would occur on the project site and the site would remain vacant.

Packet Page 321 of 860Attachment 2 Page 12 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2-5 • Alternative 2 No Project/Development Consistent with Existing Zoning: The State CEQA Guidelines state that “the ‘no project’ analysis shall discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project is not approved, based on current plans and consistency with available infrastructure and community services.” Should the proposed project not be approved by the City, it would be reasonable to expect that the project site would be developed by another entity consistent with the site’s existing General Plan land use and zoning designations and available infrastructure.

The City of Fairfield General Plan designates the project site as Business and Industrial Park (IBP)1 while the City’s Zoning Ordinance designates the project site as Industrial Business Park – North Cordelia Overlay (IBP-NC). The IBP designation is intended for administrative and professional offices, research and development parks, limited distribution, light manufacturing, and assembly operations. A floor to area ratio (FAR) of 1.0 is permitted under this zoning designation. While the existing zoning allows for light industrial and office uses, this alternative assumes that office uses would be developed on the project site similar to the adjacent office park use on Business Center Drive. Based on a FAR of 1.0 for this zoning designation, a maximum of about 250,000 square feet 2 of office space could be constructed on the project site. Allowing for the required setbacks and parking needed to serve the office space, one large four-story building, or two smaller buildings between three and four stories in height would be developed on the site under this alternative.
• Alternative 3 Reduced Project: The Reduced Project alternative would involve reducing the size of the proposed project by eliminating the fourth level of the proposed apartment building. This would reduce the proposed apartment building height by approximately 12 feet, and the overall building area by approximately 56,000 square feet (i.e., an approximately 27 percent reduction compared to the proposed project). Under this alternative, a three-story, approximately 147,200-square foot apartment building would be constructed with a total of 130 residential units.

The Draft EIR compared each alternative to the proposed project. Analysis of the alternatives focused on those topics for which significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project.

Based on the alternatives analyzed in Chapter 6.0 of the Draft EIR, the No Project/No Development alternative was determined to have the fewest impacts and identified as the environmentally superior alternative. Under CEQA, if the No Project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR must identify an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). Of the other two alternatives that were analyzed, the No Project/Development Consistent with Existing Zoning alternative would have significant impacts in most resource topics that would be comparable to the proposed project. The

1 City of Fairfield Community Development Department. 2015 General Plan Land Use Map. Website:
https://www.fairfield.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/3170/637732653282470000 (accessed March 10, 2022).
2 The project site is 5.78 acres or approximately 251,777 square feet in size.

Packet Page 322 of 860Attachment 2 Page 13 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2-6 alternative would have potentially greater transportation, construction noise, and air quality impacts than the proposed project due to its larger size. The Reduced Project alternative would also have significant impacts in all resource topics that would be comparable to those of the proposed project. However, due to the reduced size of the apartment building and the reduced number of housing units, this alternative would result in somewhat reduced construction-phase air quality and noise impacts and reduced operational-phase transportation and air quality impacts. Therefore, the Reduced Project alternative was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative.

2.8 IMPACT SUMMARY
A detailed discussion regarding potential environmental impacts of the proposed project is provided in Chapter 4.0: Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures of the Draft EIR. A summary of the environmental impacts of the proposed Green Valley 3 Apartments Project and the mitigation measures required to avoid or reduce significant project impacts is provided in Table 2.A:

Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures of this document. Table 2.B: Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives, presents the environmental impacts of each alternative to allow the decision makers, agencies, and the public to compare and contrast these alternatives and weigh their relative merits and demerits.

Packet Page 323 of 860Attachment 2 Page 14 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2-7 Table 2.A: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impacts Level of Significance prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation
AESTHETICS (EIR Section 4.1)
Impact AES-1: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. NI No mitigation measures are required. N/A Impact AES-2: The proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway.

NI No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Impact AES-3: The proposed project, which is located in an urbanized area, would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Impact AES-4: The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cumulative Impact C-AES-1: The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the project area, would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to aesthetics.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
AIR QUALITY (EIR Section 4.2)
Impact AQ-1: The project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

PS Implement Mitigation Measures TRA-1 and BIO-8. LTS
Impact AQ-2: Construction of the proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.

PS MM AQ-1 Consistent with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Basic Construction Mitigation Measures, the following controls are required to be included as specifications for the proposed project and implemented at the construction site:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
• Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).

Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of Fairfield regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

LTS
Impact AQ-3: Operation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutants for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Packet Page 324 of 860Attachment 2 Page 15 of 150

GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS PROJECT CITY OF FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTRESPONSE TO COMMENTSJUNE 2023P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR‐RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2‐8 Table 2.A: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impacts Level of Significance prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation Impact AQ‐4: Project operation would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; however, emissions from project construction activities would exceed applicable thresholds. PS MM AQ‐2 During construction of the proposed project, the project contractor shall ensure all off‐road diesel‐powered construction equipment of 50 horsepower or more used for project construction at a minimum meets the California Air Resources Board Tier 2 emissions standards and is equipped with Level 3 diesel particulate filters or the equivalent. LTS Impact AQ‐5: The proposed project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Cumulative Impact C‐AQ‐1: The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the project area, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on air quality. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (EIR Section 4.3) Impact BIO‐1: The proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on Swainson’s hawks. PS MM BIO‐1 If project construction activities are scheduled during the nesting season for Swainson’s hawks (March 1 to September 15), prior to commencement of construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys according to the recommended timing and methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley, as defined by the Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. Survey methods should be closely followed by starting early in the nesting season (late March to early April) to maximize the likelihood of detecting an active nest. Surveys shall be conducted: (1) within a minimum 0.25‐mile radius of the project site or a larger area if needed to identify potentially impacted active nests, and (2) for at least the two survey periods immediately prior to initiating project‐related construction activities. Consistent with the Technical Advisory Committee Guidance, the recommended survey periods are March 20 to April 5, April 5 to April 20, and June 10 to July 30 (post‐fledging). Surveys shall occur annually for the duration of the project. The qualified biologist shall have a minimum of 2 years of experience implementing the survey methodology resulting in detections. If active Swainson’s hawk nests are detected, the project shall implement a 0.25‐mile construction avoidance buffer around the nest until the nest is no longer active as determined by a qualified biologist. If take of Swainson’s hawk cannot be avoided, the project applicant shall consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP). MM BIO‐2 To mitigate for the loss of Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl foraging habitat, the project applicant shall: (1) acquire suitable habitat land and permanently preserve foraging habitat through recording a conservation easement and implementing and funding a long‐term management plan in perpetuity, or (2) acquire Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl foraging habitat mitigation credits from a mitigation bank approved by the CDFW prior to building permit issuance. Either mitigation option shall be consistent with CDFW’s 1994 Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawk in the Central Valley of California, which specifies that projects within 5 miles of an active nest tree but greater than 1 mile from the nest tree shall provide 0.75 acre of foraging habitat for each acre of urban development authorized (i.e., 0.75:1 ratio). LTS Impact BIO‐2: The proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on burrowing owls. PS MM BIO‐3 Prior to project activities, a habitat assessment shall be performed following ‘Habitat Assessment and Reporting Details’ of the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. The habitat assessment shall extend at least 492 feet from the project site boundary or more where direct or indirect effects could potentially extend off site (up to 1,640 feet) and include burrows and burrow surrogates. If the habitat assessment identifies potentially suitable burrowing owl habitat, then a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys following the CDFW 2012 Staff Report survey methodology. Surveys shall encompass the project site and a sufficient buffer zone to detect owls nearby that may be impacted commensurate with the type of disturbance anticipated, as outlined in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report, and include burrow surrogates such as culverts, piles of concrete or rubble, and other non‐natural LTS Packet Page 325 of 860Attachment 2 Page 16 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2-9 Table 2.A: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impacts Level of Significance prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation
features, in addition to burrows and mounds. Time lapses between surveys or project activities shall trigger subsequent surveys, as determined by a qualified biologist, including but not limited to a final survey within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance. The qualified biologist shall have a minimum of two years of experience implementing the CDFW 2012 Staff Report survey methodology resulting in detections. Detected nesting burrowing owls shall be avoided pursuant to the buffer zone prescribed in the CDFW 2012 Staff Report and any passive relocation plan for non-nesting owls shall be subject to CDFW review.

Impact BIO-3: The proposed project could have a substantial effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on raptors, nesting birds, or other birds protected under the California Fish and Game Code and MBTA.

PS Implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-3.

MM BIO-4 To the extent feasible, initial grading and vegetation removal activities shall occur during the non-nesting season (September 1 to January 31). For any construction activities conducted during the nesting season, a qualified biologist (i.e., experienced in searching for passerine and raptor nests) shall conduct a preconstruction nest survey of all trees or other suitable nesting habitat in and within 250 feet of the limits of construction activities. The survey shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to the start of work. If the survey indicates the presence of nesting birds, the biologist shall determine an appropriately sized buffer around the nest in which no work shall occur until the young have successfully fledged. The size of the nest buffer shall be determined by the biologist and shall be based on the nesting species and its sensitivity to disturbance. In general, buffer sizes of up to 250 feet for raptors and 50 feet for other birds should suffice to prevent substantial disturbance to nesting birds, but these buffers may be increased or decreased, as appropriate, depending on the bird species and the level of disturbance anticipated near the nest.

LTS
Impact BIO-4: The proposed project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on monarch butterfly.

PS MM BIO-5 If project site ground clearing or vegetation removal activities for the proposed project are planned to occur between March 16 and October 31 (monarch breeding season), a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days prior to ground clearing or vegetation removal activities to determine if milkweed is present on the site and is being used for monarch breeding. The biologist will search for evidence of monarch eggs, caterpillars, chrysalises, and adults. If active monarch breeding is identified, the milkweed stand shall be avoided until the project applicant develops and implements a salvage and relocation plan that has been reviewed and approved by the City and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).

MM BIO-6 If monarch butterflies are found actively feeding on the project site nectar plants during the preconstruction survey in Mitigation Measure BIO-5 or during site grading or vegetation clearing conducted between March 16 through October 31, work shall be halted in the areas of feeding activity and an appropriate buffer established, as determined by a qualified biologist, until the monarchs leave the site on their own.

LTS
Impact BIO-5: The project could result in a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat from inadvertent disturbance during project construction.

PS MM BIO-7 The riparian habitat shall be fully avoided. Prior to initial ground disturbance, Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) fencing shall be placed along the limits of riparian vegetation to exclude construction activities from the avoided area. ESA fencing shall be maintained until construction is complete. No vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities shall be permitted beyond the fencing. Vehicles and equipment shall not be operated or parked beyond the fencing. Materials shall not be stored or staged beyond or within 25 feet of the fencing.

LTS
Impact BIO-6: The project would have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands through direct removal and filling.

PS MM BIO-8 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a formal wetland delineation shall be completed for the project site by the project applicant and submitted to the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The project applicant shall obtain the necessary permits or approvals from the USACE and RWQCB for any fill of jurisdictional areas. All terms of the permits shall be implemented as a condition of the project, including compensatory mitigation as required by the USACE and RWQCB under their LTS
Packet Page 326 of 860Attachment 2 Page 17 of 150

GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS PROJECT CITY OF FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTRESPONSE TO COMMENTSJUNE 2023 P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR‐RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2‐10 Table 2.A: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impacts Level of Significance prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation “no net loss” policies. At a minimum, compensatory mitigation shall occur at a 1:1 mitigation ratio, taking into account function and value, distance, and seasonal wetland type. Impact BIO‐7: The proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Impact BIO‐8: The proposed project could conflict with local policies or ordinances adopted for the protection of biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. PS MM BIO‐9 The following tree protection measures shall be implemented during construction in the vicinity of the willow tree:  All construction activity (grading, filling, paving, landscaping etc.) shall respect the root protection zone (RPZ) around the protected tree. The RPZ shall be a distance of 1.0 times the dripline radius measured from the trunk of the tree.  Temporary protective fencing shall be installed around the dripline of the tree prior to commencement of any construction activity conducted within 25 feet of the tree canopy. The fence shall be clearly marked to prevent inadvertent encroachment by heavy machinery.  Drainage shall not be allowed to pond around the base of the tree.  An International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)‐Certified Arborist or tree specialist shall be retained to perform any necessary pruning of the tree during construction activity.  Roots exposed as a result of construction activities shall be covered with wet burlap to avoid desiccation and shall be buried as soon as practicable.  Construction materials or heavy equipment shall not be stored within the RPZ.  Only an ISA‐Certified Arborist or tree specialist should make specific recommendations as to where the tree can safely tolerate some level of fill within the drip line.  Trenches which are required within the RPZ of the protected tree shall be bored (tunneled) under the root(s) using an auger or drill, rather than trenched, to minimize root disturbance.  Construction materials shall be properly stored away from the tree to avoid spillage or damage to the tree. LTS Impact BIO‐9: The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Cumulative Impact C‐BIO‐1: The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the region, would not result in significant cumulative impacts to biological resources. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES (EIR Section 4.4) Impact CUL‐1: The proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section15064.5. NI No mitigation measures are required. N/A Impact CUL‐2: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. PS MM CUL‐1 Prior to issuance of a grading permit for the project, a qualified archaeologist (one who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s standards) shall be retained by the project applicant to provide professional archaeological services. The qualified archaeologist (or an archaeologist supervised by the qualified archaeologist) shall be present at the pre‐grade conference to establish procedures for archaeological resource monitoring. Those procedures shall include provisions for temporarily halting or redirecting work to permit sampling, identification, and LTS Packet Page 327 of 860Attachment 2 Page 18 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2-11 Table 2.A: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impacts Level of Significance prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation
evaluation of resources deemed by the archaeologist to potentially be historical resources or unique archaeological resources under the California Environmental Quality Act. The qualified archaeologist (or an archaeologist supervised by the qualified archaeologist) also shall conduct on-site archaeological monitoring during all ground-disturbing work within native sediments associated with the project. Ground-disturbing work requiring archaeological monitoring shall include clearing and grubbing (vegetation removal), initial rough grading, and any trenching that occurs below the depth of initial rough grading. After material has been initially disturbed on the project site, no additional monitoring for that material shall be required (i.e., if utility trenching occurs within rough graded sediments that were previously monitored, this utility trenching shall not be subject to archaeological monitoring). The qualified archaeologist shall be available on an on-call basis for the duration of the project construction. Should archaeological resources be discovered during the ground-disturbing work, ground-disturbing construction activities shall be halted in the immediate vicinity of the find and redirected unaffected areas on site to allow for the proper evaluation for significance and treatment of the resources. Additional cultural resources work, if determined necessary, may include, but is not limited to, collection and documentation of artifacts, documentation of the cultural resources on State of California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Series 523 forms, or subsurface testing. Upon completion of any cultural resources work for the project, the archaeologist shall prepare a report to document the methods and results of the work. This report shall be submitted to any descendant community involved in the investigation(s) and the Northwest Information Center (NWIC).

Impact CUL-3: The proposed project could disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

PS MM CUL-2 In the event that human remains are encountered on the project site, work within 50 feet of the discovery shall be redirected to unaffected areas on site and the County Coroner notified immediately consistent with the requirements of California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15064.5(e). State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours, which shall determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). With the permission of the project applicant, the MLD may inspect the site of the discovery. The MLD shall complete the inspection within 48 hours of being granted access to the project site. The MLD may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

LTS
Impact TCR-1: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k).

NI No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Impact TCR-2: The project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

PS MM TCR-1 Prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities for the project (as described in Mitigation Measure CUL-1), the project applicant shall contact Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation to provide a Native American tribal monitor during ground-disturbing activities. The project applicant shall provide 72-hours advance written notice of commencement of ground- disturbing activities to Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation so that the Nation can have a Native American tribal monitor present at the project site. The tribal monitor shall be provided an estimated construction schedule and invited to attend the pre-construction conference.

In the event that tribal cultural resources are encountered during ground-disturbing LTS
Packet Page 328 of 860Attachment 2 Page 19 of 150

GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS PROJECT CITY OF FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTRESPONSE TO COMMENTSJUNE 2023 P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR‐RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2‐12 Table 2.A: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impacts Level of Significance prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation activities on the project site, appropriate treatment of tribal cultural resources that are also archaeological resources shall be determined in consultation with a qualified archaeologist and with Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, and as reviewed and approved by the City of Fairfield in accordance with Mitigation Measure CUL‐1. This could include, but would not be limited to, recordation of the resource on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) Series 523 forms. Appropriate treatment of tribal cultural resources that are not also archaeological resources shall be determined in consultation with a qualified cultural resources specialist and with Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, and as reviewed and approved by the City of Fairfield. This could include, but would not be limited to, recordation of the resource on DPR Series 523 forms. In the event that human remains are encountered on the project site, Mitigation Measure CUL‐2 shall be implemented. If any human remains are identified as Native American and Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation is determined to be the Most Likely Descendant by the Native American Heritage Commission, treatment protocols consistent with Treatment Protocol for Handling Human Remains and Cultural Items Affiliated with Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation (Appendix E) shall be finalized in consultation with a qualified archaeologist and with Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, and as reviewed and approved by the City of Fairfield. These treatment protocols may include avoidance of the human remains, reburial on the project site, or reburial on tribal or other lands that will not be disturbed in the future. Cumulative Impact C‐CUL‐1: Cumulative development, including the proposed project, would not cause a substantial change in the significance of a historical resource or unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 or impact human remains or tribal cultural resources. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A ENERGY (EIR Section 4.5) Impact ENR‐1: The proposed project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Impact ENR‐2: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Cumulative Impact C‐ENR‐1: The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the project area, would not result in cumulative impacts related to energy. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A GEOLOGY AND SOILS (EIR Section 4.6) Impact GEO‐1: The proposed project would not, directly or indirectly, cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault; strong seismic ground shaking; seismic‐related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Impact GEO‐2: The proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Impact GEO‐3: The project could be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. PS MM GEO‐1 Prior to the issuance of any site‐specific grading or building permits, the City’s Building Division shall confirm that project plans have incorporated geotechnical recommendations included in the February 16, 2022 (or most current version) Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Wallace Kuhl & Associates and the project’s geotechnical engineer has reviewed and approved project plans. Prior to the issuance of building occupancy permits, the City’s Building Division shall ensure that implementation of all the geotechnical recommendations, including design criteria, specifications, and construction observations/inspection/testing, has been performed and documented in a construction completion report prepared by the project’s geotechnical engineer. LTS Packet Page 329 of 860Attachment 2 Page 20 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2-13 Table 2.A: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impacts Level of Significance prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation
Impact GEO-4: The proposed project would be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life and property.

PS Implement Mitigation Measure GEO-1. LTS
Impact GEO-5: The proposed project would not involve soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.

NI No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Impact GEO-6: The project would not directly or indirectly affect a unique geologic feature but could inadvertently destroy a unique paleontological resource or site.

PS MM GEO-2 In the event that fossils or fossil bearing deposits are discovered during ground- disturbing activities, excavations within a 50-foot radius of the find shall be temporarily halted or diverted. Ground disturbance work shall cease until a City-approved qualified paleontologist determines whether the resource requires further study. The paleontologist shall document the discovery as needed in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 1995), evaluate the potential resource, and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.

The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction activities are allowed to resume at the location of the find.

If avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of construction activities on the discovery. The excavation plan shall be submitted to the City of Fairfield for review and approval prior to implementation, and all construction activity shall adhere to the recommendations in the excavation plan.

LTS
Cumulative Impact C-GEO-1: The construction and operation of the proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the project area, would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to geology and soils.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (EIR Section 4.7)
Impact GHG-1: Operation of the project would not generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Impact GHG-2: The proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cumulative Impact C-GHG-1: The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the project area, would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to greenhouse gases.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (EIR Section 4.8)
Impact HYD-1: The project would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Impact HYD-2: The project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Impact HYD-3: The project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site; ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or, iv) impede or redirect flood flows.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Impact HYD-4: The project is not in a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, and would not result in the release of pollutants due to project inundation.

NI No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Packet Page 330 of 860Attachment 2 Page 21 of 150

GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS PROJECT CITY OF FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTRESPONSE TO COMMENTSJUNE 2023 P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR‐RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2‐14 Table 2.A: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impacts Level of Significance prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation Impact HYD‐5: The project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Cumulative Impact C‐HYD‐1: The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the project area, would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A LAND USE AND PLANNING (EIR Section 4.9) Impact LU‐1: The proposed project would not physically divide an established community. NI No mitigation measures are required. N/A Impact LU‐2: The proposed project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with a plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Cumulative Impact C‐LU‐1: The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the project area, would not result in significant cumulative impacts related to land use and planning. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A NOISE (EIR Section 4.10) Impact NOI‐1: Project construction activities would generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. PS MM NOI‐1 The construction contractor shall ensure that construction activities and equipment use, whose specific location on the site may be flexible (e.g., operation of compressors and generators, cement mixing, general truck idling), shall be conducted as far as possible from the nearest noise‐ and vibration‐sensitive land uses, and natural and/or manmade barriers (e.g., intervening construction trailers) shall be used to screen propagation of noise from such activities towards these land uses. These activities shall be located in the southeast quadrant of the project site, as feasible. MM NOI‐2 The construction contractor shall ensure that a minimum 12‐foot‐high barrier, such as plywood structures or flexible sound control curtains, shall be erected on the project site boundary adjacent to the sensitive receptors to minimize the amount of noise during construction. A 12‐foot‐high construction noise barrier would provide approximately 13 dBA reduction to the closest residential receptors to the north. MM NOI‐3 The construction contractor shall ensure the use of power construction equipment with state‐of‐the‐art noise shielding and muffling devices. This specification shall be included on all project plans. MM NOI‐4 The construction staging area shall be as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Staging shall occur in the southeast quadrant of the project site, as feasible. MM NOI‐5 The construction contractor shall ensure that no less than two weeks prior to commencement of construction, notification shall be provided to the off‐site residential, hotel, school, and church uses within 500 feet of the project site that discloses the construction schedule, including the types of activities and equipment that would be used throughout the duration of the construction period. Contact information shall also be posted where readily visible to the public. LTS Impact NOI‐2: Project occupancy and operations would not generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Impact NOI‐3: The project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Packet Page 331 of 860Attachment 2 Page 22 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2-15 Table 2.A: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impacts Level of Significance prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation
Impact NOI-4: The project would not be located in the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

NI No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cumulative Impact C-NOI-1: Cumulative development in the project vicinity, including the proposed project, would not result in significant cumulative construction and operational noise impacts.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION (EIR Section 4.11)
Impact PS-1: The proposed project would not require a new or altered fire protection facilities in order to maintain adequate response times, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Impact PS-2: The proposed project would not require new or physically altered police facilities, in order to maintain adequate response times, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Impact PS-3: The proposed project would not require new or physically altered school facilities, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Impact PS-4: The proposed project would not require new or physically altered parks and recreation facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts nor substantially increase the use of existing neighborhood parks or other recreational facilities, such that substantial physical deterioration of such facilities would occur.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Impact PS-5: The proposed project would not require new or physically altered library facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cumulative Impact C-PS-1: The construction and operation of the proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development in the project area, would not result in significant cumulative impacts on public services and recreational facilities.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
TRANSPORTATION (EIR Section 4.12)
Impact TRA-1: The proposed project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Impact TRA-2: The proposed project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

PS MM TRA-1 The project applicant shall prepare and implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program that includes measures to reduce the vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per multifamily dwelling unit by a minimum of 5 percent. At a minimum, the TDM Program shall include the following measures:
• Unbundled Parking Program: The project applicant shall separate the cost of renting parking spaces from the cost (rent) of the rental unit. Tenants shall be required to pay separately for every parking space that they would use (When the cost of parking is optional, rather than built into housing costs, those without cars aren’t burdened with paying for unwanted parking, and people who would use a car often change their behaviors to avoid the extra cost).
• Pedestrian-Network Improvements: The project applicant shall improve pedestrian access to the nearest transit stops, as well as include pedestrian-oriented elements such as planters, benches, widened sidewalks, and improved lighting, in the site plan. • Carshare, Bikeshare, and Scootershare Program: The project applicant shall establish a carshare, bikeshare, electric bikeshare, and scootershare program to provide tenants alternatives to the use of a personal vehicle.

LTS
Packet Page 332 of 860Attachment 2 Page 23 of 150

GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS PROJECT CITY OF FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTRESPONSE TO COMMENTSJUNE 2023 P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR‐RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2‐16 Table 2.A: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impacts Level of Significance prior to Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation Impact TRA‐3: The proposed project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Impact TRA‐4: The proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Cumulative Impact C‐TRA‐1: Development of the proposed project would not conflict with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities under cumulative conditions. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Cumulative Impact C‐TRA‐2: Development of the proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future developments, would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). PS Implement Mitigation Measure TRA‐1. LTS Cumulative Impact C‐TRA‐3: Development of the proposed project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable future developments, would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Cumulative Impact C‐TRA‐4: Development of the proposed project, in combination with reasonably foreseeable future developments, would not result in inadequate emergency access. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (EIR Section 4.13) Impact UTL‐1: The proposed project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Impact UTL‐2: The proposed project and reasonably foreseeable development would be served by sufficient water supply during normal, dry and multiple dry years. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Impact UTL‐3: The proposed project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Impact UTL‐4: The proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Impact UTL‐5: The proposed project would comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Cumulative Impact C‐UTL‐1: The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future development within a 1.5‐mile radius of the proposed project, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on utilities and service systems. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A WILDFIRE (EIR Section 4.14) Impact WFR‐1: The proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Impact WFR‐2: The proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope, prevailing winds, or other factors, and thereby would not expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Impact WFR‐3: The proposed project would not involve installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A Packet Page 333 of 860Attachment 2 Page 24 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2-17 Table 2.A: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures Environmental Impacts Level of Significance prior to
Mitigation Mitigation Measures Level of Significance after Mitigation
Impact WFR-4: The proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Cumulative Impact C-WFR-1: The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development within a 1.5-mile radius of the proposed project, would not result in a significant cumulative impact pertaining to wildfires.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES (EIR Chapter 5.0)
Impact AG-1: The proposed project would not convert Farmland to non-agricultural use, nor conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contract, or conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land or timberland. In addition, the proposed project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use, or involve other changes in the existing environment that could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use.

NI No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (EIR Chapter 5.0)
Impact HAZ-1: The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Nor would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Impact HAZ-2: The proposed project would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. It would also not be located within an airport plan area.

NI No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Impact HAZ-3: The proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
MINERAL RESOURCES (EIR Chapter 5.0)
Impact MR-1: The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state, or a locally important mineral resource recovery site.

NI No mitigation measures are required. N/A
POPULATION AND HOUSING (EIR Chapter 5.0)
Impact PH-1: The proposed project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly.

LTS No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Impact PH-2: The proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

NI No mitigation measures are required. N/A
Notes: LTS – Less than Significant; N/A = Not Applicable; NI = No Impact; PS = Potentially Significant

Packet Page 334 of 860Attachment 2 Page 25 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2-18 This page intentionally left blank
Packet Page 335 of 860Attachment 2 Page 26 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2-19 Table 2.B: Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives
Project Impact¹
Proposed Project
(Before/After
Mitigation)
Alternative 1:

No Project/No
Development
Alternative 2:

No Project/Development
Consistent with Existing
Zoning
Alternative 3:

Reduced Project
Alternative
Impact AQ-2: Construction of the proposed project
would result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase in criteria pollutants for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable federal
or State ambient air quality standard.

PS/LTS Avoided Similar Similar
Impact AQ-4: Project operation would not expose
sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations; however, emissions from project
construction activities would exceed applicable
thresholds.

PS/LTS Avoided Greater Reduced
Impact BIO-1: The proposed project could have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on Swainson’s hawks.

PS/LTS Avoided Similar Similar
Impact BIO-2: The proposed project could have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on burrowing owls.

PS/LTS Avoided Similar Similar
Impact BIO-3: The proposed project could have a
substantial effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on raptors, nesting birds, or other birds protected under the California Fish and Game Code
and MBTA.

PS/LTS Avoided Similar Similar
Impact BIO-4: The proposed project could have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on monarch butterfly.

PS/LTS Avoided Similar Similar
Impact BIO-5: The project could result in a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat from inadvertent
disturbance during project construction.

PS/LTS Avoided Similar Similar
Impact BIO-6: The project would have a substantial
adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands through direct removal and filling.

PS/LTS Avoided Similar Similar
Packet Page 336 of 860Attachment 2 Page 27 of 150

GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS PROJECT CITY OF FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTRESPONSE TO COMMENTSJUNE 2023 P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR‐RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2‐20 Table 2.B: Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives Project Impact¹ Proposed Project (Before/After Mitigation) Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Alternative 2: No Project/Development Consistent with Existing Zoning Alternative 3: Reduced Project Alternative Impact BIO‐8: The proposed project could conflict with local policies or ordinances adopted for the protection of biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. PS/LTS Avoided Similar Similar Impact CUL‐2: The proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5. PS/LTS Avoided Similar Similar Impact CUL‐3: The proposed project could disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. PS/LTS Avoided Similar Similar Impact TCR‐2: The project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. PS/LTS Avoided Similar Similar Impact GEO‐3: The project could be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. PS/LTS Avoided Similar Similar Packet Page 337 of 860Attachment 2 Page 28 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2-21 Table 2.B: Summary Comparison of Project Alternatives
Project Impact¹
Proposed Project
(Before/After
Mitigation)
Alternative 1:

No Project/No
Development
Alternative 2:

No Project/Development
Consistent with Existing
Zoning
Alternative 3:

Reduced Project
Alternative
Impact GEO-4: The proposed project would be located
on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life and property.

PS/LTS Avoided Similar Similar
Impact GEO-6: The project would not directly or
indirectly affect a unique geologic feature but could
inadvertently destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site.

PS/LTS Avoided Similar Similar
Impact NOI-1: Project construction activities would
generate a substantial temporary increase in ambient
noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

S/LTS Avoided Greater Reduced
Impact TRA-2: The proposed project would conflict or
be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b).

PS/LTS Avoided Greater Similar
Cumulative Impact C-TRA-2: Development of the
proposed project, in combination with past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future developments,
would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b).

PS/LTS Avoided Greater Similar
Impact WFR-1: The proposed project would not
substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan.

LTS Avoided Greater Reduced
¹ This table lists only the significant or potentially significant environmental impacts of the proposed project.

S: Significant
PS: Potentially significant
LTS: Less than significant impact
Avoided: Proposed project’s impact avoided
Similar: Impact similar to proposed project
Reduced: Impact less than proposed project
Greater: Impact greater than proposed project

Packet Page 338 of 860Attachment 2 Page 29 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 2-22 This page intentionally left blank
Packet Page 339 of 860Attachment 2 Page 30 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA
P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-1

3.0 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

3.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Fairfield (City) received comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period from one state agency, three City Planning Commissioners (i.e., local agency), and nine individuals.

Comments on the Draft EIR are presented in Section 3.2 below along with the City’s responses to those comments.

3.2 COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR

3.2.1 Index to Comments
Comments on the Draft EIR were submitted to the City during the public review period by the agencies and individuals listed below in Table 3.A: Index to Comments on the Draft EIR. The commenters are grouped by the affiliation of the commenting entity as follows: State agencies (SA), Local agencies (LA), Individuals (IND), and public hearing participants (PH).

Table 3.A: Index to Comments on the Draft EIR
Commenter Code Agency/Organization/Individual
State Agencies
SA-1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 3 Alex Single, February 15, 2023
Local Agencies
LA-1 City of Fairfield Planning Commission
Chris Matthews, February 1, 2023
LA-2 City of Fairfield Planning Commission
Chris Matthews, February 2, 2023
LA-3 City of Fairfield Planning Commission
Don Greve, February 14, 2023
Individuals
IND-1 Joseph Green-Heffern, January 13, 2023
IND-2 George Kennedy, January 13, 2023
IND-3 Brenda Villanueva, January 13, 2023
IND-4 Mary Burczyk, January 13, 2023
IND-5 Mortissa Perkins, January 13, 2023
IND-6 Carol Chervinko, February 5, 2023
IND-7 Nora Dizon, February 8, 2023
IND-8 Brenda Villanueva, February 9, 2023
IND-9 Joseph Green-Heffern, February 17, 2023
IND-10 Nora Dizon, February 19, 2023
IND-11 Lisa Price, February 23, 2023
IND-12 Marven Norman, February 23, 2023
Public Hearing (February 8, 2023)
PH-1 Mortissa Perkins
PH-2 Carol Chervinko
PH-3 Brenda Villanueva
PH-4 Joseph Green-Heffern
PH-5 Planning Commissioner Chris Matthews
PH-6 Planning Commissioner Jerome Childs
Packet Page 340 of 860Attachment 2 Page 31 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-2

3.2.2 Draft EIR Comments and Responses
This section includes a reproduction of each letter that provided comments on the Draft EIR. The comments are numbered consecutively following the acronym identifying the commenter.

Individual comments within the letters are numbered consecutively and are annotated in the margin of each letter.

Written letters received during the public comment period on the Draft EIR are provided in their entirety (including attachments) in the following pages. A transcript of the comments provided at the February 8, 2023 public hearing is included, and the relevant oral comments provided at the public hearing are bracketed. The comment letters and the public meeting transcript are immediately followed by responses keyed to the specific comments.

Packet Page 341 of 860Attachment 2 Page 32 of 150

1 Atkinson, Jonathan
From:Single, Alexander(Alex)@Wildlife
Sent:Wednesday, February 15, 2023 9:50 AM
To:Atkinson, Jonathan
Subject:Re: Green Valley 3 Apartments EIR
Hello Jonathan,

The Green Valley 3 Apartments EIR (SCH 2022030480) covers CDFW’s primary concerns about 1) avoiding riparian vegetation and thus the need for a Streambed Alteration Notification, 2) avoiding take of Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), and 3) mitigating for loss of Swainson’s hawk and burrowing owl foraging habitat. Thank you for addressing these concerns. CDFW will not submit a comment latter for this EIR.

Best,

Alex Single (He)
Environmental Scientist (Solano and Marin Counties)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Bay Delta Region (Region 3) 2825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100
Fairfield, CA 94534
(707) 799-4210

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

SA-1
1 Packet Page 342 of 860Attachment 2 Page 33 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-4 COMMENTER SA-1
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 3
Alex Single, February 15, 2023
Response to Comment SA-1-1
The commenter notes that the concerns of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife are adequately addressed in the Draft EIR. No response is required.

Packet Page 343 of 860Attachment 2 Page 34 of 150

1 Atkinson, Jonathan
From:[email protected]
Sent:Wednesday, February 1, 2023 1:08 PM
To:Wong, Garland K
Cc:Sheehan, Meily; Feinstein, David M; Atkinson, Jonathan Subject:Traffic concerns for GV III apartment hearing
Garland,

At the next Planning Commission meeting (February 8th), there will be a public hearing concerning the proposed apartment development near the intersection of Neitzel Road and Business Center Drive.

I have heard from various people in the area the following concerns/questions:

x Comparison of traffic from apartment use (which I see in the EIR report 4.12-13 to be 840) with what it would be if developed as office space (Is that comparison in the EIR? I could not find it) x Light synchronization of existing traffic lights at Neitzel and GV Road on Business Center Drive—do you have any quantifiable data showing the synchronization is correct?

Thanks for your many efforts!

Regards,

Chris Matthews
Director of Real Estate

4500 Business Center Dr
Fairfield, CA 94534
707-646-3091 (Direct)
214-803-5456 (Cell)
[email protected]

CA Real Estate Broker license 02039127

The information contained in this e-mail or in attachments to this e-mail message may be privileged and confidential.

This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or any action taken or omitted in reliance of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and permanently delete all copies and attachment(s) from your computer system.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

LA-1
1 2
Packet Page 344 of 860Attachment 2 Page 35 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-6 COMMENTER LA-1
Planning Commissioner Chris Matthews, February 1, 2023
Response to Comment LA-1-1
The volume of vehicular traffic that would be generated by the proposed project is estimated to be 840 daily trips and is reported in Table 4.12.B on Draft EIR page 4.12-13.

An alternative that would develop the project site with business office use was analyzed in the Draft EIR. Based on the zoning designation of the project site, its size and a floor to area ratio (FAR) of 1.0, the project site could be developed with a business office project that provides about 250,000 square feet of office space. If the project site were to be developed with such an alternative, the volume of vehicular traffic would be approximately 2,710 daily trips. Table 3.B below provides a comparison of the project’s trip generation with that of the business office use.

Table 3.B: Comparison of Trip Generation
Project Site Land Use Number of Daily
Vehicle Trips
Proposed Apartment Project 840
Business Office Alternative 2,710
Difference 1,870
Information in Table 3.B regarding the business office alternative is presented in Section 6.3.2.2 on pages 6-7 through 6-9 in Chapter 6.0: Alternatives, of the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment LA-1-2
The issue of existing light synchronization of the traffic lights at the Neitzel Road/Business Center Drive and Green Valley Road/Business Center Drive intersections does not relate to the adequacy of the information or analysis in the Draft EIR. It will be addressed by the City Traffic Engineer, Public Works Department.

Packet Page 345 of 860Attachment 2 Page 36 of 150

1 Atkinson, Jonathan
From:[email protected]
Sent:Thursday, February 2, 2023 10:59 AM
To:Wong, Garland K
Cc:Sheehan, Meily; Feinstein, David M; Atkinson, Jonathan; Tran, Tina Subject:RE: Traffic concerns for GV III apartment hearing Hi Garland—thanks for your quick response. With the Marriott hotel opening in the coming months coupled with this possible apartment development, there will be more pressure on the light synchronization issue.

Also, I am assuming the new lights at 4520 Business Center drive will not be functional until the fire station is open—is that correct?

Perhaps Tina could also comment on future bus stop locations on Business Center Drive given the recent and proposed developments.

My suggestion is that these issues be incorporated into staff comments for the public hearing.

Chris

From: Wong, Garland K
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 4:55 PM
To: Matthews, Chris
Cc: Sheehan, Meily ; Feinstein, David M ; Atkinson,
Jonathan ; Tran, Tina
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Traffic concerns for GV III apartment hearing

CAUTION: This email is from an EXTERNAL source. Ensure you trust this sender before clicking on any links or attachments.

Good afternoon, Chris,

Tina copied here is the lead on the transportation portion and is working with the consultant who prepared the studies for the project. She’ll have to follow up with you once we reach out to the consultant. The transportation requirements for GVIII and GVII were prepared differently due to VMT, but it should be fairly easy to get an office comparison of that parcel. In nearly all cases, office has a higher trip calculation with a different pattern than residential.

As for your other question, that would be more complicated to answer due to the variables. Its very technical. Though the two intersections aren’t perfect, the signalized intersection is more efficient than the previous all way stop that was installed pre-covid. The traffic signals use a form of localized artificial intelligence with complicated algorithms because they would be difficult to coordinate otherwise. We would need to know time of day, which direction the vehicle traveling, was there a pedestrian crossing at either of the intersections, and the amount of demand other directions are servicing. In an ideal condition absent of the variables, we try to progress more of the westbound Business Center Drive movement, but its split about 65/35 with the off ramp in the PM period.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

LA-2
1 2
3 Packet Page 346 of 860Attachment 2 Page 37 of 150

2 Call me if you have questions about the signal operations.

[fairfield.ca.gov]
Garland Wong PE, TE | City Traffic Engineer
Public Works Department | City of Fairfield
O | 707-428-7485
2000 Cadenasso Dr., Fairfield, CA 94533
www.fairfield.ca.gov
City Hall is closed the 1st and 3rd Fridays of the month Click Logo for additional Traffic/Transportation Information This email has been prepared in response to your request. The contents of this email should not be altered or modified if provided to or shared with another person.

From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, February 1, 2023 1:08 PM
To: Wong, Garland K
Cc: Sheehan, Meily ; Feinstein, David M ; Atkinson,
Jonathan
Subject: Traffic concerns for GV III apartment hearing

Garland,

At the next Planning Commission meeting (February 8th), there will be a public hearing concerning the proposed apartment development near the intersection of Neitzel Road and Business Center Drive.

I have heard from various people in the area the following concerns/questions:

Thanks for your many efforts!

Regards,

Chris Matthews
Director of Real Estate

4500 Business Center Dr
Fairfield, CA 94534
707-646-3091 (Direct)
214-803-5456 (Cell)
[email protected]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

LA-2
Packet Page 347 of 860Attachment 2 Page 38 of 150

3 CA Real Estate Broker license 02039127

The information contained in this e-mail or in attachments to this e-mail message may be privileged and confidential.

LA-2
Packet Page 348 of 860Attachment 2 Page 39 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-10 COMMENTER LA-2
Planning Commissioner Chris Matthews, February 2, 2023
Response to Comment LA-2-1
Please see Response to Comment LA-1-2.

Response to Comment LA-2-2
Please see Response to Comment LA-1-2.

Response to Comment LA-2-3
The development of bus stops on Business Center Drive does not relate to the adequacy of the information or analysis in the Draft EIR and will be addressed by the City Traffic Engineer, Public Works Department.

Packet Page 349 of 860Attachment 2 Page 40 of 150

1 Atkinson, Jonathan
From:[email protected]
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2023 9:44 PM
To:Atkinson, Jonathan
Cc:Sheehan, Meily; [email protected]
Subject:EIR for Green Valley 3 A[artments
Hello Mr. Atkinson, I have concerns regarding Emergency Evacuation Routes for the Green Valley 3 apartment project.

This project has 185 rental units with only ONE exit route. This seems very inadequate in an emergency evacuation situation.

I am coming from being an individual that has lived thru 2 Emergency evacuation events. The first one was in Yuba City when there was a very real threat of Oroville dam failing. The second was right here in Fairfield during the most recent fire. In both instances I experienced the total inadequacies of our Emergency Services ability to coordinate a successful SAFE evacuation of the public.

I have no misconceptions, the public made the Emergency response teams success nearly impossible. But I believe we should not rely simply on the rules to dictate our decision making but instead find creative solutions that mutually benefit our developers and community.

I would appreciate any additional information you, Fairfield Fire and/or Fairfield Police could provide to educate me on the safety strategy and evacuation plan that will protect the public should there be a need to evacuate from this location.

Respectfully,

Don C Greve

City of Fairfield
Planning Commission
c-209-642-1900

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

LA-3
1 Packet Page 350 of 860Attachment 2 Page 41 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-12 COMMENTER LA-3
Planning Commissioner Don Greve, February 14, 2023
Response to Comment LA-3-1
The commenter expresses concern regarding the adequacy of the exit routes from the project site during an emergency that requires evacuation. The City of Fairfield Fire Department has evaluated the project site plan (Figure 3-6 in Chapter 3.0: Project Description, of the Draft EIR) and the preliminary fire access plan (Figure 4.14-1 in Section 4.14: Wildfire, of the Draft EIR) and determined that adequate ingress and egress would be available for the Fire Department and the project residents under emergency conditions.

Although primary access to the project site is via the existing driveway on Business Center Drive that also serves the adjacent Fairfield Business Center, in the event of an evacuation, residents of the project site would also be able to exit the project site via a third driveway on the southern side of the hotel property. In addition, they would be able to leave the site via the parking lot drive aisles on the adjacent Fairfield Business Center to travel north and use the northerly driveway of the business center property to exit on Business Center Drive. From that point they could be directed to head north to exit the area via the Mangels Boulevard interchange or directed to head south to exit the area via the Green Valley Road interchange.

Packet Page 351 of 860Attachment 2 Page 42 of 150

1 Atkinson, Jonathan
From:Joseph Green-Heffern
Sent:Friday, January 13, 2023 8:57 AM
To:Villanueva Nikolai Brenda; Perkins Mortissa; Mellor Linda; Burczyk Mary; Green-Heffern Julie; Galarneau Jacki
Cc:Williams, K. Patrice; Kennedy George; [email protected]; Atkinson, Jonathan Subject:Fwd: Draft EIR for Green Valley 3 Apartments
Attachments:Screen Shot 2023-01-12 at 6.56.39 PM.pdf
Fellow North Cordelia/Green Valley HOA reps:

Monday’s Daily Republic included a notice (image below) that the Green Valley 3 Apartment Project Draft EIR was just published for agency/public review, with comments due by February 23rd. I assume that some of you, in particular those in Sienna, Edgewater and Green Valley Lake neighborhoods that are closest to the proposed development, may have specific concerns about impacts in Lower Green Valley and want to comment.

In addition, I and likely others, have a broader concern as to why the City would even entertain another adhoc General Plan amendment & rezoning in the North Cordelia Area when the City has not yet updated a realistic land use concept for this area under the ongoing update to the General Plan. If we keep crowding in apartments and warehouses without a viable plan, there are fewer and fewer sites remaining to provide the infrastructure and services that are already in short supply or difficult to access - public park, elementary school, grocery store and neighborhood retail, etc.

I am also cc’ing our new District 1 City Council Representative K. Patrice Williams, as well as Nora Dizon and George Kennedy who have stood up for the needs of all residents in the Cordelia Area.

Regards,

Joe Green-Heffern
[email protected]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Joseph Green-Heffern
Subject: Draft EIR for Green Valley 3 Apartments
Date: January 12, 2023 at 7:05:32 PM PST
To: Atkinson Jonathan

Jonathan:

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

IND-1
1 Packet Page 352 of 860Attachment 2 Page 43 of 150

2 I saw in the January 9th 2023 Daily Republic that the Draft EIR for the Green Valley 3 Apartments is out for comment. I looked at the City website to see where I could download a copy, but could not find it. Can you send me a PDF version and/or the link to the document. Also - can you confirm if a hardcopy is already available (and if not when) for review at the Cordelia Library?

Joe Green-Heffern
680 Peridot Place, Fairfield, CA 94534
510-912-7679 (cell)
[email protected]

IND-1
Packet Page 353 of 860Attachment 2 Page 44 of 150

IND-1
Packet Page 354 of 860Attachment 2 Page 45 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-16 COMMENTER IND-1
Joseph Green-Heffern, January 13, 2023
Response to Comment IND-1-1
The comment does not relate to the adequacy of the information or environmental impacts analysis in the Draft EIR, and no further response is required pursuant to CEQA. The comment is noted and will be provided for the consideration of the City Council.

Packet Page 355 of 860Attachment 2 Page 46 of 150

1 Atkinson, Jonathan
From:george kennedy
Sent:Friday, January 13, 2023 9:48 AM
To:Joseph Green-Heffern
Cc:Villanueva Nikolai Brenda; Perkins Mortissa; Mellor Linda; Burczyk Mary; Green-Heffern Julie; Galarneau Jacki; Williams, K. Patrice; [email protected]; Atkinson, Jonathan Subject:Re: Draft EIR for Green Valley 3 Apartments
Thanks, Joe.

It looks like they shrunk the project quite a bit from the first proposal. I am surprised it still pencils out. I still have th e same concern of changing zoning before the General Plan update is complete. I also don't like the Very High Density.

Best,
George Kennedy

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 8:57 AM Joseph Green-Heffern wrote:

Fellow North Cordelia/Green Valley HOA reps:

I am also cc’ing our new District 1 City Council Representative K. Patrice Williams, as well as Nora Dizon and George Kennedy who have stood up for the needs of all residents in the Cordelia Area.

Regards,

Joe Green-Heffern
[email protected]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Joseph Green-Heffern
Subject: Draft EIR for Green Valley 3 Apartments
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

IND-2
1 Packet Page 356 of 860Attachment 2 Page 47 of 150

2 Date: January 12, 2023 at 7:05:32 PM PST
To: Atkinson Jonathan

Jonathan:

I saw in the January 9th 2023 Daily Republic that the Draft EIR for the Green Valley 3 Apartments is out for comment. I looked at the City website to see where I could download a copy, but could not find it. Can you send me a PDF version and/or the link to the document. Also - can you confirm if a hardcopy is already available (and if not when) for review at the Cordelia Library?

Joe Green-Heffern
680 Peridot Place, Fairfield, CA 94534
510-912-7679 (cell)
[email protected]

IND-2
Packet Page 357 of 860Attachment 2 Page 48 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-19 COMMENTER IND-2
George Kennedy, January 13, 2023
Response to Comment IND-2-1
Please see Response to Comment IND-1-1. The commenter’s opposition to the Residential Very High Density rezone requested for the proposed project is noted.

Packet Page 358 of 860Attachment 2 Page 49 of 150

1 Atkinson, Jonathan
From:Brenda Villanueva
Sent:Friday, January 13, 2023 10:14 AM
To:george kennedy
Cc:Joseph Green-Heffern; Perkins Mortissa; Mellor Linda; Burczyk Mary; Green-Heffern Julie; Galarneau Jacki; Williams, K. Patrice; [email protected]; Atkinson, Jonathan Subject:Re: Draft EIR for Green Valley 3 Apartments
Hello all:

I just took a quick pass at the EIR.

Fantastic, it did not bother to take into consideration climate change, the fact there is a watershed immediately to the right and across the street, the potential for runoff and flooding caused from upstream which we are currently seeing at the apartments on Business Center Drive: Verdant and Vines. The forecast with climate change by experts is that what once was our regular weather pattern is going to fluctuate even more to the extreme on both the winter rain events as well as the summer heat events and this will immediately impact that area. The EIR does not take that into consideration in regards to flooding by the way of our current weather patterns.

I'll be attending the upcoming council meeting to provide my input and factual data that the EIR failed to include.

Thanks for sharing.

Cheers
bv

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 9:48 AM george kennedy wrote:

Thanks, Joe.

Best,
George Kennedy

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 8:57 AM Joseph Green-Heffern wrote:

Fellow North Cordelia/Green Valley HOA reps:

In addition, I and likely others, have a broader concern as to why the City would even entertain another adhoc General Plan amendment & rezoning in the North Cordelia Area when the City has not yet updated a realistic land use concept CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

IND-3
1 Packet Page 359 of 860Attachment 2 Page 50 of 150

2 for this area under the ongoing update to the General Plan. If we keep crowding in apartments and warehouses without a viable plan, there are fewer and fewer sites remaining to provide the infrastructure and services that are already in short supply or difficult to access - public park, elementary school, grocery store and neighborhood retail, etc.

I am also cc’ing our new District 1 City Council Representative K. Patrice Williams, as well as Nora Dizon and George Kennedy who have stood up for the needs of all residents in the Cordelia Area.

Regards,

Joe Green-Heffern
[email protected]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Joseph Green-Heffern
Subject: Draft EIR for Green Valley 3 Apartments
Date: January 12, 2023 at 7:05:32 PM PST
To: Atkinson Jonathan

Jonathan:

Joe Green-Heffern
680 Peridot Place, Fairfield, CA 94534
510-912-7679 (cell)
[email protected]

--
Brenda Villanueva
[email protected]
www.brendavillanueva.com
Cell: 415-509-8050
IND-3
Packet Page 360 of 860Attachment 2 Page 51 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-22 COMMENTER IND-3
Brenda Villanueva, January 13, 2023
Response to Comment IND-3-1
The commenter incorrectly asserts that the Draft EIR does not address climate change. As required under CEQA, the Draft EIR addresses climate change in Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, where the focus of the analysis is the effect of the project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on global climate. That analysis concludes that GHG emissions that would be generated from project operations would be below established thresholds and therefore would result in a less-than- significant impact related to climate change.

It is unclear whether the commenter is concerned about climate change-induced increased runoff from neighboring areas leading to flooding of the project site, or whether the commenter is concerned that under climate-change conditions, the project will result in increased surface flows that could lead to downstream flooding (In subsequent comments [Comments IND-8-1 and 8-2], the same commenter states that the concern is related to the impact of the environment on the project).

As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.8: Hydrology and Water Quality, the project site is not located within the 100-year floodplain of any creek and is in Zone X. Zone X areas are defined by FEMA as areas of minimal flood hazard, which are the areas outside of the Special Flood Hazard Area and higher than the elevation of the 0.2 percent annual chance flood. Therefore, it can be concluded that the project would not be exposed to a significant flooding hazard nor would it impede or redirect flood flows.

Further, the project would not cause or exacerbate an existing flooding hazard in the project area, both upstream and downstream. The existing hydrological conditions in the project area are discussed on page 4.8-1 of the Draft EIR, including the drainage ditch that is located to the west of the project and Green Valley Creek, which is located farther west on the other side of Green Valley Road. The proposed project would not involve any work within the riparian area or the drainage ditch; therefore, these existing features would continue to carry stormwater flows from the areas north of the project site. Nor would the project alter or relocate the existing storm drain that emanates from the Siena subdivision stormwater detention basin and conveys Siena subdivision runoff into the regional stormwater basin to the south of Business Center Drive. The project would, in fact, allow some of the water that collects in the Siena stormwater detention basin to discharge into the project’s stormwater collection system and convey it to the regional stormwater basin. In summary, the project would not interfere with the discharge of stormwater from the Siena subdivision, such that upstream flooding could be caused in the subdivision due to the proposed project under existing and climate-change induced conditions. With regard to the potential for downstream flooding, as noted in the Draft EIR, stormwater generated on the project site would be directed to on-site bioretention basins that have been appropriately sized to collect and infiltrate stormwater runoff so that excess runoff does not exceed the capacity of the existing stormwater system, including the capacity of the regional detention basin that is downstream. Additionally, the project complies with the post construction requirements of the Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Packet Page 361 of 860Attachment 2 Page 52 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-23 Management Program, the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, and City of Fairfield Municipal Code Section 22B.130.

The commenter also refers to torrential rains from the series of atmospheric rivers in 2023, an extraordinary year, as evidence that climate change is increasing flooding on the project site.

However, this season’s extraordinary rain event is not evidence of sustained patterns of “flooding” on the project site; rather, it represents an extreme scenario based on pre-existing baseline conditions. For example, in 2023, Solano County has experienced its wettest season (January through March) over the past 129 years.3 As outlined above, the project is not expected to exacerbate this existing condition, as it includes elements and features to retain excess stormwater on site. Further CEQA does not require an agency to assume a worst-case scenario in its environmental analysis.

3 National Integrated Drought Information System. 2022. Drought Locations for Solano County. Website:
https://www.drought.gov/states/california/county/solano (accessed April 18, 2023).

Packet Page 362 of 860Attachment 2 Page 53 of 150

1 Atkinson, Jonathan
From:Mary Burczyk
Sent:Friday, January 13, 2023 10:32 AM
To:Joseph Green-Heffern; Villanueva Nikolai Brenda; Perkins Mortissa; Mellor Linda; Green-Heffern Julie; Galarneau Jacki; Green-Heffern Julie
Cc:Williams, K. Patrice; Kennedy George; Atkinson, Jonathan; [email protected] Subject:Re: Fwd: Draft EIR for Green Valley 3 Apartments Joe:

First, to be clear, this is me responding as a concerned citizen of Solano County. Not as President of GVLA.

If I am correct, this development wants to build three "wings" of apartments with a central two story garage in back of the new Courtyard Marriott at the corner of Business Center Drive and Green Valley Road.

While they now are using language that says these homes (yes, these would be homes for people and families) will connect to this already over-capacity intersection through an "existing drive aisle" - what that means is access and egress will be through the hotel's driveway and parking lot.

Thus, it will have the children of tenants playing or having to walk through a hotel parking lot and across the Green Valley Road intersection to go to school (if there is room at Nelda Mundy.)

And, it will have hotel guests and folks on their way to and from work funneling into the intersection at a point in the middle of what is already constantly crowded with cars and trucks exiting from I-80. This very idea seems a traffic disaster in the making.

Most important though, this area does not allow and is NOT zoned for residential, which is why the developer is asking for a General Plan Amendment. Even more worrisome is that they are asking for redesignation as Residential Very High Density (RVH) which means it would be at or possibly over existing housing densities allowed anywhere else in Fairfield.

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

IND-4
1 2
Packet Page 363 of 860Attachment 2 Page 54 of 150

2 This is very concerning to me - particularly, as you say, the City is currently in the process of updating its General Plan with land use ideas that will BENEFIT the Cordelia area as well as the City.

I think it is important that the City be asked to refrain from ANY General Plan Amendments in this area - particularly at this very busy intersection where residential is NOT allowed - until the General Plan Update process is successfully concluded.

Regards to all,

Mary Burczyk
----------------------
Cell: 510-410-8411
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Green-Heffern
Sent: Jan 13, 2023 8:57 AM
To: Villanueva Nikolai Brenda , Perkins Mortissa , Mellor Linda , Burczyk Mary , Green-Heffern Julie
, Galarneau Jacki
Cc: Williams K Patrice , Kennedy George ,
, Atkinson Jonathan
Subject: Fwd: Draft EIR for Green Valley 3 Apartments

Fellow North Cordelia/Green Valley HOA reps:

I am also cc’ing our new District 1 City Council Representative K. Patrice Williams, as well as Nora Dizon and George Kennedy who have stood up for the needs of all residents in the Cordelia Area.

IND-4
2 3
Packet Page 364 of 860Attachment 2 Page 55 of 150

3 Regards,

Joe Green-Heffern
[email protected]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Joseph Green-Heffern
Subject: Draft EIR for Green Valley 3 Apartments
Date: January 12, 2023 at 7:05:32 PM PST
To: Atkinson Jonathan

Jonathan:

Joe Green-Heffern
680 Peridot Place, Fairfield, CA 94534
510-912-7679 (cell)
[email protected]

IND-4
Packet Page 365 of 860Attachment 2 Page 56 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-27 COMMENTER IND-4
Mary Burczyk, January 13, 2023
Response to Comment IND-4-1
The project would provide a sidewalk adjacent to the site, which would connect with the hotel's proposed sidewalk, adjacent to the existing internal roadway. As such, a walking path would be provided such that residents would not be required to walk through the hotel's surface lot.

Additionally, existing sidewalks are provided along Business Center Drive and Green Valley Road, which provide direct access to Nelda Mundy Elementary School.

Roadway congestion is not considered a direct environmental impact under CEQA and is therefore not analyzed in the Draft EIR, with the exception of secondary impacts, for example, pertaining to the project’s potential to substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, which is analyzed in Section 4.14: Wildfire, of the Draft EIR (pages 4.14-8 through

4.14-13). However, a level of service (LOS) analysis, which analyzes the increase in traffic congestion at study intersections, was completed for informational purposes and use by the City. Based on the LOS analysis, the project does not add more than 5 seconds of delay to the Business Center Drive and Green Valley Road intersection under Existing Plus Project conditions, therefore, no intersection improvements are warranted. The alternative to the proposed residential use is 250,000 square feet of business office development, which would generate 380 and 360 AM and PM peak hour trips, respectively. The project would generate approximately 310 and 290 fewer AM and PM vehicle trips, respectively, than the business office alternative, and therefore would lead to less traffic congestion than if the project site were developed with the use currently permitted by right under the existing General Plan and Zoning.

As described in Section 4.12: Transportation, of the Draft EIR (pages 4.12-16 through 4.12-17), the project would use an existing driveway on Business Center Drive for access and would not alter the existing roadway network, and therefore, would not create hazards due to a geometric design or incompatible land use. The project has also been subject to City engineer review and approval to ensure that the project’s ingress and egress roadways are designed and constructed according to City specifications to avoid traffic hazards. Further, the project’s access and circulation system has been reviewed and approved by the City’s Fire Department.

Response to Comment IND-4-2
The project applicant is requesting a General Plan amendment and a rezone to Residential Very High Density (RVH); however, the requested density is not at or over the existing housing densities allowed in Fairfield. Residential densities higher than RVH are allowed under a number of zoning designations in Fairfield, including HR (Residential) District (8-35 units per acre); HO (Mixed Use Office) District (8-35 units per acre); HWT (West Texas Street) District (15-48 units per acre); HD/HDC (Downtown and Downtown Core) District (15-48 units per acre); and HTD (Transit-Oriented Development) District (20-80 units per acre); and the HR (High Density, Residential) District within the Train Station Specific Plan allows up to 50 units per acre. Further, this comment fails to note how increases in residential density relate to the adequacy of the information or environmental Packet Page 366 of 860Attachment 2 Page 57 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-28 impacts analysis in the Draft EIR, and no further response is required pursuant to CEQA. Regarding the commenter’s concern about the General Plan update that is currently underway, please see Response to Comment IND-1-1. The comment is noted and will be provided for the consideration of the City Council.

Response to Comment IND-4-3
Please see Response to Comment IND-1-1.

Packet Page 367 of 860Attachment 2 Page 58 of 150

1 Atkinson, Jonathan
From:Tish Tish
Sent:Friday, January 13, 2023 11:53 AM
To:Joseph Green-Heffern
Cc:Villanueva Nikolai Brenda; Mellor Linda; Burczyk Mary; Green-Heffern Julie; Galarneau Jacki; Williams, K. Patrice; Kennedy George; [email protected]; Atkinson, Jonathan Subject:Re: Draft EIR for Green Valley 3 Apartments
Good morning,

Joseph, I agree with you. We do not have an updated realistic land use concept for Green Valley. This is ridiculous and it is mind-boggling that they are still trying to move forward with this plan.

This is a big concern for Siena because we are right behind all the construction. I will try to encourage homeowners to address their concerns in person at our next City Council meeting.

They are building more homes on the Cordelia side and warehouses and apartment buildings on the Green Valley side.

Mortissa Perkins
HOA President
Siena

On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 8:57 AM Joseph Green-Heffern wrote:

Fellow North Cordelia/Green Valley HOA reps:

I am also cc’ing our new District 1 City Council Representative K. Patrice Williams, as well as Nora Dizon and George Kennedy who have stood up for the needs of all residents in the Cordelia Area.

Regards,

Joe Green-Heffern
[email protected]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

IND-5
1 Packet Page 368 of 860Attachment 2 Page 59 of 150

2 Begin forwarded message:

From: Joseph Green-Heffern
Subject: Draft EIR for Green Valley 3 Apartments
Date: January 12, 2023 at 7:05:32 PM PST
To: Atkinson Jonathan

Jonathan:

Joe Green-Heffern
680 Peridot Place, Fairfield, CA 94534
510-912-7679 (cell)
[email protected]

IND-5
Packet Page 369 of 860Attachment 2 Page 60 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-31 COMMENTER IND-5
Mortissa Perkins, January 13, 2023
Response to Comment IND-5-1
Please see Response to Comment IND-1-1.

Packet Page 370 of 860Attachment 2 Page 61 of 150

1 Atkinson, Jonathan
From:Carol Chervinko
Sent:Sunday, February 5, 2023 4:39 PM
To:Atkinson, Jonathan
Subject:Comments on Green Valley 3 Apartments - From Carol Chervinko Dear Mr. Atkinson, thank you for allowing comments on the Green Valley 3 Apartments Draft EIR. My comments are as follows:

x There will be further drought and lack of water concerns for another apartment complex in Solano County. x There will be additional CO2 emissions in the Green Valley area for 185 apartment units. x Regardless of the transportation mitigation, a new traffic study should be required at peak transportation times between 7:30am to 9:00am, and between 4:30pm to 6pm. This study should be an actual study of Business Center Drive at Green Valley Road. National traffic times should not be used. x The fees for the EIR should be paid now, not later.
x Rezoning the Business and Industrial Park (IBP) for residential uses leads to overcrowding of nearby schools such as Nelda Mundy, Green Valley Middle School, and Rodriguez High School. Nelda Mundy's transitional kindergarten to third grades are already at capacity with 500 students and their fourth and fifth grades average 34 students per class. Overcrowded classes lead to poor test scores because teachers cannot adequately educate the children. Even for residents without children, a school's reputation affects property values and can reflect poorly on the school district. Math scores are already below the state level at 30 percent. More living units means more students.
x While there may be a two story parking garage, nothing has been said of guest parking. If guest parking imposes at the hotel parking area, the new hotel management will not be pleased if their own guests have nowhere to park.
x There is more room and land on Suisun Parkway where this apartment complex can be built.

I plan to share these same comments with the City Council Members and Mayor.

Carol Chervinko
610 Gallery Ct.

Fairfield, CA 94534
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

IND-6
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 Packet Page 371 of 860Attachment 2 Page 62 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-33 COMMENTER IND-6
Carol Chervinko, February 5, 2023
Response to Comment IND-6-1
The impact of the water demand generated by the proposed project on available supplies is analyzed under Impact UTL-2 in Section 4.13.5.2 in the Draft EIR. The total water supplies that would be available to the residents and businesses in Fairfield through the year 2045 are documented in the City of Fairfield 2020 Urban Water Management Plan and are presented on pages 4.13-1 through 4.13-3 of the Draft EIR. The data present water supplies under normal, single dry year and multiple dry year (drought) conditions. The analysis shows that the City has a surplus of water under all precipitation conditions. Therefore, the project, along with other foreseeable development in the City, would not create a demand for water that cannot be served by existing supplies. The project’s impact on water supplies would be less than significant.

Response to Comment IND-6-2
The carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions that would be generated as a result of the occupancy and operation of the proposed project are analyzed in Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR. The analysis shows that the project-related annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would not exceed applicable thresholds, and the impact of the project would be less than significant.

Please also note that the project would be fully electric and would not include on-site usage of natural gas. Further, with mitigation, the vehicle miles traveled due to the project would be below the applicable threshold. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial GHG emissions.

Response to Comment IND-6-3
Roadway congestion is not considered a direct environmental impact under CEQA and is, therefore, not analyzed in the Draft EIR. However, a level of service (LOS) analysis, which analyzes the increase in traffic congestion at study intersections, was completed for informational purposes and use by the City. The LOS study uses peak hours that are appropriate for the area. In regard to the commenter’s assertion that “national traffic times” should not be used, weekday peak period intersection turning movement counts (vehicles, pedestrian, bicycles, and heavy trucks) were collected in February 2022 at the study intersections. Thus, the LOS analysis completed for the project is based on local traffic counts. The Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual, a national data source, was only used to calculate the project’s estimated trip generation.

Based on the LOS analysis, the project does not add more than 5 seconds of delay to the Business Center Drive and Green Valley Road intersection under Existing Plus Project conditions, therefore, no intersection improvements are warranted.

Response to Comment IND-6-4
The project applicant has paid application submittal fees that cover the City’s review of the project and preparation of the EIR. No project-related impact fees are required to be paid prior to certification of the Final EIR and approval of the project. Impact fees for the project’s impact on area Packet Page 372 of 860Attachment 2 Page 63 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-34 schools and parks would be paid following the approval of the proposed project and according to the fee rates and schedules of the City and Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District (FSUSD).

Response to Comment IND-6-5
The impact of the school-aged children associated with the proposed project on area schools is analyzed under Impact PS-3 on pages 4.11-10 and 4.11-11 of the Draft EIR. The analysis shows that approximately 68 school-aged children would be generated by the proposed project, and that capacity would be available at the local schools to accommodate these students. This was based on the information that was gathered from the FSUSD when the Draft EIR analysis was conducted.

Information regarding the existing capacity and current enrollment levels was obtained from the FSUSD 2021/22 Demographics and Enrollment Projections, which shows that the Nelda Mundy Elementary School has a classroom capacity for 808 students, and as of 2021/22, the enrollment was 746 students, and the 2022/23 enrollment projection was 743 students. The study included projections of enrollment increases in the school’s service area through 2027/28 which showed that the enrollment would remain below the available capacity. Please note that in developing the projections, the study took into account reasonably foreseeable projects that would generate elementary school children in the school’s service area and included the Green Valley 3 Apartments Project with 268 housing units (which is greater than the number of units now proposed). Therefore, the Draft EIR concluded that there would be capacity in the area school to accommodate the students generated by the project. To the extent that additional classroom capacity or other improvements are needed at the elementary school based on unanticipated growth in the school’s service area, as noted in the Draft EIR, the FSUSD implements developer impact fees based on the amount of building space that is constructed for a new development project. The proposed project would pay FSUSD developer impact fees. In accordance with Senate Bill (SB) 50, under CEQA, the payment of developer impact fees for school services constitutes full mitigation. Therefore, the project’s impact on schools would be less than significant.

Response to Comment IND-6-6
Parking to be provided as part of the proposed project is discussed in Chapter 3.0: Project Description, on pages 3-29 and 3-30 of the Draft EIR. The project includes 27 guest parking spaces, which is considered adequate guest parking for a project of this size under the City’s Municipal Code’s development standards for parking.

Response to Comment IND-6-7
The commenter identifies Suisun Parkway as an area where the project could be sited. Suisun Parkway, which begins at Suisun Creek bridge, is located in Solano County, outside of Fairfield City limits, and the land adjacent to the parkway is in an unincorporated County area and is largely undeveloped. Alternative locations where the proposed project could be sited were analyzed in Chapter 6.0: Alternatives, in the Draft EIR. As discussed on page 6-2, amongst the key objectives of the proposed project, one objective is to improve the availability of rental housing in the Green Valley/Cordelia area of western Fairfield. A location on Suisun Parkway would not satisfy this objective. It would also not be contiguous with other existing development as there is no development currently along Suisun Parkway. Furthermore, such an alternative would likely result in Packet Page 373 of 860Attachment 2 Page 64 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-35 the same or similar significant impacts as the proposed project. A 10-acre parcel on the western end of Business Center Drive within Fairfield City limits in the vicinity of Suisun Creek and Suisun Parkway was examined as a potential alternative site in the Draft EIR (page 6-13) but was found to not reduce the significant impacts of the proposed project and determined not to meet most of the objectives of the project. Other sites further west on Suisun Parkway would also be infeasible for the same reasons.

Packet Page 374 of 860Attachment 2 Page 65 of 150

1 Atkinson, Jonathan
From:n mdiz
Sent:Wednesday, February 8, 2023 7:32 PM
To:Feinstein, David M; Atkinson, Jonathan
Cc:Chris Matthews
Subject:GV 3 Apartments
My zoom is glitching.

Nelda Mundy has no more capacity.

The data in the EIR deliberately includes
old data

Nora Dizon
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

IND-7
1 Packet Page 375 of 860Attachment 2 Page 66 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-37 COMMENTER IND-7
Nora Dizon, February 8, 2023
Response to Comment IND-7-1
Please see Response to Comment IND-6-5.

Packet Page 376 of 860Attachment 2 Page 67 of 150

1 Atkinson, Jonathan
From:Brenda Villanueva
Sent:Thursday, February 9, 2023 11:52 AM
To:Atkinson, Jonathan
Subject:Comments to EIR for Green Valley Apartments III Presented via zoom to the Planning Commision on 2/8/2023:

The EIR for the Green Valley Apartments shared how building these new Apartments would impact the immediate area but failed to include how the impact the Environment itself would have on the apartments since done prior to Jan 9th 2023.

We saw in early January,
22 days of non stop rain produced over 9.6 inches in the Fairfield area.

Experts say: the effects of Climate Change will bring large swings of extreme dryness in the Summer (fire danger) and heavy rains during the rainy season.

Yes we haven’t seen rain in several years due to drought but what happens if days of rain continue to occur every season.

We walk in this area often with our dogs. We witnessed the small creek past Eastridge along Rockville Road turn into a fast moving river flowing through the Vintage Valley neighborhood into the pond by the library, the easement next to Green Valley Road and the easement bordering the freeway and the current hotels. There was a small lake in the center of the area that is being considered for more apartments. Currently the water flows into the immediate neighboring easement to keep the current neighborhoods safe and the EIR was done prior to the 22 days of rain, prior to seeing all the rain water collect in the neighboring easement, prior to seeing the water come streaming down all the hills and streets in the immediate area and possibly causing flooding and jeopardizing human life. The EIR just presented the neighboring easement as a small wetlands, during the 22 days of continuous rain, the neighboring small wetland was considerably NOT small.

I also want to mention, there are only 2.5 ways out of this immediate proposed apartment area. The hotel recently changed the driveway closest to the main intersection from a two way driveway to an outbound driveway and also narrowing it for only one car to exit at a time. Also currently there is only one driveway that allows for you to leave left or right and the other driveway is only a one way right driveway. The proposal is to allow for approximately 300 residents, 250 cars to live in this small area. In my own experience, after being evacuated several times from wildfires in the past seven years, I see during a rush to evacuate specifically in this apartment building, a huge traffic jam and danger to human lives. Want to point out that the EIR slide presented that Wildfire is considered “ Less than Significant” has never been evacuated from their home in that immediate area >>>>ATLAS FIRE! Definitely should reevaluate that statement especially during the summer months especially OCTOBER.

My opinion is to keep with the original recommendation by the Planning Commision last year and not rezone this area to residential. Thank you for allowing me to share my thoughts.

--
Brenda Villanueva
[email protected]
www.brendavillanueva.com
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

IND-8
1 2
4 3
Packet Page 377 of 860Attachment 2 Page 68 of 150

2 Cell: 415-509-8050 IND-8
Packet Page 378 of 860Attachment 2 Page 69 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-40 COMMENTER IND-8
Brenda Villanueva, February 9, 2023
Response to Comment IND-8-1
In California Building Industry Association v. BAAQMD, 62 Cal.4th 369, the California Supreme Court held that CEQA generally does not require analysis or mitigation of the impact of existing environmental conditions on a project, including a project's future users or residents, unless the project exacerbates the existing environmental conditions. The commenter does not provide any information regarding how the project may exacerbate any existing environmental conditions.

Therefore, the effects of the environment on the project are outside the scope of CEQA and are not analyzed in the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment IND-8-2
The comment is correct in noting that climate change is projected to substantially affect future weather conditions, which is consistent with the discussion on pages 4.7-4 and 4.7-5 in Section 4.7:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the Draft EIR, where the major effects of climate change are listed.

With regard to hydrological conditions on and in the vicinity of the project, those are discussed on page 4.8-1 in Section 4.8: Hydrology and Water Quality, of Draft EIR, including the drainage ditch that is located to the west of the project and Green Valley Creek, which is located farther west on the other side of Green Valley Road. As discussed in Section 4.8, the project site is not located within the 100-year floodplain of any creek and is outside the flood hazard area. Therefore, it can be concluded that the project would not be exposed to a significant flooding hazard, nor would it cause or exacerbate an existing flooding hazard. Regarding potential off-site flooding due to the project, please refer to Response to Comment IND-3-1.

With regard to the observed ponding in a portion of the project site, that portion of the site is lower than the surrounding area due to previous grading on the site and therefore ponds. Although the wetland may have appeared much larger due to the significant rains that occurred in January 2023, the wetland was surveyed by a qualified biologist in December 2021 and, based on accepted delineation methodologies, was mapped to be about 0.11 acre in area. An LSA biologist confirmed the approximate wetland boundary during a reconnaissance-level survey in February 2023.

Response to Comment IND-8-3
As shown on page 4.12-13 of the Draft EIR, the proposed project would generate approximately 840 daily vehicle trips, with about 68 trips occurring in the AM peak hour and about 72 trips occurring in the PM peak hour. The double aisle driveway that would serve the project site, along with the Business Center and the hotel, would be adequate to handle this level of daily traffic.

With respect to traffic during an evacuation, the Draft EIR’s conclusion of a less-than-significant impact related to an evacuation due to wildfire is supported by the analysis in Section 4.14:

Wildfire. As noted in the Draft EIR, the proposed site plan and preliminary fire access plan (see Packet Page 379 of 860Attachment 2 Page 70 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-41 Figure 4.14-1 in Section 4.14) have been reviewed by the City’s Fire Department and determined by the Department to be adequate under emergency conditions. In the case of evacuation, in addition to the main driveway, project residents would also be able to exit via the parking lot drive aisles on the adjacent Fairfield Business Center to travel north and use the northerly driveway of the business center property to exit on Business Center Drive. From that point they could be directed to head north to exit the area via the Mangels Boulevard interchange or directed to head south to exit the area via the Green Valley Road interchange.

Response to Comment IND-8-4
The comment is noted and will be considered by the decision makers when making a decision with respect to the requested approvals.

Packet Page 380 of 860Attachment 2 Page 71 of 150

1 Atkinson, Jonathan
From:Joseph Green-Heffern
Sent:Friday, February 17, 2023 1:57 PM
To:Atkinson, Jonathan
Subject:Comments on Green Valley 3 Apartments Project Draft EIR Attachments:JGH Comments on Green Valley 3 Apartments Draft EIR.pdf Mr. Atkinson:

Attached are my comments regarding the Draft EIR for the Green Valley 3 Apartments Project.

Please reply to confirm receipt; and please let me know when the Final EIR is available and when this comes back up for consideration before the Planning Commission and City Council.

Regards,

Joe Green-Heffern
680 Peridot Place, Fairfield, CA 94534
510-912-7679 (cell)
[email protected]

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

IND-9
Packet Page 381 of 860Attachment 2 Page 72 of 150

2 IND-9
Packet Page 382 of 860Attachment 2 Page 73 of 150

Jonathan Atkinson/Senior Planner - City of Fairﬁeld

(delivered electronically to jatkinson@fairﬁeld.ca.gov)

Date: February 17, 2023

Subject: Public Comments on the

Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Green Valley 3 Apartments Project

Dear Mr. Atkinson:

After reviewing the above document at the Cordelia Library, and attending the Planning Commission Study Session on February 8, 2023, I have serious concerns about the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Green Valley 3 Apartments Project (DEIR). The DEIR’s determination of “less than signiﬁcant” impacts for a number of criteria, including Land Use, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation, and Wildﬁre is unjustiﬁed, as discussed further below.

This is in large part due to the fact that the DEIR’s cumulative analysis is ﬂawed because it fails to include many recent and potential future housing projects that all rely on the same constrained transportation network and poorly distributed public/commercial services in the North Cordelia area.

This area does not have a grid of streets that can provide alternative ways to access services, but instead relies on two intersecting arterials (Business Center Drive and Green Valley Rd.) to convey traffic between western and eastern areas of Cordelia, and to southern Cordelia, I-80 and I-680.

Combined with the lack of a full interchange at Suisun Valley Road which requires all west-bound access to I-80 to pass through the same intersection at Green Valley Rd, access in and through this area is a growing nightmare. The proposed apartments need to be considered in this cumulative context.

In addition, the recommended rezoning from Industrial Business Park (IBP) to Residential Very High Density (RVH) under a General Plan Amendment is improper given the City is in the midst of a General Plan Update that will include an updated vision for the North Cordelia Area to stop the haphazard rezoning that has occurred over the past decade or more.

Incomplete Basis for Cumulative Analysis
The DEIR’s cumulative analysis is based on 9 recent, ongoing or future projects within a 1.5 mile radius of the site. Unfortunately, the analysis fails to account for the following other apartment and medium density housing projects that have been completed in the last 5 to 10 years:
•Verdant at Green Valley (apartments)

•The Vines at 80 (apartments)

•Bradford Park (medium/high density homes)

•Village Oaks (medium density homes)

•Harvest at Green Valley (medium density homes)

•Bloom at Green Valley (medium density homes)

These projects are mostly located along Business Center Drive and access commercial services and I-80 and I-680 through the same congested intersection at Green-Valley Road near the proposed apartments. In addition, many of these homes are on land rezoned from commercial, industrial or mixed use, so not part of any prior comprehensive land use plan.

The analysis also does not include 3 potential very high density apartments along Suisun Valley Road, within the selected 1.5 mile radius, that have been included as priority housing sites in the City’s recently approved Housing Element Update.

of 13
IND-9
1 2
Packet Page 383 of 860Attachment 2 Page 74 of 150

Lastly, there are future projects, that while not within the 1.5 mile radius and not within City limits, should also be included in the analysis.
•Middle Green Valley Development

•Several winery/hotel/tourism developments in initial planning at or near Rockville Corners.

All of these recent past and future developments should be included because they rely on the same constrained transportation network along Business Center Drive/Green Valley Road to access I-80 westbound, I-680 southbound, and poorly distributed school, park and grocery/retail services in both North and South Cordelia.

Unjustiﬁed Evaluation of Potential Impacts
I ﬁnd the following evaluation of environmental impacts as “less than signiﬁcant” as unjustiﬁed:

Impact LU-2: The proposed project would not cause a signiﬁcant environmental impact due to a conﬂict with a plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

This should be “signiﬁcant” or “potentially signiﬁcant” given that rezoning is required under the current outdated General Plan, and the fact that the City is in the middle of a General Plan Update which will, among other things, try to resolve current population/services imbalances already acknowledged in the Existing Conditions Report and during Public Outreach efforts under Fairﬁeld Forward 2050.

Impact C-LU-1: The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future development in the project area, would not result in signiﬁcant cumulative impacts related to land use and planning.

This should be “signiﬁcant” or “potentially signiﬁcant” given that planned rezoning would prematurely remove the project site from consideration for other uses under the General Plan Update, and further that the rezoning continues the haphazard rezoning and development that has plagued the North Cordelia Area in the absence of a realistic General Plan.

Impact C-PS-1: The construction and operation of the proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future developments in the project area, would not result in signiﬁcant cumulative impacts on public services and recreational facilities.

This should be “signiﬁcant” or “potentially signiﬁcant” given that current elementary school and public park facilities are already lacking for all the recent and potential new housing east of Green Valley Road, and the fact that they are only poorly accessed across I-80 or Green Valley Road through the highly congested intersections at Green Valley Road. The City has already acknowledged the need to closed the gap in prior planning for needed public facilities by the recent acquisition of a site for a ﬁre station, and the designation of a new police presence in North Cordelia. Similar plans for parks, schools and grocery/neighborhood retail are still missing; but with public expectation that they will be addressed in the ongoing General Plan Update.

Impacts C-TRA-3: Development of the proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future developments would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections), or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

This should be “signiﬁcant” or “potentially signiﬁcant” given that the traffic analysis fails to account for all the additional projects discussed above under the incomplete basis of of 23
IND-9
4 2
3 5
Packet Page 384 of 860Attachment 2 Page 75 of 150

cumulative impacts. Given that all development in the Cordelia area must rely on the Green Valley-Business Center Drive Intersection for westbound freeway access and all local circulation and pedestrian access, it is already unsafe and will become more so as the area develops.

Impacts C-TRA-4: Development of the proposed project, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future developments would not result in inadequate emergency access.

This should be “signiﬁcant” or “potentially signiﬁcant”. While there may be emergency access to and from the site in low-traffic conditions, emergency access will almost impossible when there is an accident or construction/maintenance work on Business Center Drive or its’ intersection with Green Valley Rd. In addition, inclusion of the additional projects discussed under the incomplete basis of cumulative impacts will only amplify this impact.

Impact C-WLDFR-1: The proposed project, in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future development within a 1.5-mile-radius of the proposed project, would not result in a signiﬁcant cumulative impact pertaining to wildﬁres.

This should be “signiﬁcant” or “potentially signiﬁcant” The 1.5 mile radius is inappropriate given that all Green Valley development, including the future Middle Green Valley Project, will have access through the Green Valley Rd./Business Center Drive intersection. If there is a wildﬁre emergency requiring evacuation, Green Valley Road intersections could become impassable. The proposed development and other recent housing along Business Center Drive will exacerbate the problem. Also, in any major emergency, traffic congestion in front of the proposed development, or at Green Valley Rd. will make Fire Department access from the new Fire Station practically impossible.

5.3.1 Changes in Land Use Which Commit Future Generations: The DEIR downplays the long term from risk the proposed zoning changes to add housing as compared to the current industrial business park zoning. This opinion is not true - areas developed as industrial or commercial often can be repurposed for new uses when market conditions change over time, whereas residential developments almost never get repurposed for other uses. Absent an updated vision for the North Cordelia Area as part of the General Plan Update, it seems rezoning to add housing leaves the City with less ﬂexibility for future generations in the City.

Based on the foregoing comments, the DEIR should be revised to fully address these concerns. and to determine the necessary mitigation, if any is even possible. At this point, the proposed General Plan Amendment and zoning changes to allow the Green Valley 3 Apartment Project is inappropriate and seems unwise.

Respectfully,

Joe Green-Heffern, P.E.

[email protected]

680 Peridot Pl.

Fairﬁeld, CA 94534

of 33
IND-9
5 6
7 8
Packet Page 385 of 860Attachment 2 Page 76 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-47 COMMENTER IND-9
Joseph Green-Heffern, February 17, 2023
Response to Comment IND-9-1
In this introductory comment, the commenter asserts that the Draft EIR’s determination that impacts related to Land Use, Public Services and Recreation, Transportation, and Wildfire would be less than significant is unjustified because the analyses do not take into account certain recently completed as well as future projects in the North Cordelia area that depend on the same services and the same transportation network that would serve the project. The commenter also states that it is improper to amend the General Plan and Rezone the site while the Fairfield General Plan update is still underway. As the commenter expands on these introductory comments further in the subsequent comments, the specific comments are addressed in the responses below.

Response to Comment IND-9-2
The commenter states that the cumulative analysis is based on a list of nine recently completed, ongoing or future projects and that the cumulative analysis fails to consider six recently completed projects located on Business Center Drive and Green Valley Road, three very high-density apartment projects along Suisun Valley Road, and two additional future projects located in unincorporated Solano County in the middle Green Valley area and on Rockville Road. The commenter is concerned that all of these projects depend on the same roadway network which is congested and on the same schools and parks as the proposed project.

The six recently completed projects listed by the commenter are part of existing baseline conditions and are accounted for in the impact analysis. With regard to the other projects identified by the commenters, it is to be noted that CEQA provides guidance as to how a project’s cumulative impact analysis may be conducted and recommends that the list of cumulative projects include reasonably foreseeable projects. In practice, projects that have been approved but not constructed and projects for which complete applications have been received at the time that the environmental review of the proposed project is commenced are considered reasonably foreseeable under CEQA. With regard to the three high-density apartment projects mentioned by the commenter, those are simply potential housing sites on Suisun Valley Road identified in the City of Fairfield 2023-2031 Housing Element and at this time no projects to develop housing on these sites have been proposed. These sites cannot be reasonably included in any cumulative impact analysis without speculation about the type, amount and timing of housing that might be developed on these sites. With regard to the Solano Landings Project, which would be located in unincorporated Solano County at the intersection of Suisun Valley Road and Rockville Road, the County has not received a complete application for that project and has not commenced environmental review of that project. The project is, therefore, not considered reasonably foreseeable. With regard to the residential development under the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan project, that approved project is located in the County and would construct about 322 single-family homes near the intersection of Green Valley Road and Mason Road. Although that project was not specifically listed in the cumulative impact analysis in the Draft EIR, as explained in the paragraph below and in Responses to Comments IND-9-3 and IND-9-4, the inclusion of that project in the cumulative impact analysis would not Packet Page 386 of 860Attachment 2 Page 77 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-48 change the conclusions of the cumulative impacts set forth in the Draft EIR. Table 4.A and Figure 4-1 from the Draft EIR have been corrected to reflect this project. Please see Chapter 4.0: Draft EIR Text Revisions in this Final EIR.

Regarding the commenter’s concern about the traffic from these projects using the same roadway network and contributing to traffic congestion, please note that the State CEQA Guidelines were updated in December 2019 per Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) to remove Level of Service (LOS) from CEQA analysis and to require the use of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) to evaluate a project’s environmental effect on the transportation system. VMT measures the amount of driving generated by the project and thereby the impacts on the environment from those miles traveled. SB 743 changes the focus of transportation impact analysis in CEQA from measuring impacts to drivers to measuring the environmental impact of driving. Traffic congestion is no longer an environmental impact under CEQA. As a result of this change in the State CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR includes a VMT analysis which was performed following the methodology adopted by the City of Fairfield and is consistent with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR's) guidelines. The VMT analysis utilized the City's travel model which was reviewed to confirm inclusion of recently approved and constructed developments as well as approved but not yet constructed development that may not currently be reflected in the City's travel model. The analysis concluded that the VMT impact of the proposed project would be significant and set forth mitigation measures that would mitigate the VMT impact to a less-than-significant level. It is noteworthy that OPR’s Technical Advisory for VMT impact analysis states that if the project’s VMT is below an efficiency-based threshold, the project will not result in a cumulative impact that is distinct from the project impact. As stated above, with mitigation the proposed project’s VMT impact would be well below the efficiency threshold used by the City and hence there would no separate cumulative impact.

Please note that new traffic counts were collected to account for new development in the area, which was used for the evacuation analysis in the Draft EIR and an LOS/congestion analysis, which although not required under CEQA, was performed for informational purposes for use by the City.

Existing and Cumulative scenarios were analyzed to assess the project's effect on nearby roadways.

As described above under this response, the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan project was inadvertently omitted from the cumulative analysis in the Draft EIR. Therefore, an updated evaluation of the project’s potential effects on roadway capacity was completed to determine whether the addition of project traffic to area roadways, inclusive of the Middle Green Valley development, could affect emergency evacuation (e.g., during a wildfire).4 While the previous evacuation analysis reflected on pages 4.14-11 through 4.14-13 of the Draft EIR does account for a portion of the approved growth associated with the Middle Green Valley project, the updated evaluation demonstrates that the additional units not previously accounted for would not alter the less-than-significant impact conclusion in the Draft EIR. The amount of outbound traffic generated by existing uses in conjunction with the proposed project and the approved Middle Green Valley project during the AM peak hour would still be below the 1,770 vehicles associated with an LOS D threshold. Therefore, consistent with the conclusion in the Draft EIR and as supported by the updated roadway capacity analysis, the proposed project would not substantially impair implementation of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan during a

4 Fehr & Peers. 2023. Green Valley III Residential Project – Response to Comments Memorandum. April 20.

Packet Page 387 of 860Attachment 2 Page 78 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-49 wildfire event that impacts the project area or the region. The evacuation analysis reflected on pages 4.14-11 through 4.14-13 of the Draft EIR has been updated to reflect the Middle Green Valley project. Please see Chapter 4.0: Draft EIR Text Revisions in this Final EIR.

Regarding the project’s effect on schools and parks, please see Response to Comment IND-9-4 below.

Response to Comment IND-9-3
The commenter asserts that Impact LU-2 and Impact C-LU-1 should be considered significant or potentially significant impacts as the Fairfield General Plan update is still underway and the project would remove the project site from consideration for other uses.

Impact LU-2 concerns the project’s conflict with existing plans and policies and includes a detailed analysis of the project’s relationship to the goals, policies, and programs in the current General Plan.

The analysis does find the project to be inconsistent with Policy LU 1.1, but the requested General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Rezone would address the conflict. Based on this, the Draft EIR appropriately concludes a less-than-significant impact. Further, a possible inconsistency with land use plans in itself does not automatically equate to a significant adverse change in the physical environment under CEQA. Courts have emphasized that “an inconsistency between a project and other land use controls does not in itself mandate a finding of significance. It is merely a factor to be considered in determining whether” a project may cause a significant environmental impact. (Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 1170, 1207 [emphasis added]; California Building Industry Assn. v. Bay Area Air Quality Management Dist. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 1067, 1087 [a project's inconsistency with a general plan does not mandate finding of significant effect on the environment].) The commenter does not identify how rezoning of the site itself creates any General Plan inconsistency, and if that inconsistency itself would result in actual environmental impacts. With regard to Impact C-LU-1 (page 4.9-15 of the Draft EIR), the proposed project would develop a vacant site with residential uses and would not create a barrier that could divide an established community. Therefore, the proposed project, in conjunction with other reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact related to the physical division of an established community. With regard to conflict with the existing General Plan, with the GPA and rezone, the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact.

All other cumulative development has been, or will be, subject to development guidance contained within the City of Fairfield General Plan, prescribed by zoning and other applicable land use plans to avoid conflicting with plans adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects.

Please see Response to Comment IND-1-1 regarding the potential redesignation and rezone of the project site for the proposed residential use while the General Plan update is still underway.

Removal of the project site from consideration for other uses is not an environmental impact under CEQA.

Response to Comment IND-9-4
Regarding the project’s impact on area schools, please see Response to Comment IND-6-5. With the payment of developer impact fees, which the project applicant is required to pay, based on Senate Packet Page 388 of 860Attachment 2 Page 79 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-50 Bill (SB 50), the impact is determined to be less than significant. Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, including the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan project identified by the commenter, would also be required to pay developer fees for school facilities pursuant to SB 50.

Therefore, the Draft EIR appropriately concludes that the cumulative impact on schools would be less than significant.

With respect to the project’s impact on parks, the proposed project includes a range of on-site amenities for the project residents, including a clubhouse, swimming pool/spa, barbeque and picnic areas, lounging areas, and lawn areas for passive play, as well as a dog run. Therefore, the project is not expected to place a substantial demand on off-site park facilities. Furthermore, the proposed project would be subject to the current City of Fairfield Park and Recreational Facilities Impact Fee, and the funds collected would go towards maintenance of existing parks and the cost of developing new parks. Per the Quimby Act, payment of park impact fees by a developer constitutes full mitigation under CEQA. Therefore, the project’s impact on parks would be less than significant.

Other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, including the Middle Green Valley project identified by the commenter, would also be required to pay park impact fees pursuant to the Quimby Act. Therefore, the Draft EIR appropriately concludes that the cumulative impact on parks would be less than significant.

The commenter argues that the project would contribute to traffic congestion by accessing the schools and parks using the extant road network. Please see Response to Comment IND-9-2 above; roadway congestion is not an environmental issue under CEQA.

Response to Comment IND-9-5
As stated in the Draft EIR (pages 4.12-16 and 4.12-17), the project would use an existing driveway on Business Center Drive for access and would not alter the existing roadway network, and therefore, would not create hazards due to a geometric design or incompatible land use. Further, the project’s access and circulation system has been reviewed and approved by the City’s Fire Department. Other projects would also be unlikely to create hazards due to geometric design or incompatible land uses because they would be reviewed by the City before approval. As such, the Draft EIR conclusion for Impact C-TRA-3 is appropriately less than significant. Please note that roadway congestion is not an environmental issue under CEQA. Therefore, the commenter’s concern about underestimation of traffic generated by cumulative projects in the Cordelia area is not relevant to the Draft EIR analysis.

Please see Response to Comment IND-9-2 above regarding the local roadway capacity during an emergency evacuation.

Response to Comment IND-9-6
As discussed in the Draft EIR (pages 4.12-17 and 4.12-18), the project would not alter the existing roadway network and therefore would not create additional or new barriers for emergency access.

Similarly, other reasonably foreseeable projects, including the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan project identified by the commenter, are not expected to add or create barriers for emergency access. In the event that lane closure is required on Business Center Drive during project construction, the City Fire Department would be informed, and one lane would be kept open at all times. The Fire Department would ensure that adequate access is maintained on all major roadways Packet Page 389 of 860Attachment 2 Page 80 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-51 during the construction of the proposed project and other projects in the surrounding area. As such, the Draft EIR conclusion under Impact C-TRA-4 is appropriately less than significant. Please note that the effect of an accident or maintenance work on Business Center Drive or the Green Valley Road intersection on emergency access is not an environmental effect of the proposed project or cumulative projects.

Response to Comment IND-9-7
Based on a review of the existing development along the Green Valley corridor, the project is expected to increase traffic by less than 3 percent. Given the existing roadway capacity, it is anticipated that the project would not create an adverse impact on any emergency evacuation plan or effort. The project residents would have multiple means of exiting the area, including Suisun Valley and Green Valley Roads. Additionally, Green Valley Road can accommodate up to 1,770 vehicles per hour (for a LOS D threshold). Based on the existing roadway volume, the roadway can accommodate another 440 vehicles, in one direction, during peak conditions. In the event of an emergency evacuation, it is likely that traffic control measures would be deployed such that traffic along northbound Green Valley Road would be limited, and side-street traffic may also be restricted, in order to facilitate traffic along Green Valley Road to I-80.

Cumulative impacts of land development projects of the size and scale of the proposed project are generally localized and are experienced within the vicinity of the proposed project site. A radius of

1.5 miles was used to define the area within which the cumulative impacts of the project were analyzed. This area is shown in Figure 4-1 in the Draft EIR. The use of a 1.5-mile radius is considered reasonable because lands beyond that distance in most directions are outside of City limits and are generally not planned for development by Solano County. It is acknowledged that the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan project is within the 1.5-mile radius study area and it was inadvertently not included in the list of cumulative projects. Table 4.A and Figure 4-1 have been corrected to reflect the project. Please see Chapter 4.0: Draft EIR Text Revisions in this Final EIR. However, for reasons set forth in the preceding paragraph and as described in Response to Comment IND-9-2 above, the inclusion of the approved Middle Green Valley residential development in the analysis of the cumulative impact on evacuation would not change the conclusion of the impact in the Draft EIR.

The evacuation analysis reflected on pages 4.14-11 through 4.14-13 of the Draft EIR has been updated to reflect the Middle Green Valley project. Please see Chapter 4.0 in this Final EIR.

Response to Comment IND-9-8
The Draft EIR states that the proposed zone change is an irreversible change and that once developed with residential uses, it would be unlikely that the project site would revert to its original condition (undeveloped land) and that it would remain as developed land. The commenter asserts that if the site were developed with industrial or commercial uses, it could be repurposed for other uses in the future. While it is true that under-utilized or old industrial or commercial areas are often candidate sites for redevelopment, given the need for housing throughout the State of California, such sites are often developed with housing. It is unlikely that once developed with any urban use, the project parcel would ever revert to undeveloped land, and the commenter fails to note how a zone change of project site to residential use will result in any significant environmental impacts Packet Page 390 of 860Attachment 2 Page 81 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-52 under CEQA that were not disclosed in the Draft EIR. The comment is noted and no further response is required.

Packet Page 391 of 860Attachment 2 Page 82 of 150

1 Atkinson, Jonathan
From:n mdiz
Sent:Sunday, February 19, 2023 5:42 PM
To:Atkinson, Jonathan
Subject:Green Valley 3 Apartments (EIR)
The most serious flaw about the EIR is that the company hired to complete the report has no incentive to be objective about its findings. The spokesperson already made it clear that the intent is to have the project approved regardless of the facts surrounding this proposed development.

Old data regarding school capacity was included in the report. It gives a false impression that new school children will have a local elementary school to attend. Nelda Mundy Elementary is already at 100% capacity. The Green Valley 2 apartments are not yet 100% leased. It is at 70% occupancy. So any new elementary age student that lives there will have to find a creative way to get his/her schooling. How can more housing be built when there is no way to service new residents?

Traffic was already a problem when the Green Valley 2 Apartments were being evaluated.

The traffic study for the Green Valley 3 Apartments was conducted BEFORE full occupancy of the GV 2 Apartments. The data is faulty.

We have a General Plan overhaul that is currently in progress. Why does the Green Valley 3 apartments get special treatment to get re-zoned before the General Plan changes are decided in a few months?

The EIR report cannot be trusted. The infrastructure to support new residents does not exist.

There is no valid reason to re-zone this parcel to residential use. There is no valid reason to jump ahead of the general plan process. This project should be rejected.

Nora Dizon
5107 Ramsgate Court
Fairfield, CA 94534

CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

IND-10
1 2
3 4
5 Packet Page 392 of 860Attachment 2 Page 83 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-54 COMMENTER IND-10
Nora Dizon, February 8, 2023
Response to Comment IND-10-1
The consulting firm hired to prepare the EIR was retained by the City of Fairfield and the EIR preparation was directed by the City, as the Lead Agency under CEQA. The analyses included in the Draft EIR are based on current regulatory requirements, including the current State CEQA Guidelines, and the Appendix G CEQA checklist was used to ensure that all environmental topics that are considered environmental impacts under CEQA are fully addressed in the EIR. All impacts have been evaluated using City of Fairfield-approved methodologies and thresholds of significance. The analysis is therefore objective and CEQA-compliant. The consulting firm has no interest in the final decision that the City takes with respect to the project.

Response to Comment IND-10-2
Please see Response to Comment IND-6-5.

Response to Comment IND-10-3
The State CEQA Guidelines were updated in December 2019 per Senate Bill 743 (SB 743) to remove Level of Service (LOS) from CEQA analysis and to require the use of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) metric to evaluate a project’s environmental effect on the transportation system. VMT measures the amount of driving generated by a project and thereby the impacts on the environment from those miles traveled. Traffic congestion is no longer an environmental impact under CEQA. As a result of this change in the State CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR includes a VMT analysis which was performed following the methodology adopted by the City of Fairfield and is consistent with the Office of Planning and Research (OPR's) guidelines. The VMT analysis utilized the City's travel model, which was reviewed to confirm inclusion of recently approved and constructed developments as well as approved but not constructed developments that may not currently be reflected in the City's travel model. Given that Green Valley 2 is an approved project, the City’s travel model assumes that Green Valley 2 is fully occupied. As the VMT analysis is based on the number of vehicle trips and trip lengths, it does not require traffic counts at study intersections. Faulty data was not used in the VMT analysis.

Response to Comment IND-10-4
Please see Response to Comment IND-1-1.

Response to Comment IND-10-5
Please see Responses to Comments IND-10-1 through IND-10-4 above.

Packet Page 393 of 860Attachment 2 Page 84 of 150

1 Atkinson, Jonathan
From:Lisa Price
Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2023 4:29 PM
To:Atkinson, Jonathan
Subject:Fw: Green Valley 3 Apartments Project - Deny the Proposal Hello Jonathan,
I am Lisa Price, a homeowner in the Siena Community and I "deny" the Green Valley 3 Apartments to be built on Business Center Drive.

This large "rental" complex will bring down the beauty of Green Valley and in essence will decrease the value of our homes in the Siena Community. We do not want to have a (3) Apartment Complex around th e corner from our community.

Rental apartments create a wealth of trouble, people moving in and out of the apartments, random people constantly in our Green Valley community, and there will be no sense of ownership for the renters; littering will increase, traffic will increase, a whole set of possible problems for the City of Fairfield, and the sense of community may become non- existent.

Now, I do not know everyone in the Green Valley community, but I feel safe and a sense of community.

Some people moved to the Green Valley Community to escape neighborhoods of apartments. I moved to Green Valley for home ownership, community of beauty with rolling mountains, a feeling of safety, and community.

We already have a (3) level leasing structure at the corner of Business Center and Suisun Valley Road, we do not need another apartment structure.

Please look beyond the financial aspect of the Apartment Complex and look to the beauty of the Green Valley community, safety, and community..

Thank you for your time.

Lisa Price
A Concerned Homeowner
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

IND-11
1 Packet Page 394 of 860Attachment 2 Page 85 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-56 COMMENTER IND-11
Lisa Price, February 23, 2023
Response to Comment IND-11-1
The visual impacts of the proposed project are analyzed in Section 4.1: Aesthetics, in the Draft EIR, and the section also includes renderings of the project. For the reasons set forth in the Draft EIR, due to the proposed design, project elevations, and its infill location, the proposed project would not have a significant adverse visual impact on Green Valley.

Please note that social and economic impacts are not considered environmental impacts under CEQA, unless they, in turn, result in physical impacts on the environment. As an example, an economic impact of a development project would be considered significant if the project caused blight or urban decay in the area in which it was located. Given the housing shortage in the area (and Statewide) and the continuing high demand for housing, it is speculative to suggest that the proposed project would cause property values to decline in the neighboring Siena subdivision.

Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that home values would decline such that blight or urban decay would result in the neighborhood. Similarly, other issues raised in the comment regarding the residency and tenure of renters (e.g., littering or other general concerns) are speculative and outside the scope of a CEQA document. There is no evidence that renters will necessarily litter at a higher rate that owner occupants. Regarding traffic, level of service or congestion impacts are not an environmental issue under CEQA, but vehicle miles traveled added by the project are within the scope of the EIR and are fully analyzed in the Draft EIR in Section 4.12: Transportation.

Packet Page 395 of 860Attachment 2 Page 86 of 150

1 Atkinson, Jonathan
From:Marven Norman
Sent:Thursday, February 23, 2023 4:48 PM
To:Atkinson, Jonathan
Cc:[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject:Green Valley 3 Apartments Project DEIR response Attachments:fairfield_green_valley_3_apt_proj_deir_23feb23.pdf Hi Jonathan,

Please find attached a letter responding to the DEIR for the proposed Green Valley 3 Apartments Project. A response indicating receipt of this letter would be appreciated.

Salutations
CAUTION: This email originated from outside the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

IND-12
Packet Page 396 of 860Attachment 2 Page 87 of 150

22 February 2023
City of Fairfield Community Development Department
Attn: Jonathan Atkinson, Senior Planner
1000 Webster Street, 2nd Floor
Fairfield, CA 94533
Submitted via email to [email protected].

RRe: Green Valley 3 Apartments Project Draft EIR (SCH #2022030480) Dear Jonathan Atkinson,
I am writing this letter in response to the Draft EIR which has been prepared for the Green Valley 3 Apartments Project that has been proposed for construction. After reviewing the documents, I am commenting on several issues relating to transportation/VMT (and by extension, GHG). Based on the information provided, the potential of the mitigation measures to adequately meet the challenge is in question.

Although the VMT memo includes information and calculation about the impact of pedestrian network improvements with a projected reduction of 1.00% based on apparently adding 0.2 miles of sidewalk (see Figure 1), I was unable to find further details on what exactly those improvements are meant to be. Section 3.3.4 and Figure 3-6 in the Description (Figure 2) do indicate that the Project would include a sidewalk that connects to the sidewalk of the adjacent hotel property, but it is unclear whether that is the improvement which the memo refers to. Additionally, it would be ideal to provide a connection from that sidewalk to Malvasia Court in the adjacent community to the north of the Project and thus continue that paseo as well as provide walking connections to additional destinations (as well as foster social connections). Finally, it was not clear from the documents exactly how wide the sidewalk is proposed to be but it really is important that more than bare minimums are selected. Ideally, the sidewalk/pedestrian path along the west portion of the Project that connects to the adjacent property should be eight or more feet wide to allow for comfortable use by all including people using mobility devices, strollers, shopping buggies and other implements which are wider than a single person—someone in a wheelchair should be able to pass their neighbor pushing a stroller without either having to go in the grass or back up.

Moving on to transit, it is mentioned in the VMT memo but is not included as part of the mitigation measures. Though perhaps it is not realistic to expect that it would provide a large reduction in VMT for this specific project, it nevertheless is baffling to see that no improvements were suggested for transit at all. Based on Table 1: Transit Route Summary contained in the VMT memo as well as reviewing Google Maps data of the Project area, the closest bus stop to the Project is located at the Fairfield Cordelia Library, nearly a quarter of a mile away “as the crow flies” and around 500 feet farther following the actual sidewalks. While transit users might indeed be calmed by the sight of fountain which is along the walking route to that bus route, they are highly unlikely to bother trying to use it at all given the distance. (But if they do choose or need to, forcing them to walk a quarter mile while also waiting for what is undoubtedly car supremacist phasing at the signal to be able to catch a bus is inhumane.)
Instead, given that based on the FAST route map (Figure 3), Route 7 passes by the Project on Business Center Drive, the Project needs to work with FAST to install bus stops as near as practical to the intersection with the driveway which will be shared with and provide access to the Project. (Ideally, that intersection would already be planned to have traffic signals as it would be creating a massive hazard by design if not, but if that is not the case, then a HAWK signal should be provided IND-12
1 2
3 4
Packet Page 397 of 860Attachment 2 Page 88 of 150

2 Marven E. Norman
PO Box 1147
San Bernardino, CA 92402
to enable people to safely access the eastbound stop.) Doing so would provide better connection to the other bus routes which also stop at the Cordelia Library as well as direct access to shopping, Solano Community College, and other transit connections at the Fairfield Transportation Center to other parts of the Fairfield community and beyond to other destinations via Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor service. While I am not positioned to calculate how large the VMT reduction would be for improving the transit connections, I do know that it is part of the measures included in the CAPCOA manual and would encourage the Project team to carry out that calculation.

Another topic of question is for the provision of (electric) bike/scooter share and the VMT reduction they are assigned. Across those three options, the calculations yield a total of a mere 0.12% reduction in VMT (Figure 4). That seems rather incredulous, especially when the 0.2 mile worth of unspecified pedestrian network improvements are supposed to provide an entire 1% reduction in VMT. Research from UC Davis and elsewhere has shown that electric bike share has a very real potential to replace car trips12 and research into the impact of ebikes overall shows that even outside of the bikeshare specifically, merely owning or even just being able to borrow one to use for a couple of weeks also leads to a lasting decrease in car usage.3456 Thus, it seems that if bikeshare and scootershare are in fact being provided as is stated in the VMT memo, that more reduction could and should be assigned to them. Additionally, as noted in one of the references above, cargo bikes are important for families to be able to reduce car trips so the bikeshare option needs to include some of them to provide residents that opportunity. Similarly, any shared bicycle storage rooms that are provided as part of the Project need to be designed to provide some spots for cargo bikes as well as some spots with access to electric infrastructure that would allow people to plug their bike in.

On the other hand, there are some headwinds regarding the mitigation measures. The biggest concern is that there is no duration provided for how long the carshare, (electric) bikeshare, or scootershare measures would be available for. That seems to be an important factor in how much they can reduce VMT. While it is encouraging to see these measures proposed, it really is necessary to identify a minimum length of time that they will be provided to the residents to better help identify the VMT reduction that they will accomplish.

Another item of consideration is that a number of studies have noted that big life changes such as a residential relocation are an optimal time to get people to change their transportation habits.78 Thus,

1 Fitch, D., Mohiuddin, H., & Handy, S. (2020). Investigating the Influence of Dockless Electric Bike-share on Travel Behavior, Attitudes, Health, and Equity. UC Office of the President: University of California Institute of Transportation Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.7922/G2F18X0W Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2x53m37z
2 Barbour, N., Zhang, Y., & Mannering, F. (2019). A statistical analysis of bike sharing usage and its potential as an auto- trip substitute. Journal of Transport & Health, 12, 253-262. 3 Popovich, N., Gordon, E., Shao, Z., Xing, Y., Wang, Y., & Handy, S. (2014). Experiences of electric bicycle users in the Sacramento, California area. Travel Behaviour and Society, 1(2), 37-44. 4 Thomas, A. (2022). Electric bicycles and cargo bikes—Tools for parents to keep on biking in auto-centric communities? Findings from a US metropolitan area. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation , 16(7), 637-646. 5 Moser, C., Blumer, Y., & Hille, S. L. (2018). E-bike trials’ potential to promote sustained changes in car owners mobility habits. Environmental Research Letters, 13(4), 044025.
6 Fyhri, A., & Fearnley, N. (2015). Effects of e-bikes on bicycle use and mode share. Transportation Research Part D:

Transport and Environment, 36, 45-52.
7 Lin, T., Wang, D., & Guan, X. (2017). The built environment, travel attitude, and travel behavior: Residential self- selection or residential determination?. Journal of Transport Geography, 65, 111-122. 8 Yang, M., Wu, J., Rasouli, S., Cirillo, C., & Li, D. (2017). Exploring the impact of residential relocation on modal shift in commute trips: Evidence from a quasi-longitudinal analysis. Transport policy, 59, 142-152.

IND-12
4 5
6 7
Packet Page 398 of 860Attachment 2 Page 89 of 150

3 Marven E. Norman
PO Box 1147
San Bernardino, CA 92402
it is critical that part of the TDM program include outreach and education from the management that is provided to all residents about the other transportation options available at the Project and how to access or use them including the available carshare program, bikeshare/scootershare programs, bike parking resources, transit options (including the Amtrak connections which can be accessed at the Fairfield Transportation Center), and identifying the travel time to various destinations within walking or biking distance such as the Fairfield Cordelia Library, the various businesses in the Safeway shopping center, the Nelda Mundy Elementary School, and the Vintage Green Valley Park.

It should also provide information about other options and incentives in the region such as the Bucks for Bikes program from Solano Mobility, 5-1-1 resources, and other information regarding various cash out programs in existence in the area, kept updated at least quarterly.

Finally, while it might not be appropriate for all parking, it would be good to see porous paving materials used for at least some of the parking to help improve water quality impacts by reducing runoff and capturing pollutants. The building is ringed by a drive aisle with parking so at a minimum, the parking which is located on the perimeter is a good candidate for this treatment and should be considered.

Thank you for receiving and considering these comments. If there are any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to reach out for clarification.

Sincerely,
Marven E. Norman
CC: Bike Davis
FAST
Napa County Bicycle Coalition
Solano Cycling Club
IND-12
7 8
Packet Page 399 of 860Attachment 2 Page 90 of 150

4 Marven E. Norman PO Box 1147 San Bernardino, CA 92402 Figure 1: Table for Neighborhood Design – T-18. Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements describing the VMT reduction that is expected to be realized for the Project by implementing the improvements. IND-12Packet Page 400 of 860Attachment 2 Page 91 of 150

5 Marven E. Norman PO Box 1147 San Bernardino, CA 92402 Figure 2: Screenshot of Figure 3-6 of the Project Description detailing the Project site plan and marked with an additional pedestrian connection to Malvasia Court in the adjacent community to provide additional pedestrian network connectivity. IND-12Packet Page 401 of 860Attachment 2 Page 92 of 150

6 Marven E. Norman PO Box 1147 San Bernardino, CA 92402 Figure 3: Screenshot of the route for FAST Route 7 which passes the Project site, the location of which is marked on the map. IND-12Packet Page 402 of 860Attachment 2 Page 93 of 150

7 Marven E. Norman PO Box 1147 San Bernardino, CA 92402 Figure 4: Table for Neighborhood Design – T-22-B. Implement Electric Bikeshare Programs describing the VMT reduction that is expected to be realized for the Project by implementing the improvements. IND-12Packet Page 403 of 860Attachment 2 Page 94 of 150

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023
G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA
P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-65 COMMENTER IND-12
Marven Norman, February 23, 2023
Response to Comment IND-12-1
The commenter questions the ability of the mitigation measures set forth in the Draft EIR to fully mitigate the project’s vehicles miles traveled (VMT) impact. The commenter is referred to the responses that follow, which provide additional explanation and evidence that the mitigation measures would fully mitigate the project’s VMT impact.

Response to Comment IND-12-2
The pedestrian improvements denoted on Figure 3-11: Proposed Circulation Plan, in the Draft EIR, were utilized to account for the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) calculations. Even if the pedestrian improvements were removed from the TDM calculations, the project would continue to exceed the necessary VMT reductions through implementation of unbundled parking.

With respect to providing a pedestrian connection from the project site sidewalk to Malvasia Court, such a connection is not proposed as it is not required in order to address a safety concern or meet any City standard. The project site would continue to be separated from the adjoining Siena subdivision by the existing wall and a row of cypress trees that would provide screening.

All of the planned sidewalks, including the sidewalk that would connect the project site to Business Center Drive, would be Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)-compliant and would be at least 3 feet wide per the City standards.

Response to Comment IND-12-3
Transit improvements such as additional stops or transit passes were considered; however, based on the analysis, the measures were found to not provide substantial benefits without improvements to transit headways/frequency. As such, the TDM proposed in Mitigation Measure TRA-1 motivates the tenants to use alternatives to automobile travel through both positive incentives such as pedestrian improvements and a carshare, bikeshare, and scootershare program to encourage walking, biking and transit use, and through disincentives that impose a higher cost on people who choose to use personal automobiles for travel via unbundled parking. As the reduction from the proposed combination of TDM measures exceeds the VMT reduction needed to reduce the project’s impact to a less-than-significant level by 7.6 percentage points, which is 1.5 times higher than the 5 percent reduction required for the project impact to be reduced to a less-than-significant level. As such, additional measures with limited benefits were not included in the mitigation measure. See Appendix J of the Draft EIR for additional details pertaining to the VMT analysis, TDM measures, and the associated VMT reduction.

Response to Comment IND-12-4
See Response to Comment IND-12-3 above.

Packet Page 404 of 860Attachment 2 Page 95 of 150

G REEN V ALLEY 3 A PARTMENTS P ROJECT

C ITY OF F AIRFIELD, C ALIFORNIA

F INAL E NVIRONMENTAL I MPACT R EPORT

R ESPONSE TO C OMMENTS
J UNE 2023

P:\BTI2101\PRODUCTS\RTC\Final\GV3 FEIR-RTC_June2023.docx (06/12/23) 3-66 Response to Comment IND-12-5
Based on national research by CAPCOA, the maximum VMT reduction anticipated from carsharing is

0.15 percent and 0.07 percent from bike sharing. The project is nearly maximizing the VMT reduction by implementing these measures. It should be noted that the project could meet the required VMT reductions by solely including unbundled parking. Carshare, bikeshare, and pedestrian treatments are included to provide a robust set of measures.

Response to Comment IND-12-6
As the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program would become a condition of project approval, all mitigation measures, including the TDM program would be implemented by law and mitigation measures that address operational impacts of the project, such as the TDM program would be implemented throughout the life of the project. The proposed combination of TDM measures exceeds the VMT reduction needed to reduce the project’s impact to a less-than-significant level by

7.6 percentage points, which is 1.5 times higher than the 5 percent reduction required to reduce the project’s VMT impacts to a less-than-significant level. As such, additional measures with limited benefits were not included in the mitigation measure. See Appendix J of the Draft EIR for additional details regarding TDM assumptions and calculations.

Response to Comment IND-12-7
As reflected in Chapter 5.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of this Final EIR, the property manager or TDM coordinator would be responsible for facilitating the program and educating residents regarding the alternative modes of travel available at the project site, and encouraging the use of the other transportation options. Other suggestions and resources identified by the commenter will also be reviewed by the City, and the City will direct the project applicant to consider incorporating the information in the project’s TDM program.

Response to Comment IND-12-8
The comment to incorporate porous paving materials in some of the parking along the perimeter of the project site will be reviewed by the City Public Works Department, but is not required to reduce any onsite project impacts to a less-than-significant level. Porous parking spaces can be suggested to the applicant and incorporated at the building permit stage if determined to be feasible and compliant with the Municipal Code.

Packet Page 405 of 860Attachment 2 Page 96 of 150

Page 1 ends

·1· · · · · · · · ·CITY OF FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA
·2· · · · · · · ·COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
·3
·4
·5
·6· · · · · · · ·GREEN VALLEY 3 APARTMENTS PROJECT
·7· · · · · · ·DRAFT EIR HEARING AND PUBLIC COMMENTS
·8· · · · · · · · · · · ·FEBRUARY 8, 2023
·9
10 11
12 13· ·Reporter's Transcript of Excerpt of Video of Proceedings 14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24· ·Reported by:
25· ·Rick Galten, CSR 13202
925-831-9029
Emerick and Finch, Certified Shorthand Reporters

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEOTAPED PROCEEDINGS
925-831-9029 [email protected]
Emerick and Finch, Certified Shorthand Reporters

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEOTAPED PROCEEDINGS
PH-1
Packet Page 406 of 860Attachment 2 Page 97 of 150

Page 2 ends

·1· · · · · ·(Beginning of video transcription.)
·2· · · · · ·COMMISSIONER CHILDS:·And I see that I have two ·3· ·speaker cards here.·The first one is from -- is it ·4· ·Mortissa Perkins?·I'm sorry.·I apologize if I'm not ·5· ·getting the name right.·And if you'd come to the
·6· ·podium.·You have three minutes.
·7· · · · · ·MS. PERKINS:·Hi again.·Hello, everyone. I ·8· ·know this one was environmental.·But it's just, that's ·9· ·a concern.·That's a concern that I have as a homeowner 10· ·living right behind where the plans are considered. 11· ·That's where our playground is at.
12· · · · · ·So just -- I know about the environmental part, 13· ·from what I'm hearing, would last for a short time.·But 14· ·still, our kids are taking all of that in.·They're 15· ·literally -- the playground is right there where all of 16· ·that development will start.
17· · · · · ·So I talk to the homeowners every day.·And I'm 18· ·a busybody in the community.·So I'm interacting with 19· ·people, homeowners on the regular.·I'm the HOA
20· ·president.·And everybody is echoing the same concern, 21· ·that they have a big issue with another apartment
22· ·building going up, possibly.
23· · · · · ·We -- if this one goes up, that's what, four in 24· ·less than a two-mile span?·One just opened up less than 25· ·six month ago.·I don't even know if it's fully
925-831-9029
Emerick and Finch, Certified Shorthand Reporters

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEOTAPED PROCEEDINGS
925-831-9029 [email protected]
Emerick and Finch, Certified Shorthand Reporters

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEOTAPED PROCEEDINGS
PH-1
1 2
Commenter 1
Packet Page 407 of 860Attachment 2 Page 98 of 150

Page 3 ends

·1· ·occupied.·So do we need another apartment building as ·2· ·opposed to more homes?·I would prefer that, building ·3· ·more homes.
·4· · · · · ·So it's just a big concern.·Not just for the ·5· ·Sienna community, but The Lakes.·We all talk about it. ·6· ·Where we're talking about it, it's an issue that we ·7· ·would like to address.
·8· · · · · ·If there are more options of things that can ·9· ·go -- something that can go there, that's better. I 10· ·don't know, a little park, like, something that's going 11· ·to really enhance, you know, the communities around that 12· ·particular area.
13· · · · · ·I know that -- I'm for bringing businesses into 14· ·the community.·That, I -- I would prefer -- if -- if it 15· ·stays the appropriate zoning -- I thought it was just 16· ·zoned for commercial use.·So I would rather see
17· ·something else there, something appropriate that fits 18· ·into the community.
19· · · · · ·But another apartment building is just -- it's 20· ·just mind-boggling right now, just why so many in that 21· ·little congested area as opposed to the Cordelia side. 22· ·They're building a lot of homes over there.·But it 23· ·seems like in this particular little area, they're -- 24· ·for whatever reason, a lot of apartments want to go 25· ·there.·The traffic -- I can tell --
925-831-9029
Emerick and Finch, Certified Shorthand Reporters

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEOTAPED PROCEEDINGS
925-831-9029 [email protected]
Emerick and Finch, Certified Shorthand Reporters

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEOTAPED PROCEEDINGS
PH-1
2 3
Packet Page 408 of 860Attachment 2 Page 99 of 150

Page 4 ends

Fairfield City CouncilAugust 15, 2023

Fairfield City Council
August 15, 2023