1 Beavers, Esther
From:Wong, Yee-Lynn
Sent:Wednesday, August 6, 2025 8:49 AM
To:Beavers, Esther
Subject:FW: Regards to Ordinance 2025-06 3331 N.Texas Street Rezone Good Morning Esther,
Please see the email below I received from a member of the public, regarding the Vista Ridge council item from last night’s council meeting.
Best,
Yee-Lynn Wong (she/her) | Associate Planner
Community Development Department | City of Fairfield
O | 707-428 -7449
1000 Webster Street 2nd Floor, Fairfield, CA 94533
www.fairfield.ca.gov
**City Hall is closed the 1st and 3rd Fridays of the month**
Planning Division Service Update:
Fairfield BUILD is now live! The City’s new online permitting system has launched, and TRAKiT is no longer in use.
While we transition, public counter hours remain reduced, and response times may still take up to three weeks as we work through initial troubleshooting.
For system issues or questions, contact us at [email protected] More info: Fairfield.ca.gov/BUILD
From: Phil Patel
Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2025 8:33 AM
To: Wong, Yee-Lynn ; Gassaway, David ; Moy, Catherine ; Bertani, Pam ; Williams, K. Patrice ;
[email protected]; Carr, Douglas ; Panduro, Doriss ; Sandhu, Manveer
Subject: Regards to Ordinance 2025-06 3331 N.Texas Street Rezone
August 6, 2025
Re: Ordinance 2025-06 3331 N. Texas Street Rezone
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important 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.
2 I humbly request that subject item be continued for further discussion and input from neighboring property owners (residential and non- residential), prior to making a decision that could impact the general area. It appears there is a real lack of information and improper reliance on CEQA approach that could leave the City susceptible to litigation.
In reading the materials from the July 15, 2025, and August 5, 2025, City Council Agendas and the City of Fairfield’s town ha ll post, it seems disingenuous to hold a town hall on Wednesday, August 6, 2025, following the second reading scheduled for Council consideration on Tuesday, August 5, 2026. Post facto input is not in the spirit of transparency.
The planning process should be guided by meaningful input prior to action being taken. Beyond the timing of the town hall mee ting being scheduled after the second reading, there are broader concerns, both procedural and substantive, that command more atten tion prior to acting on something that could impact the character of the community, which are identified below.
INCONSISTENT & LACK OF INFORMATION
In a City notice provided to me by the homeowner’s association where I reside, the notice indicates that registered sex offen ders would live at Vista Ridge. However, in the July 15 and August 5th City Council materials, no such mention of registered sex offenders is provided to the public. In fact, the July 15th City Council report states the “target population” “…includes unhoused individuals experiencing behavioral or mental health challenges, as well as veterans.” I understand there are fair housing laws that force the City to walk a fine line in terms of the perception or realized discrimination, but omitting registered sex offenders from a City Council report as possible residents at project site appears to be a fatal flaw in information provided to the public for consideration.
While the HomeKey+ program may be widely known in the housing and planning professions, the public does not have that familia rity with the program. The lack of background discussion in both City Council reports is alarming and provides no real substance or background on what HomeKey+ is or how it operates. There’s no information on the operation of the site and if the HomeKey+ project is for a defined period of time or indefinitely. The lack of information on number of beds, potential residents, traffic, h ow the units will be converted, the construction impacts, and how the operation will occur and if there will be onsite screening and monitoring of residents, is disingenuous to the community and does not allow for meaningful input by the community.
The haste of the project from the rezone application being first submitted, improper CEQA and lack of general information see ms to be a ploy to rush the project through as a last-ditch effort to compete for HCD funding without allowing the proper public pr ocess. While it’s understandable that competitiveness for State funding is important, the appropriate consideration is more important. Although the mantra of “all housing is good housing”, it is still important to ensure the compatibility and slapping supp ortive housing in an area not contemplated for residential uses (as evidenced by its current zone district) commands more meaningful analysis – such as traffic, air quality impacts of conversion of hotel to residential, and operation – all of which was glossed over by reliance on the common sense exemption.
PROXIMITY TO CHILD CENTRIC BUSINESSES
Based on a City prepared town hall flyer, registered sex offenders could be housed at the subject property. However, there is pediatric dentistry less than 400 feet from the project site, and a general dentistry which could service persons under 18 directly adjacent. I’d urge you to reconsider and take a look at what businesses are in the surrounding area and how that could affect the patronage to those areas knowing there’s a concentration of registered sex offenders within proximity.
LAND USE DESIGNATION
The City’s General Plan was recently adopted in 2024 and purposely designated the area as Highway and Regional Commercial, wh ich is intended to include regional shopping centers, highway-oriented retail and service uses, and commercial recreation [page 2-1 4 of the 2050 General Plan]. There is no mention of residential type uses or supportive housing for the Highway and Regional Commercial land use designation. Because the General Plan is considered the “constitution” by which land use is governed, even if the proposed zoning were a consistent zone district, the land use designation would control. It would be improper to allow a zone district that permits residential, when the designation does not explicitly allow for it. Therefore, a General Plan amendment should be required.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) & PIECEMEALING The use of the Common Sense Exemption is improper in this instance. The draft ordinance improperly concludes that the propose d CM zoning is similar to the uses provided in the CR district; however, there is a fair argument that this is not true. Although a n exemption requires a substantial evidence form of review, Table 25-9 under Section 25.22.2 of the Fairfield Municipal Code, clearly shows that every residential type use is permitted or conditionally permitted under the CM district, but NOT the CR district. Therefore, since the project is relying on a common-sense exemption under the premise that the uses are “similar” when they very clearly are not, leaves the City at risk. Therefore, approving the project under a common sense CEQA exemption is improper and failed to take into consideration, or even show substantial evidence, that a rezone allowing residential in a zone district that currently prohibits residential, is a fatal flaw in the CEQA approach.
Further, the draft ordinance indicates that future CEQA analysis would be evaluated at the time of proposal, however, the pro ject implies a HomeKey+ site, and therefore it is reasonable that the project should be evaluated as such. Beyond that, the staff report identifies the Danco Group as requesting the change for purposes of converting an existing hotel into housing units, therefore, that is the “project” under CEQA and reliance on a common sense exemption under the unsubstantiated conclusion that a future project would be analyzed is improper piecemealing of a project and unlawlful under CEQA.
EQUITABLE LIVING CONDITIONS
Further, the location is inappropriate from an equitable living perspective. Historically, disadvantages and marginalized gro ups have been housed in adjacent to freeways and industrial areas. In this instance, the proposed Project is directly adjacent to b oth creating residential in an area polluted by vehicles traveling along Highway 80 and the limited industrial uses across the street.
CONCLUSION
3 While I understand the need for housing for all, proper consideration and meaningful input is important for zone changes. If for nothing else, zone changes are in theory “forever” and should not be taken lightly. The lasting effects of a zone change action could extend beyond even a homekey project and therefore should be properly analyzed both by the Council and under CEQA. The CM and CR districts are very different and allow some drastically different uses and reliance on a common sense exemption does not provide the public or decision-makers with the information needed to make an informed decision. I’d urge the item to be continued and a public workshop to be held prior to taking final action.
Sincerely,
Phil Patel and other concerned residents