Agenda, first session — Fairfield City Council, January 20, 2026 (part 6 of 8)

ii
4 List of Preparers ..........................................................................................................4-1 5 References ..................................................................................................................5-1 List of Figures
Figure 2-1: Regional Context ........................................................................................................ 2-3 Figure 2-2: Housing Element Rezoning and General Plan Amendment Sites............................... 2-4 List of Tables
Table 2-1: Housing Element Rezoning and General Plan Amendment Sites................................ 2-2 Table 2-2: 2023 – 2031 Fairfield Regional Housing Needs Allocation .......................................... 2-5 Table 2-3: Progress Toward the 2023-2031RHNA......................................................................... 2-5 Table 2-4: Strategies to Accommodate RHNA, 2031-2031 Housing Element............................... 2-6 Table 2-5: Housing Element Rezoning and General Plan Amendment Sites.............................. 2-10 Table 2-6. Development Summary- Projected Buildout within Urban Limit Line....................... 2-13

Page 687 of 968 ends

1-1
1 Introduction
This Addendum, checklist, and attached supporting documents have been prepared to determine whether and to what extent the City of Fairfield General Plan Update and Climate Action Plan Certified Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2021080289, certified December 3, 2024) (GP EIR) sufficiently addresses the potential impacts of the proposed Housing Element Sites Rezoning, General Plan Amendments, and Zoning Text Amendments Project (Proposed Project), or whether additional documentation and analysis is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21000, et seq.).

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, subd. (a), the attached Addendum has been prepared to evaluate the Proposed Project.

Consistent with the thresholds used by the lead agency in the previous EIR, the attached Addendum uses the standard environmental checklist categories provided in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines but provides answer columns for evaluation consistent with the provisions of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a).

CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, subd. (a) provides that the lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an Addendum to a previously certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or Negative Declaration (ND) if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or ND have occurred (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164, subd. (a)).

An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the previous EIR or ND (CEQA Guidelines § 15164, subd. (c)). The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with the previous EIR prior to making a decision on the Proposed Project (CEQA Guidelines § 15164, subd. (d)). An agency must also include a brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR or ND pursuant to Section 15162 (CEQA Guidelines § 15164, subd. (e)).

Consequently, once an EIR or ND has been certified for a project, no subsequent EIR or ND is required or allowed under CEQA unless, based on substantial evidence:

1. Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or ND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;

2. Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or ND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or

Page 688 of 968 ends

1-2

3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete, or the ND was adopted . . . shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or ND;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or ND;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or ND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative (CEQA Guidelines, § 15162, subd. (a); see also PRC § 21166).

This Addendum, checklist, and attached documents constitute substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that preparation of a supplemental or subsequent EIR or ND is not required. This Addendum addresses the conclusions of the City of Fairfield General Plan Update and Climate Action Certified Environmental Impact Report (hereinafter referred to as the “Fairfield GP EIR”) in light of the Proposed Project.

1.1 Findings
There are no substantial changes proposed by the Proposed Project or under the circumstances in which the Proposed Projectwould be undertaken that would require major revisions of the GP EIR.

The Proposed Project does not require preparation of a new subsequent or supplemental EIR due to either (1) the involvement of new significant environmental effects, (2) a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, or (3) new information of substantial importance. No mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible. Applicable mitigation measures from the Certified GP EIR are identified and discussed in this Addendum.

As illustrated herein, the Proposed Project is consistent with and within the scope of the GP EIR and would involve only minor changes, therefore, an Addendum is appropriate and required CEQA compliance for the Proposed Project.

Page 689 of 968 ends

2-1
2 Project Description

2.1 Project Title
City of Fairfield Housing Element Sites Rezoning and Ordinance Amendments and General Plan Amendments Project

2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address
City of Fairfield
Community Development Department
1000 Webster St, 2nd Floor
Fairfield, CA 94533

2.3 Contact Person and Phone Number
Lead Agency Contact:

Meily Sheehan, Planning Division Manager
Community Development Department
1000 Webster St, 2nd Floor
Fairfield, CA 94533

2.4 Project Location
Fairfield is located in central Solano County and in the northern Bay Area region, as mapped in Figure 2-1. It lies within the California Coastal Ranges at the southwestern edge of the Sacramento Valley, just north of the Suisun Bay and salt marsh. The city, which is the Solano County seat, is located at the crossroads of interstates 680 and 80 (I-680 and I-80), two of the Bay Area’s largest freeways, and at a mid-point between Sacramento and San Francisco (each 45 miles away). The project consists of seven (7) parcels, three of which are located in Cordelia, and four are within Central Fairfield. The parcel numbers and addresses of the 7 parcels are listed in Table 2-1 below and shown on Figure 2-2.

Page 690 of 968 ends

5-2-2
Site # Site Address/Intersection Assessor Parcel
Number
Size (Acres) Rezoning General Plan
Amendment
1 Travis Blvd and Oliver Rd 0152280140 0.8 Yes No
2 Westamerica Dr and Suisun
Valley Rd
0027370280

2.5 Yes Yes
3 Mangels Rd and Suisun
Valley Rd
0027370300

3.5 Yes Yes
4 Campus Ln and Suisun
Valley Rd
0027360070

3.1 Yes No
5 E Tabor Rd and Railroad Ave 0038221010 1.5 Yes Yes
6 Heath Dr and Peach Tree Dr 0034050320 1.6 Yes Yes
7 1351 E Tabor Ave 0037010120 5.0 Yes Yes
Source: City of Fairfield, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2025
Table 2-1: Housing Element Rezoning and General Plan Amendment Sites

Page 691 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
2-3
Figure 2-1: Regional Context

Page 692 of 968 ends

5-2-4
Figure 2-2: Housing Element Rezoning and General Plan Amendment Sites

Page 693 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
2-5

2.5 Project Background
6TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT
Regional Housing Needs Allocation and Housing Sites Inventory In 2023, the City of Fairfield approved the 2023-2031 General Plan Housing Element, updated pursuant to California Housing Element law. Article 10.6, Section 65580 – 65589.8, Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code sets forth the legal requirements for a housing element and encourages the provision of affordable and decent housing in suitable living environments for all communities to meet statewide goals. California Housing Element law requires that each city and county develop local housing programs designed to meet their “fair share” of housing needs for all income groups, based on projected population growth, also known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) (Government Code Section 65580). The RHNA is the number of units that a jurisdiction must plan for in the Housing Element Update Table 3 below shows the number of RHNA units required for the City of Fairfield divided into income categories. As shown in Table 2-2, Fairfield’s RHNA allocation is 3,069 units.

Income Category Needed Units Percent of Needed Units
Extremely Low (0-30% of AMI)1 396 -
Very Low (0-50% of AMI) 792 25.8%
Low (51-80% of AMI) 464 15.1%
Moderate (81-120% of AMI) 539 17.6%
Above Moderate (more than 120% of AMI) 1,274 41.5%
Total 3,069 100.0%

1. Development needs of extremely-low-income units are assumed to be 50 percent of very-low-income housing needs.

Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (Association of Bay Area Governments) The 2023-2031 Housing Element indicated that while the City had made some progress toward meeting the RHNA, as indicated in Table 2-3 below, particularly for its above-moderate-income RHNA allocation, there was a remaining shortfall of 728 lower income units and 385 moderate income units, for which the City must identify adequate sites to allow for future development.

Table 2-2: 2023 – 2031 Fairfield Regional Housing Needs Allocation Table 2-3: Progress Toward the 2023-2031RHNA

Page 694 of 968 ends

5-2-6
Income
Category1
Under
Construction Approved
Projected
ADUs2 Total
Credits
Number of
Units
Needed
Remaining
Need
Very-Low-Income
(0-50% AMI)
Low-Income
(51-80% AMI)
265 235 28 528 1,256 728
ModerateIncome (81-120%
AMI)
116 24 14 154 539 385
AboveModerateIncome
(>120% AMI)
974 886 4 1,864 1,274 -
Total 1,355 1,145 46 2,546 3,069 -

1. Income levels were determined by county median household income based on 2014-2018 American Community Survey data (Table B19013). The median income in Solano County during this period was $77,609.

2. ADU – accessory dwelling unit.

Source: ABAG, Final RHNA Plan, March 2022; Solano County, 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Plan – Public Review Draft, September 202, City of Fairfield, 2022
As shown in Table 2-4, vacant and underutilized sites in in specific plan areas and other areas can accommodate an additional 1,055 units (569 lower income, and 529 moderate income units), leaving a remaining shortfall of -204 lower income units. The remaining lower income units, plus sites to be used as recommended “buffer” in accordance with No Net Loss Law, will be accommodated on sites that the City is proposing to rezone and provide compatible land use designations as part of this Proposed Project. These sites are shown in Table 2-4.

Table 2-4: Strategies to Accommodate RHNA, 2031-2031 Housing Element Very Low/LowIncome
Moderate-Income
Above-Moderate
Income Total
RHNA 1,256 539 1,274 3,069
Total Credits 528 154 1,864 2,546
A. Surplus (+)/ Shortfall (-) -728 -385 +590 -523
Specific Plan Sites 335 303 - 651
Vacant 219 303 522
Non-Vacant 129 129
Other Opportunity Sites 189 226 42

Page 695 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
2-7
Housing Action Plan
The Housing Element includes a Housing Action Plan, a required component under State law that outlines the specific programs and actions the City will undertake to achieve its housing goals and meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The Housing Action Plan serves as a roadmap for implementing the City’s housing strategies, ensuring timely progress toward RHNA targets and continued compliance with State housing requirements. The Housing Element includes five overall goals to support these objectives, along with 36 policies, 11 programs, and 34 specific actions. Many of these actions require updates to the Zoning Code to ensure consistency with State housing law and to facilitate housing production at all income levels. For efficiency, a number of these updates have been consolidated into the first phase of Zoning Code amendments, which include revisions that are specifically detailed in Housing Element implementation actions and/or mandated by State law.

FAIRFIELD FORWARD 2050
General Plan Update
In December 2024, the City of Fairfield completed a comprehensive General Plan Update. The General Plan serves as the City’s comprehensive long-range policy document that will guide growth, development, and resource conservation through the year 2050. The update fulfills the requirements for all State-mandated General Plan elements, including Land Use, Circulation, Open Space, Conservation, Safety, Noise, and Environmental Justice, and also includes optional elements for Economic Development, Public Services, Sustainability, and Travis Air Force Base (TAFB) Table 2-4: Strategies to Accommodate RHNA, 2031-2031 Housing Element Vacant 168 226 - 403
Non-Vacant 22 - - 22
Total Capacity 569 529 - 1,055
B. Surplus (+)/ Shortfall (-) -204 +144 +590 +532
RHNA 5 Site Rezone1 143 0 0 143
Other Rezone 1 35 0 0 35
AFFH Rezone 271 0 0 271
Rezone Total +449 0 0 -
C. Surplus (+)/ Shortfall (-) +245 +144 +590 -
GRAND TOTAL (% of RHNA) 1,514 (121%) 683 (127%) 1,864 (146%) 4,048 1: RHNA 5 and “Other Rezone” sites allow for 100 percent residential uses and comprise 87 percent of the shortfall.

Page 696 of 968 ends

5-2-8
Protection. The Housing Element is maintained under a separate schedule to remain consistent with the State’s statutory update cycle.

The General Plan focuses future development and redevelopment primarily within key areas of the city. These include eight infill focus areas within city limits and three growth focus areas where annexation may be considered to support housing and economic goals. Outside these areas, the existing land use pattern is largely preserved, with limited infill expected on vacant and underutilized parcels. In areas where existing land use designations are retained, the General Plan provides additional policy direction, such as improving connections between the Train Station Specific Plan area and surrounding neighborhoods and studying environmental and biological constraints near Cement Hill Road and Peabody Road to inform development potential.

The General Plan incorporates updated policies and land use designations to comply with recent State requirements related to environmental justice, wildfire risk, flooding, and climate adaptation.

It promotes a balanced and sustainable approach to growth through continued implementation of the Urban Limit Line and greenbelts, with targeted infill development in areas such as the Heart of Fairfield and Train Station Specific Plan areas.

Climate Action Plan
Adopted in December 2024, the Fairfield Climate Action Plan (CAP) is a comprehensive plan that outlines strategies to reduce communitywide greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and support State climate goals. Developed in coordination with the Fairfield Forward 2050 General Plan, the CAP aligns with the City’s land use and transportation strategy and serves as a Qualified GHG Reduction Strategy under CEQA, allowing for streamlined environmental review of future projects that demonstrate consistency with the General Plan and CAP.

The CAP establishes targets to reduce Fairfield’s GHG emissions by over 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, consistent with State law, and demonstrates progress toward achieving carbon neutrality by 2045. It includes sector-specific measures such as promoting building electrification, expanding electric vehicle infrastructure, supporting active and public transportation, reducing organic waste, conserving water, and enhancing local carbon sequestration. Ongoing monitoring and reporting will ensure continued progress toward meeting the City’s adopted climate goals.

Environmental Impact Report
In 2021, the City determined that the Fairfield Forward 2050 project required the preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report (Program EIR) in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Program EIR (SCH#: 2021080289) addressed all required topic areas including aesthetics, biological resources, transportation/traffic, natural hazards (including geological, hydrological, and fire hazards), agricultural resources, tribal resources, mineral resources, public services and utilities, population/housing, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. The EIR was certified on December 3, 2024. The Final and Draft EIR are available at https://www.fairfield.ca.gov/government/city-departments/community-development/planningdivision/general-plan/general-plan-documents.

Page 697 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
2-9

ZONING DESIGNATION
As indicated in Table 2-5, current parcel zoning includes Community Commercial (CC), Commercial Office (CO), Industrial Business Park (IBP), and Residential High (RH). These parcels are proposed to be rezoned to Commercial Mixed (CM) or Residential Very High (RVH).

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION
As indicated in Table 2-5, parcels have a current General Plan Land Use designation of Community Commercial, Residential High, or Residential Very High. Those parcels in Table 2-4 that are not already Community Commercial or Residential Very High are proposed to be redesignated as these uses in the General Plan Land Use Element.

Page 698 of 968 ends

5-2-10
Site
#
Site Address/
Intersection
Assessor Parcel
Number
Size
(Acres)
Existing
Zoning
Proposed
Zoning
Existing GP Land
Use Designation
Proposed GP Land
Use Designation
1 Travis Blvd
and Oliver Rd 0152280140 0.8 CC CM Comm
Community -
2 Westamerica
Dr and Suisun
Valley Rd
0027370280 2.5 CO CM Res High Comm
Community
3 Mangels Rd
and Suisun
Valley Rd
0027370300 3.5 CO CM Res High Comm
Community
4 Campus Ln
and Suisun
Valley Rd
0027360070 3.1 IBP RVH Res Very High -
5 E Tabor Rd
and Railroad
Ave
0038221010 1.5 RH RVH Res High Res Very High
6 Heath Dr and
Peach Tree Dr 0034050320 1.6 RH RVH Res High Res Very High 7 1351 E Tabor
Ave 0037010120 5.0 RH RVH Res High Res Very High
Source: City of Fairfield, 2023; Dyett & Bhatia, 2025

EXISTING SETTING
Fairfield is a diverse community of approximately 120,340 residents as of 2024.1 Its surrounding natural and agricultural landscapes provide a distinctly different character from other nearby cities and the Bay Area. Hilly terrain borders the city to the north and northwest, culminating in the area’s two mountain landmarks: Twin Sisters (to the west) and Cement Hill (to the northeast).

South of the central city is the Suisun Marsh, the continental United States’ largest brackish marsh, which has been largely preserved as open space for wildlife habitat. Active vineyards and orchards are concentrated in Green Valley and Suisun Valley immediately west of the city (north of the Cordelia neighborhood). Hillsides north of the city are preserved as open space and used for grazing by long term ranching families. The areas north and east of TAFB are also characterized by grazing, as well as unique “vernal pool” seasonal wetlands that provide habitat for a variety of rare plant and animal species. There are also several creeks running through or bordering Fairfield, including Green Valley Creek in Middle Green Valley, American Canyon Creek in Cordelia Villages, Ledgewood Creek bordering Suisun Valley, and Laurel Creek in eastern Fairfield.

All but one of the Proposed Project sites are vacant, with the exception of Site #1, where a drivethrough commercial establishment exists. All sites are within established neighborhoods, surrounded by existing residential or commercial development. 1 California Department of Finance, Table 2: E-5 City/County Population and Housing Estimates.

Table 2-5: Housing Element Rezoning and General Plan Amendment Sites

Page 699 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
2-11

2.6 Project Description

PROJECT COMPONENTS
The Proposed Project includes three components, described below. Only the General Plan amendments are subject to CEQA analysis; the other components are provided for informational purposes only.

Zoning Map and Ordinance Amendments
Amendments are shown in Figure 2-2 and include:
• Rezone of two parcels from Office Commercial (CO) to Mixed Commercial (CM) (APNs 0027370280; 0027370300)
• Rezone of one parcel from Community Commercial (CC) to Mixed Commercial (CM) (APN 0152280140)
• Rezone of one parcel from Industrial Business Park (IBP) to Residential Very High (RVH) (APN 0027360070)
• Rezone of three parcels from Residential High (RH) to Residential Very High (APNs 0038221010; 0034050320; 0037010120)
Rezoning actions that implement Housing Element Actions have been deemed categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 21080.085. (a) of the Public Resources Code, in accordance with Senate Bill 131 (2025). As such, descriptions are provided for informational purposes only, and they are not analyzed further in Section 3, Environmental Analysis.

To implement the General Plan and Housing Element policies, State law requires that the City review and update the Zoning Code to ensure that its review processes and requirements are compatible with the objectives, policies, and programs specified in the General Plan and in conformance with State Law. The Proposed Project includes Zoning Code amendments that would amend certain sections of the Zoning Code to align zoning with the General Plan and Housing Element by updating densities, add incentives and streamlined review for infill and affordable housing, reducing development barriers, establish by-right approval for qualifying projects, and incorporate standards for efficiency, special-needs, and farmworker housing to ensure state law compliance and support a wider range of housing options. Amendments and associated programs are described below:
• Updates zoning densities to align with the General Plan land use designations to ensure consistency between policy and zoning.
• Adds incentives for qualifying small-lot housing projects, including expedited review, reduced parking, and fee waivers, to encourage infill and affordable housing on underutilized parcels (implements Action 2.3 – Small Lot Consolidation Incentives).

Page 700 of 968 ends

5-2-12
• Establishes ministerial review for projects using objective design standards to ensure state law compliance and clarify entitlement findings (implements Action 2.4 – Streamlining of Housing Permits).
• Creates provisions for small-lot developments in multifamily zones with objective design standards to facilitate infill housing (implements Small Home Lot Developments). • Reduces minimum lot sizes and aligns zoning with small-lot provisions to remove barriers to infill development (implements Action 2.5 – Citywide Densities, Zoning, and Circulation).
• Rezones Housing Element sites, establishes minimum densities, and allows by-right approval for qualifying lower-income projects to meet RHNA requirements (implements Actions 6.1 & 6.2 – Rezoning and By-Right Housing).
• Defines efficiency units and allows by-right development in medium-to-high density and mixed-use zones to support smaller, lower-cost housing options (implements Action 6.3 – Efficiency Units).
• Clarifies that small residential care facilities (six or fewer residents) do not require special parking to align with state law (implements Action 7.2 – Housing for Persons with Disabilities).
• Adds standards and definitions for farmworker housing, allowing small facilities by right to comply with state law (implements Action 7.6 – Farmworker Housing). • Establishes standards for low-barrier navigation centers, emergency and transitional housing, supportive housing, and residential care facilities to expand housing options for special-needs populations (implements Action 8.2 – Homeless and Special Needs Housing).

As indicated above, zoning amendments that implement Housing Element Actions (including rezoning) are also exempt from CEQA because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of these provisions would have a significant adverse effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15061(b)(3)). These zoning amendments primarily modify organizational or administrative activities that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment (Public Resources Code section 21065; CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code of Regs. Section 15378). As such, descriptions are provided for informational purposes only, and they are not analyzed further in Section 3, Environmental Analysis.

General Plan Amendments
The Proposed Project includes a General Plan Land Use Plan amendment to redesignate five parcels for consistency with the rezoning changes, as shown in Table 2-4 and Figure 2-2. • Redesignation of two parcels from High Density Residential to Community Commercial (APNs 0027370280; 0027370300)
• Redesignation of three parcels from High Density Residential to Very High Density Residential (APNs 0038221010; 0034050320; 0037010120)

Page 701 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
2-13
General Plan Amendments constitute a project under CEQA and are analyzed in Section 3:

Environmental Analysis.

PROJECTED BUILDOUT OF GENERAL PLAN
The Fairfield Forward 2050 General Plan was adopted in 2024 and evaluated for environmental impacts through its accompanying Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The General Plan EIR analyzed full buildout consistent with adopted land use policies and included growth projections that accounted for potential housing development on sites requiring rezoning to meet future housing and land use needs.

The EIR buildout assumptions represent a comprehensive estimate of residential, commercial, and mixed-use growth through 2050, including infill development within existing city limits and potential development in designated growth areas. Buildout also incorporates growth anticipated in the Housing Element and in pipeline projects. Total buildout is summarized in Table 2-6.

Because the EIR analysis incorporated housing anticipated on rezoning sites, growth on Proposed Project sites is consistent with the General Plan’s land use designations and policies are considered within the analyzed buildout capacity. General Plan amendments are only proposed for consistency with zoning amendments. As such, housing developed through rezoning actions and General Plan amendments for consistency would remain consistent with the growth assumptions evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not exceed the total buildout projected through 2050.

2.7 Required Approvals
The project will require the following approvals:
• Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Changes (ZC) No. ZC2025-0006 • General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. GPA2025-0003

2.8 Other Public Agency Whose Approval is Required
None.

Page 702 of 968 ends

Page 703 of 968 ends

2-1
Existing Pipeline/Planned Development Proposed Project
Residential (units) Pipeline1
Specific
Plans2
Housing
Element3 ADUs
Additional
Development4
Net
Development
(Additional
plus Pipeline/
Planned) Buildout, 2050
Single Family 29,840 990 1,850 20 140 1,950 4,9504,95
0 34,800
Multifamily 12,560 2,110 3,970 790 1,680 8,5408,54
0 21,110
TOTAL 42,400 3,100 5,820 810 140 3,630 13,500 55,900
Population 120,340 - - - - - 33,3505 153,690
Nonresidential (sq ft)6
Retail 5,801,860 113,000 70,000 - - 974,610 1,157,610 6,959,480 Office 2,705,520 23,000 70,000 - - 1,443,000 1,536,000 4,241,510 Industrial 15,595,780 1,311,000 1,000,000 4,780,130 7,091,130 22,686,900 TOTAL 24,103,160 1,447,000 1,140,000 - - 7,197,730 9,784,730 33,887,890 Notes:

Estimates are rounded to the nearest ten. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

1. ” Pipeline” refers to major development projects that are currently under construction, approved, or under review by the City.

2. Represents development capacity remaining in specific plans.

3. Reflects Housing Element sites not already included in Pipeline and Specific Plan remaining capacity estimations

4. Additional development includes new development on vacant and underutilized opportunity sites as well as redevelopment of existing buildings on these sites.

5. Assumes 5 percent vacancy rate, 2 percent group quarters. 2.4 persons per household assumed for multifamily; 3.1 persons per household assumed for single family, adjusted from 2024 Department of Finance Estimates.

6. Existing nonresidential square footage derived 2021 Existing Conditions, Trends, and Opportunities Analysis.

Table 2-6. Development Summary- Projected Buildout within Urban Limit Line

Page 704 of 968 ends

5-2-2
Source: Department of Finance, 2024; CoStar, 2020; City of Fairfield, 2024; Dyett & Bhatia, 2024

Page 705 of 968 ends

3-1
3 Environmental Analysis
The purpose of the Environmental Checklist is to evaluate each of the environmental resource categories in CEQA Appendix G in terms of any changed condition (e.g., changed circumstances, project changes, or new information of substantial importance) that may result in a changed environmental result (e.g., a new significant impact or substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant effect) (CEQA Guidelines § 15152).

The questions posed in the checklist come from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. A “no” answer does not necessarily mean that there are no potential impacts relative to the environmental category, but that there is no change in the condition or status of the impact since it was analyzed and addressed with mitigation measures in the previous EIR. These environmental categories might be answered with a “no” in the checklist, since the Proposed Project does not introduce changes that would result in a modification to the conclusion of the previous EIR.

EXPLANATION OF CHECKLIST EVALUATION

1. Conclusion in Prior EIR. This column summarizes the conclusion of the previous EIR relative to the environmental issue listed under each topic. Pursuant to Section 21094, subdivision (a) of the Public Resources Code, this column indicates whether the impacts were mitigated or avoided pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 as a result of the prior environmental document. This is a two-part checklist question, which asks whether the impact is potentially significant 1) before mitigation and 2) after mitigation.

2. Mitigation Measures. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(3), this column indicates whether the previous EIR provides mitigation measures to address effects in the related impact category. Any previously adopted mitigation measures will be identified. The response will also address proposed revisions to previously adopted mitigation measures. These mitigation measures will be implemented with the construction of the project, as applicable. If “NA” is indicated, the previous EIR has concluded that the impact either does not occur with this project or is not significant, therefore, no additional mitigation measures are needed.

3. Does the Proposed Project Involve New or More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15152, subd. (f) and 15162, subd. (a)(1), this column indicates whether the changes represented by the revised project will result in new significant environmental impacts not previously identified or mitigated by the previous EIR or whether the changes will result in a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified significant impact.

4. New Circumstances Involving New or More Severe Impacts? Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(2), this column indicates whether there have been substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

Page 706 of 968 ends

5-2

5. New Information Requiring New Analysis or Verification? Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, subd. (a)(3)(A-D), this column indicates whether new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was adopted, shows any of the following:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or ND;
b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

If the additional analysis completed as part of this environmental review were to find that the conclusions of the previous EIR remain the same and no new significant impacts are identified, or identified impacts are not found to be substantially more severe, or additional mitigation is not necessary, then the question would be answered “no” and no additional environmental document would be required.

DISCUSSION AND MITIGATION SECTIONS
The following sections include three components for each environmental checklist question: (1) discussion of each checklist question and any potential impacts to the environment, (2) any mitigation measures required, and (3) a conclusion of the analysis. Each component is further described below:

1. Discussion. A discussion of the elements of the checklist is provided under each environmental category in order to clarify the answers. The discussion provides information about the particular environmental issue, how the project relates to the issue, and the status of any mitigation that may be required or that has already been implemented. Pursuant to Section 21094, subdivision (a) of the Public Resources Code, the discussion indicates whether the prior environmental document examined potential environmental impacts at a sufficient level of detail to enable those effects to be mitigated or avoided by site specific revisions, by the imposition of conditions, or by other means in connection with the approval of the later project. Additionally, pursuant to Section 15152, subdivision (f)(1)-(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion indicates whether a cumulative effect has been adequately addressed in the prior EIR and need not be discussed in detail. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15152, subd. (f)(1).) Where assessing whether there is a new significant cumulative effect, the lead agency shall consider whether the incremental effects of the project would be considerable when viewed in the context of past, present, and probable future projects. At this point, the question is not whether there is a significant cumulative impact, but whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15152, subd. (f)(2).)

Page 707 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-3

2. Applicable Mitigation Measures. Applicable mitigation measures from the previous EIR that apply to the Proposed Project are listed under each environmental category.

3. Conclusions. A discussion of the conclusion relating to the analysis is contained in each section.

ENVIRONMENTAL TOPICS
The following topics are evaluated in accordance with current CEQA Guidelines:
• Aesthetics, Light, and Glare
• Agricultural Resources
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
• Geology, Seismicity, and Soils
• Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Noise
• Population and Housing
• Public Services and Recreation
• Transportation
• Utilities and Service Systems
• Wildfire
• CEQA Required Conclusions

Page 708 of 968 ends

5-4

3.1 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Have a substantial
adverse effect on a
scenic vista;
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
MM-AE-1 No No No
b. Substantially damage
scenic resources,
including, but not
limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, and
historic buildings within
a state scenic highway;
No Impact None No No No
c. In a non-urbanized
area, substantially
degrade the existing
visual character or
quality of public views
of the site and its
surroundings, or in an
urbanized area, conflict
with applicable zoning
and other regulations
governing scenic
quality
Less than
Significant None No No No
d. Create a new source of
substantial light or
glare that would
adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the
area
Less than
Significant None No No No

Page 709 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-5

DISCUSSION
a) Scenic Vistas
The Planning Area contains numerous scenic vistas and roadways identified in the City’s Scenic Vistas and Roadways Plan (SVRP, 1999), including the Suisun Marsh, Green Valley, and Suisun Valley areas. Development under the 2024 General Plan would occur within or adjacent to several Scenic View Areas (SVAs) and designated scenic roadways, potentially affecting visual resources.

However, the General Plan Update includes policies requiring new development to comply with the SVRP’s design standards, minimize grading and visual intrusion, and maintain significant views. Policies guiding the Cordelia, Nelson Hill, and Hale Ranch growth areas establish master planning, clustering, hillside protection, and buffering standards that reduce visual impacts.

Although the Hale Ranch employment uses may conflict with SVRP guidance favoring agricultural and residential character, Mitigation Measure MM-AE-1 ensures consistency by updating scenic resource policies to reflect current conditions. With implementation of these policies and mitigation, the General Plan Update would minimize impacts on scenic vistas and roadways, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.

An adverse effect would occur if implementation of the 2024 General Planwould block or otherwise damage a scenic vista in the Planning Area, as defined above. The component of the Proposed Project subject to CEQA analysis include land use designation changes to five of the seven sites subject to rezoning. These areas were analyzed for development in the 2024 GP EIR; none of these sites are located within an SVA. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the General Plan development capacity as analyzed in the General Plan EIR. As discussed in the previous EIR, future development facilitated by the Proposed Project would be required to comply with General Plan policies that are intended to reduce the impacts related to scenic vistas. Therefore, impacts to scenic vistas under the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.
b) Scenic Resources
The General Plan EIR found that there are no scenic highways in or within close proximity to the City. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that impacts to scenic resources within view from a state scenic highway would not occur.

There are no officially designated scenic highways in or within close proximity the City. State Route 2 (SR-2) is the nearest designated state scenic highway to the City and is located in the San Gabriel Mountains about 17 miles north of the City (Caltrans, 2010). Therefore, the 2024 General Plan would similarly have no impacts to scenic resources within view from a state scenic highway.

Page 710 of 968 ends

5-6
c) Visual Character
The City of Fairfield is considered an urbanized area under CEQA, though parts of the Planning Area, including the areas outside of City limits, including west of Cordelia, Nelson Hill, and Hale Ranch growth areas, remain non-urbanized. Within city limits, most development under the General Plan Update would occur as infill or redevelopment, replacing older commercial areas with mixed-use and multifamily projects that are compatible with the city’s existing character. Revised zoning and design standards would regulate height, bulk, and site design to maintain visual quality, while policies emphasize compatibility and context sensitivity. In non-urbanized areas, proposed development would be guided by policies requiring clustering, limited grading, protection of natural features, and compliance with the Scenic Vistas and Roadways Plan to preserve views of ridgelines, agricultural lands, and open space. With these policies and continued implementation of zoning and design requirements, new development would not conflict with scenic quality regulations or degrade public views, resulting in a less than significant impact.

Based on the CEQA guidelines, in urbanized areas such as the Project Area, significant impacts related to conflicts with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality would result if the 2024 General Plan was inconsistent with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. All the sites where land use designation changes are proposed are infill sites that qualify as urbanized areas. Future projects would be developed consistent with the design and development requirements of the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The size and scale of the proposed buildings would be consistent with existing development in the surrounding area.

The overall appearance of new buildings within the project area would be consistent with the scale and size allowed under the General Plan and with applicable specific plans and zoning requirements. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and would have less than significant impacts with implementation of applicable General Plan policies.

There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.
d) Light and Glare
The 2024 General Plan EIR finds that new development anticipated under the Plan would introduce additional sources of light and glare, primarily from new buildings, parking areas, and signage.

However, because most future growth would occur as infill within existing urbanized areas that already experience lighting, these increases would not substantially alter overall nighttime conditions. Limited new lighting may occur in planned growth areas such as western Cordelia and Nelson Hill, as well as in the Enhanced Use Lease Area, but such effects would be reduced through compliance with City regulations. The Fairfield Zoning Code requires outdoor lighting to be shielded and directed away from adjacent properties, and major projects must prepare lighting and photometric plans to prevent excessive illumination. Policies in the 2050 General Plan further

Page 711 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-7 emphasize minimizing glare and ensuring visual compatibility with surrounding uses. With adherence to these standards and policies, the EIR concludes that potential impacts related to light and glare would be less than significant.

All the sites where land use designation changes are proposed are infill sites. As with most residential uses, homes emit light and glare during the day and evening hours. Development under the Proposed Project would include indoor and outdoor lighting for safety purposes but would generally not be out of character with existing urban environment. All future development would be required to comply with requirements in the Zoning Code and policies in the General Plan. As such, the Proposed Project would not result in a significant impact related to substantial light or glare.

There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.
e) Cumulative Impacts
Policies in the General Plan protect scenic resources by applying the Hillside Overlay District to growth areas defined in the SVRP, require site designs that avoid steeper slopes and ridgelines, and include buffers to visually separate development from agricultural lands. Thus, Proposed General Plan policies are consistent with regulations governing scenic quality and would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact. Further, implementation of the Proposed Project in combination with other development in the vicinity would introduce new sources of light within the cumulative geographic context, including light spillover from buildings, outdoor security lights, lighted signs, streetlights, and vehicle headlights, in addition to glare produced by reflective surfaces and unshielded equipment. Development that could occur through implementation of the Proposed Project is required to comply with existing City regulations and General Plan policies that would ensure that cumulative impacts associated with increased light and glare would be less than significant. As such, development under the Proposed Project would be consistent with applicable policies and standards for new development as well as regulations governing scenic quality in the urbanized area, including the City Code and General Plan. Impacts from the Proposed Project, in conjunction with other plans and projects in the region, that could conflict with existing zoning or other regulations which govern scenic quality are not cumulative in nature. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce any new cumulative environmental impacts or create more severe cumulative impacts than those analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
None.

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to aesthetics. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

Page 712 of 968 ends

5-8

3.2 Agriculture and Soil Resources
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project
Involve New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
a. Convert Prime
Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide
Importance
(Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared
pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring
Program (FMMP) of
the California
Department of
Conservation, to nonagricultural use;
Significant
and
Unavoidable
None No No No
b. Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson
Act contract; or
Significant
and
Unavoidable
None No No No
c. Involve other changes
in the existing
environment which,
due to their location
or nature, could result
in conversion of
Farmland to nonagricultural use. Less Than
Significant None No No No

Page 713 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-9

DISCUSSION
a) Convert Farmland (FMMP)
The 2024 General Plan EIR finds that implementation of the Plan would result in the conversion of approximately 185 acres of Prime Farmland within the Hale Ranch Study Area to non-agricultural uses, constituting a significant and unavoidable impact. Agricultural lands make up about 5 percent of the Planning Area, primarily grazing land with some areas of irrigated farmland near Nelson Hill and Suisun Valley. The Plan introduces new urban land use designations in limited areas currently used for agriculture. Although the General Plan includes policies that promote compact growth, preserve agricultural buffers, support right-to-farm principles, and encourage compatible agricultural and food-related industries at Hale Ranch, these measures would not fully offset the permanent loss of Prime Farmland. Because farmland is a finite resource and no feasible mitigation would avoid conversion while still meeting the Plan’s growth objectives, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable.

None of the sites proposed for land use designation changes are located in areas classified as Prime Farmland. As such, the Proposed Project would not convert Prime Farmland to non-agricultural use. As such, the Proposed Project would not introduce environmental impacts related to the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural land uses or create more severe impacts than those analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. b) Williamson Act
The 2024 General Plan EIR finds that General Plan implementation could conflict with parcels under active Williamson Act contracts, which protect agricultural land. Five parcels in Fairfield’s sphere of influence overlap with proposed low- to medium-density residential development in the new Cordelia neighborhood. These parcels are currently zoned for exclusive agricultural use under Solano County regulations but are designated for non-agricultural uses in the existing General Plan.

Future development under the General Plan would be incompatible with agricultural uses and would conflict with Williamson Act Uniform Rule requirements. While some open space, parks, and potential school sites are incorporated to reflect topography and community needs, up to 497 acres of land under Williamson Act contracts could be affected. Because farmland is a finite and irreplaceable resource and no feasible mitigation exists that would allow development while preserving these contracts, the EIR concludes that the impact is significant and unavoidable.

None of the sites proposed for land use designation changes as part of the Proposed Project are located in areas under Williamson Act contract. The Proposed Project would not introduce environmental impacts that would conflict with existing agriculture zoning or a Williamson Act Contract or create more severe impacts than those analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.
c) Indirect Farmland Conversion
The 2024 General Plan EIR finds that urban development under the General Plan has the potential to indirectly impact agricultural lands by creating pressures that could lead to conversion, such as subdivision of large tracts, incompatible adjacent uses, increased land values, and competition for water resources. However, existing regulations and policies, including the California Right to Farm

Page 714 of 968 ends

5-10
Act, Solano County Right-to-Farm Ordinance, LAFCO standards, and the City’s AG zoning district, help protect agricultural operations and limit incompatible uses. The General Plan includes policies promoting infill development, buffering, right-to-farm protections, and collaboration with Solano County to preserve agricultural lands and open space, while directing new growth toward appropriate areas like the Hale Ranch Study Area for compatible industrial and food-processing uses. The EIR concludes that, with adherence to existing policies and regulations, development under the 2050 General Plan would not create substantial pressure on agricultural lands, and any indirect impacts would be less than significant.

None of the sites proposed for land use designation changes as part of the Proposed Project are located within or near lands designated for agricultural use. As such, the Proposed Project would not indirectly result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use; therefore, this impact is less than significant. As such, the Proposed Project does not propose any substantial changes compared to what was already analyzed in the previous EIR.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce any new environmental impacts or create more severe impacts than those analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. d) Cumulative Impacts
The 2024 General Plan EIR finds that, consistent with statewide and countywide trends, the cumulative loss of agricultural land in Solano County is significant due to ongoing conversion of farmland to urban uses. Implementation of the 2050 General Plan would contribute to this trend, resulting in the loss of approximately 185 acres of Prime Farmland in the Hale Ranch Study Area.

While the General Plan includes policies aimed at reducing and partially offsetting farmland conversion elsewhere, these measures would not fully mitigate the loss of high-quality agricultural land. Though the Proposed Project does not include any sites on prime farmland or under Williamson Act contract, because regional farmland conversion is influenced by factors beyond the City’s control, cumulative impacts on agricultural resources remain significant and unavoidable.

The Proposed Project occurs on infill sites away from agricultural land. Though there is Prime Farmland and land under Williamson Act contract within the Planning Area; however, implementation of the Proposed Project does not anticipate development on these lands, so there would be no contribution to cumulative impacts related to these impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not introduce any new cumulative environmental impacts or create more severe cumulative impacts than those analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
None.

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to agriculture and soil resources. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

Page 715 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-11

3.3 Air Quality
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
a. Conflict with or
obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality
plan;
Less than
Significant None No No No
b. Result in a
cumulatively
considerable net
increase of criteria
pollutants for which
the Project region is
nonattainment under
an applicable federal
or State ambient air
quality standard;
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
MM-AQ-1
MM-AQ-2
No No No
c. Expose sensitive
receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
MM-AQ-1
MM-AQ-2
MM-AQ-3
M-AQ-4
No No No
d. Create objectionable
odors affecting a
substantial number of
people?
Less than
Significant None No No No

DISCUSSION
a) Air Quality Plan
The 2024 General Plan EIR finds that implementation of the Plan would be consistent with the goals and control measures of the 2017 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. The Plan supports regional air quality objectives by promoting higher-density and infill development, walkable and connected neighborhoods, and multimodal transportation options that reduce vehicle miles traveled and

Page 716 of 968 ends

5-12
greenhouse gas emissions. Policies preserving agricultural and open space lands, expanding tree canopy, and encouraging energy-efficient buildings further support carbon sequestration and energy conservation. As such, the impact is less than significant.

The Proposed Project will be subject to the same General Plan policies and Climate Action Plan programs as the General Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan and would result in a less than significant impact. b) Criteria Pollutants
The 2024 General Plan EIR finds that construction of future development under the Plan could generate short-term emissions of ozone precursors, particulate matter, and other pollutants from equipment, vehicles, dust, and materials. Because the Plan allows for numerous infill and growth projects throughout the Planning Area, combined construction emissions could exceed BAAQMD thresholds, potentially affecting air quality and health. To address this, the Plan requires compliance with City policies protecting sensitive receptors, use of modeling to identify impacts, and mitigation measures including BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures (MM-AQ-1) and project-specific air quality assessments (MM-AQ-2). With these measures, construction impacts would be less than significant. Operationally, the Plan promotes land use and transportation patterns that reduce vehicle miles traveled, support multimodal transportation, and are consistent with the 2017 Clean Air Plan. Projected per capita VMT at buildout would remain below population growth, resulting in less than significant operational air quality impacts.

The Proposed Project includes General Plan land use designation amendments that would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity. Because of this the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. The Proposed Project would also be subject to applicable General Plan policies and mitigation measures intended to reduce criteria pollutant emissions. Therefore, no cumulatively considerable criteria pollutant impact greater than those identified in the General Plan EIR would result from the Proposed Project. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the severity of any impacts identified in the prior EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to operational emissions.
c) Sensitive Receptors
The 2024 General Plan EIR finds that implementation of the Plan could expose sensitive receptors, such as residences, schools, and parks, to toxic air contaminants (TACs) from construction and industrial operations. Construction emissions from heavy-duty equipment and haul trucks could generate diesel particulate matter, posing potential health risks. To address this, Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 require use of BAAQMD Basic Construction Measures, projectspecific air quality assessments, and identification of nearby stationary sources to ensure exposure is minimized. In addition, freeways and high-volume roadways in the Planning Area could affect nearby receptors, including Air Base Pkwy, Beck Ave, Business Center Dr, Cadenasso Dr, Chadbourne Rd, Clay Bank Rd, Dover Ave, East Tabor Ave, Gold Hill Rd, Green Valley Rd, Heath Dr, Hillborn Rd, Lopes Rd, Manuel Campos Pkwy, North Texas St, Oliver Rd, Peabody Rd, Pennsylvania Ave, Pittman Rd, Rancho Solano Pkwy, Red Top Rd, Suisun Valley Rd, Sunset Ave, Travis Blvd, Walters Rd, Waterman Blvd, and West Texas St. Adherence to BAAQMD and CARB overlay zones, along with Mitigation Measure AQ-4 and Policy EJPH-1.2 (required use of

Page 717 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-13 BAAQMD modeling tools and guidance documents to identify and mitigate air quality impacts from proposed development projects, including for projects within 500 feet of a major freeway), would reduce these risks. With these measures in place, construction and operational TAC exposures, including those near major roadways, would be less than significant.

The Proposed Project includes sites proposed for general plan land use redesignation near Business Center Drive, Suisun Valley Road, Oliver Road, and Tabor Avenue, all streets that are identified as high volume roadways that could expose sensitive receptors to air pollutants. Implementation of the Proposed Project could also result in construction-related emissions. However, implementation of the Proposed Project would be subject to applicable General Plan policies and mitigations intended to limit air quality impacts to sensitive receptors. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and would result in a similar less than significant impact as was determined in the General Plan EIR.

There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.
d) Odors
The 2024 General Plan EIR finds that implementation of the Plan could introduce new sources of objectionable odors from commercial and industrial uses, such as food processing, manufacturing, and painting operations. While odors are generally not physically harmful, they can cause nuisance and public complaints, particularly near sensitive receptors like residences, schools, and parks. To minimize these impacts, the Plan includes policies that limit the placement of sensitive receptors near odor-generating uses and require industrial and commercial development to reduce odor emissions. Compliance with BAAQMD Regulation 7, the California Green Building Code, and the General Plan’s policies would ensure that new development avoids creating substantial odor nuisances. As a result, odor impacts under the 2050 General Plan would be less than significant.

Development pursuant to the Proposed Project may involve some land use types associated with odor complaints in Community Commercial designations; however, the Proposed Project does not itself specifically propose any new sources of odors or sensitive receptors. Potential odor impacts are evaluated based on a proximity analysis of common odor sources and existing or reasonably foreseeable receptors. Potential odor emitters during operations would include exhaust from vehicles and fumes from the reapplication of architectural coatings as part of ongoing building maintenance. However, odor impacts would be limited to circulation routes, parking areas, and areas immediately adjacent to recently painted structures. Implementation of the Proposed Project will be required to comply with existing regulations and General Plan polices. Accordingly, impacts would be reduced the maximum extent practicable and would be less than significant, as with the prior EIR.

Page 718 of 968 ends

5-14
e) Cumulative Impacts
By its nature, air quality analyses presented above represents a cumulative analysis, because the effects specific to the Proposed Project cannot reasonably be differentiated from the broader effects of regional growth and development. Thus, analyses for these topics reflect not just growth in the Planning Area, but growth elsewhere in the region as well.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
MM-AQ-1: Implement BAAQMD Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. The City shall require new project development projects to implement the BAAQMD’s Basic Control Mitigation Measures to address fugitive dust emissions that would occur during earthmoving activities associated with project construction. These measures include:
a) All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b) All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
c) All visible mud or dirt track-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.
d) All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e) 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.
f) Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five 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.
g) All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
h) Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

MM-AQ-2: Prepare Project-level Construction Emissions Assessment. The City shall require new development projects to submit a quantitative project-level construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions analysis prior to the start of construction activities that shows project construction activities would not exceed BAAQMD project-level thresholds of significance. The analysis may rely on BAAQMD construction screening criteria to demonstrate that a

Page 719 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-15 detailed assessment of criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant construction emissions is not required for the project. If the project does not satisfy all BAAQMD construction screening criteria, the analysis shall estimate and compare construction criteria air pollutant and toxic air contaminant emissions against the project-level thresholds of significance maintained by BAAQMD and, if emissions are shown to be above BAAQMD thresholds, then the project must implement measures to reduce emissions below BAAQMD thresholds. Mitigation measures to reduce emissions could include, but are not limited to:
a) Watering exposed surfaces at a frequency adequate to maintain a minimum soil moisture content of 12 percent, as verified by moisture probe or lab sampling; b) Suspending excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities when average wind speeds exceed 20 miles per hour;
c) Selection of specific construction equipment (e.g., specialized pieces of equipment with smaller engines or equipment that will be more efficient and reduce engine runtime);
d) Installing wind breaks that have a maximum 50 percent air porosity; e) Restoring disturbed areas with vegetative ground cover as soon as possible; f) Limiting simultaneous ground-disturbing activities in the same area at any one time (e.g., excavation and grading);
g) Scheduling/phasing activities to reduce the amount of disturbed surface area at any one time;
h) Installing wheel washers to wash truck and equipment tires prior to leaving the site;
i) Minimizing idling time of diesel-powered construction equipment to no more than two minutes or the shortest time interval permitted by manufacturer’s specifications and specific working conditions;
j) Requiring equipment to use alternative fuel sources (e.g., electric-powered and liquefied or compressed natural gas), meet cleaner emission standards (e.g., U.S.

EPA Tier IV Final emissions standards for equipment greater than 50- horsepower), and/or utilizing added exhaust devices (e.g., Level 3 Diesel Particular Filter);
k) Requiring that all construction equipment, diesel trucks, and generators be equipped with Best Available Control Technology for emission reductions of NOx and PM;
l) Requiring all contractors use equipment that meets CARB’s most recent certification standard for off-road heavy-duty diesel engines; and m) Applying coatings with a volatile organic compound (VOC) that exceeds the current regulatory requirements set forth in BAAQMD regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings).

MM-AQ-3: Review Air Quality Risks to New Housing Sites. The City shall require new project residential development projects to review and identify, using the

Page 720 of 968 ends

5-16
BAAQMD’s publicly available Stationary Source Screening Map or another standard methodology (e.g., BAAQMD public records request), permitted stationary sources within 1,000 feet of the project that may result in risks and hazards to new receptors. If screening-level information indicates potential stationary source risks and hazards would exceed the BAAQMD’s thresholds, the project applicant shall: 1) incorporate site and building design measures into the project that reduce exposure to pollutants; or 2) conduct refined, site-specific modeling, using the latest information and guidance from the BAAQMD, demonstrating sources risks and hazards would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds for new receptors. Site and building design measures that may reduce potential exposure to pollutants would include, but are not limited to, buffering/increasing the distance between sources and receptors, designing the site to limit exposure to the highest pollutant concentrations, and incorporating enhanced filter systems into heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment.

MM-AQ-4: Exposure to Air Pollution (Toxic Air Contaminants).

Mitigation Measure AQ-4 would apply if the project involves any of the following sensitive land uses:
• Residential uses (new dwelling units, excluding secondary units); or • New or expanded schools, daycare centers, parks, nursing homes, or medical facilities; and
The project is located within 500 feet (or other distance as specified below) or one or more of the following sources of air pollution:
• Freeway;
• Roadway with significant traffic (at least 10,000 vehicles per day); • Railyards or rail lines using diesel locomotives; and The project exceeds the health risk screening criteria after a screening analysis is conducted in accordance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines. If so, the following reduction measures are required. a) Health Risk Reduction Measures
Requirement: The Project applicant shall incorporate appropriate measures into the project design in order to reduce the potential health risk due to exposure of toxic air contaminants. The project applicant shall choose one of the following methods:
i. The project applicant shall retain a qualified air quality consultant to prepare a Health Risk Assessment (HRA) in accordance with California Air Resources Board (CARB) and Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment requirements to determine the health risk of exposure of project residents/occupants/users to air pollutants. The HRA shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. If the HRA concludes that the health risk is at or below acceptable levels, then health risk reduction measures are not required. If the HRA concludes that the health risk exceeds acceptable levels,

Page 721 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-17 health risk reduction measures shall be identified to reduce the health risk to acceptable levels. Identified risk reduction measures shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and be included on the project drawings submitted for the construction-related permit or on other documentation submitted to the City. The approved risk reduction measures shall be implemented during construction and/or operations as applicable. -ORii. The project applicant shall incorporate the following health risk reduction measures into the project. These features shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and be included on the project drawings submitted for the construction-related permit or on other documentation submitted to the City:
a. Installation of air filtration to reduce cancer risks and Particulate Matter (PM) exposure for residents and other sensitive populations in the project that are in close proximity to sources of air pollution.

Air filter devices shall be rated MERV-13 or higher. As part of implementing this measure, an ongoing maintenance plan for the building’s HVAC air filtration system shall be required. b. Where appropriate, install passive electrostatic filtering systems, especially those with low air velocities (i.e., 1 mph). c. Phasing of residential developments when proposed within 500 feet of freeways such that homes nearest the freeway are built last, if feasible.
d. The project shall be designed to locate sensitive receptors as far away as feasible from the source(s) of air pollution. Operable windows, balconies, and building air intakes shall be located as far away from these sources as feasible.
e. Sensitive receptors shall be located on the upper-floors of buildings, if feasible.
f. Planting trees and/or vegetation between sensitive receptors and pollution source, if feasible. Trees that are best suited to trapping PM shall be planted, including one or more of the following: Pine (Pinus nigra var. maritima), Cypress (X Cupressocyparis leylandii), Hybrid poplar (Populus deltoids X trichocarpa), and Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens).
g. Sensitive receptors shall be located as far away from truck activity areas, such as loading docks and delivery areas, as feasible. h. Existing and new diesel generators shall meet CARB’s Tier 4 emission standards, if feasible.
i. Emissions from diesel trucks shall be reduced through implementing the following measures, if feasible:

Page 722 of 968 ends

5-18
i. Installing electrical hook-ups for diesel trucks at loading docks.
ii. Requiring trucks to use Transportation Refrigeration Units (TRUs) that meet Tier 4 emission standards.
iii. Requiring truck-intensive projects to use advanced exhaust technology (e.g., hybrid) or alternative fuels.
iv. Prohibiting trucks from idling for more than two minutes. v. Establishing truck routes to avoid sensitive receptors in the project. A truck route program, along with truck calming, parking, and delivery restrictions, shall be implemented. b) Maintenance of Health Risk Reduction Measures
Requirement: The project applicant shall maintain, repair, and/or replace installed health risk reduction measures, including but not limited to the HVAC system (if applicable), on an ongoing and as-needed basis. Prior to occupancy, the project applicant shall prepare and then distribute to the building manager/operator an operation and maintenance manual for the HVAC system and filter including the maintenance and replacement schedule for the filter.

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to air quality. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

3.4 Biological Resources
Would the project:

Page 723 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-19 Would the project:

Fish and Wildlife
Service;
b. Have a substantial
adverse effect on
riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural
community identified
in local or regional
plans, policies, and
regulations; by the
California Department
of Fish and Game; or by
the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service,
through direct removal,
filling, hydrological
interruption, or other
means;
Less than
Significant
None No No No
c. Have a substantial
adverse effect on
federally protected
wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act
(including, but not
limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct
removal, filling,
hydrological
interruption, or other
means;
Less than
Significant
None No No No

Page 724 of 968 ends

5-20

DISCUSSION
a) Special-Status Species
The 2024 General Plan EIR finds that future growth is concentrated in infill and urbanized areas, with some growth focus areas located within or adjacent to mapped critical habitat for species such as the California red-legged frog, Contra Costa goldfields, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and vernal pool tadpole shrimp. Construction and earthmoving in these areas could potentially harm or disturb special-status species and their habitats. However, the Plan includes policies and actions to minimize impacts, including studies to identify sensitive species and habitats, restoration and protection of wetlands and riparian areas through the Creekside Protection Plan, and adherence to the Draft Solano HCP. Individual development projects would also undergo CEQA review and Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project
Involve New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
d. 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; or
Less than
Significant
None No No No
e. Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, or with the
provisions of an
adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan,
Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or
other approved local,
regional, or state
habitat conservation
plan?
Less than
Significant
None No No No

Page 725 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-21 secure required federal or state permits. With these measures, impacts on candidate, sensitive, or special-status species would be less than significant.

While the five Proposed Project land use redesignation sites largely occur on infill/urbanized sites, the sites are largely vacant and could contain potential habitat for special-status species. Proposed Project includes goals, policies, and actions that would reduce and mitigate potential impacts to special status-species. Implementing Policies LU-19.1, LU-20.9, OSCR-3.1, OSR-3.5, and OSCR4.1 addresses development-related impacts on sensitive special-status species and their habitats, including requirements to conduct studies identifying the presence of special-status species and sensitive habitats at proposed development sites, promoting restoration and establishing mechanisms to protect wetlands and riparian corridors by implementing the City’s Creekside Protection Plan, and following the mitigation guidelines set forth in the draft Solano HCP to ensure no loss of habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special-status species results from development within the Planning Area. Should habitat for special status species be discovered, individual future projects would be required to secure federal and/or state permits via the process outlined in the Draft Solano HCP and would be required to develop appropriate mitigation measures to reduce those impacts to a less-than-significant level. With implementation of the Proposed Project policies, adherence to Article VIII (Creekside Protection Plan) of the Fairfield Municipal Code and the Draft Solano HCP, the impact of future development under the Proposed Project on species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special-status species would be less than significant. b) Sensitive Habitat
The 2024 General Plan EIR finds that the Hale Ranch Study Area and other growth and infill areas occur near sensitive natural communities, including Northern Claypan Vernal Pool and Coastal Brackish Marsh, though no vernal pool core recovery areas are located within or adjacent to the growth or infill focus areas. Development in areas such as Cement Hill, Peabody Study Area, Cordelia Commercial Center, and Linear Park Trail Improvement could affect riparian habitat and other sensitive communities through construction activities like grading and vegetation removal.

However, 2024 General Plan policies require studies of special-status species and sensitive habitats, implementation of site-specific mitigation measures, and adherence to the Fairfield Municipal Code and Solano County conservation goals. With these measures, impacts on riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities would be less than significant.

The five Proposed Project land use redesignation sites largely occur on infill/urbanized sites which do not contain any natural waterways or riparian habitats. As such, the Proposed Project would not propose any substantial changes to construction or operation activities that could have the potential to adversely affect any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on riparian habitat or sensitive natural community. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. c) Wetlands
The 2024 General Plan EIR finds that the Planning Area contains coastal marsh, riparian, stream, freshwater marsh, and vernal pool habitats. Development under the General Plan would be subject to Clean Water Act Section 404 and 401 permitting requirements and state regulations, which limit

Page 726 of 968 ends

5-22
impacts to wetlands and other waters. The 2023 EPA/Corps “Waters of the U.S.” Conforming Rule limits federal jurisdiction to wetlands adjacent to relatively permanent water bodies, though some isolated wetlands may remain under state jurisdiction. General Plan policies require protection of natural habitats, special-status species, and water quality, while Solano County conservation goals preserve wetlands consistent with federal and state law. Future infill and growth-area projects would also be subject to CEQA review and necessary federal and state permits. With these policies and regulatory compliance, impacts on federally protected wetlands would be less than significant.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would focus future development and redevelopment primarily into urbanized areas of the city, limiting the potential for disruption to federally protected wetlands. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Project would generally not result in a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands identified within the Planning Area, and this impact would be less than significant. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. d) Wildlife Corridors
The 2024 General Plan EIR finds that undeveloped areas, agricultural lands, and certain infill focus areas in the Planning Area serve as wildlife corridors for common and special-status species, including the Vacaville-Fairfield Green Belt, which connects the Valley Floor/Jepson Prairie to the Vaca Mountains. While a portion of the new Cordelia neighborhood overlaps with the environmentally significant unit range for mountain lions, existing development and disturbance reduce potential impacts. Future development would be subject to Fairfield Municipal Code protections and Draft Solano HCP conservation goals to preserve wetlands, riparian zones, specialstatus species, and wildlife corridors. Implementing policies require site-specific studies of habitats and species, along with mitigation measures as needed, ensuring that impacts on migratory wildlife, corridors, and nursery sites from buildout under the General Plan would be less than significant.

Development resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project may remove some vegetative habitat on vacant sites that could currently provide cover and could increase the distance that animals would need to traverse. Implementation of the Proposed Project could cause development in the Planning Area that could increase in vehicular traffic levels and nighttime light levels, which would deter wildlife movement in the area. However, while vacant, the five sites where the Proposed Project proposes land use redesignation are located primarily within urbanized neighborhoods, limiting potential for use as a wildlife corridor. As such, due to the relatively concentrated nature of implementation of the Proposed Project, limited amount of potential contiguous vegetative habitat, and compliance with federal and State law, combined with implementation of General Plan policies, potential impacts on wildlife corridors would be reduced to a less than significant level.

There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required.
e) Local Policies or HCPs
The 2024 General Plan EIR concludes that future development would comply with the City of Fairfield’s policies and ordinances protecting biological resources, including the tree conservation ordinance, Creekside Protection Plan, and Draft Solano Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), as well

Page 727 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-23 as the Vernal Pool Recovery Plan and Suisun Marsh Protection Plan. Protected species in the Planning Area are covered under the Draft Solano HCP, which provides a framework for State and federal Incidental Take Permits, allowing agencies to undertake urban growth, infrastructure, and public facility activities while minimizing impacts to special-status species. Although the Draft Solano HCP is not yet adopted, the City is following its mitigation guidelines. Future development, including infill and larger growth focus areas, would be subject to CEQA review and required permits under the HCP. Compliance with General Plan policies, local ordinances, and the Draft Solano HCP would ensure that impacts on local biological resource protections and potential conflicts with habitat conservation plans are less than significant.

The Proposed Project does not conflict in any way with the existing vegetation and wildlife policies described above or any other local ordinance. The Proposed Project will serve to reinforce protections for sensitive habitat and special status species found in the draft Solano HCP through proposed programs and the proposed compact development pattern. As such, this impact is considered less than significant. There is no new information identifying new significant effects and the Proposed Project would not introduce impacts or create more severe impacts than those identified in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. f) Cumulative Impacts
Reasonably foreseeable future development that may occur in and around the Planning Area that could have resultant impacts on biological resources, including the loss of habitat. However, the Proposed Project would not propose any substantial changes to construction or operation activities that could have the potential to conflict with the identified biological resources impacts beyond those analyzed in the previous EIR. Further, development pursuant to the Proposed Project would be required to adhere to applicable policies and ordinances related to the protection of biological resources. Development resulting from the Proposed Project, as well as future development projects that could occur within the Planning Area or in the vicinity of the Planning Area, would be subject to the requirements of biological resource protection laws, including Federal Endangered Species Act, California Endangered Species Act, and the California Fish and Game Code, as well as protection policies and provisions in the City’s General Plan and City Code. With compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, the Proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative biological resources impacts would be less than cumulatively considerable. Given that the Proposed Project would not introduce new cumulative impacts or create more severe cumulative impacts than those identified in the previous EIR, no additional analysis is required.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
None.

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to land use and planning. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

Page 728 of 968 ends

5-24

3.5 Cultural and Tribal Resources
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project
Involve New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Cause substantial
changes to the
significance of a
historical resource,
defined as physical
demolition,
destruction, relocation,
or alteration of the
resource or its
immediate
surroundings such that
the significance of a
historic resource would
be materially impaired
(Guidelines Section
15064.5);
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
MM-CUL-1
MM-CUL-2
No No No
b. Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological resource
pursuant to §
15064.5;
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
MM-CUL-3 No No No
c. Disturb any human
remains, including
those interred outside
of formal cemeteries.

Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
MM-CUL-3 No No No
d. Cause an adverse
change in the
significance of a tribal
cultural resource,
defined in Public
Resources Code Section
21074 as either a site,
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
MM-CUL-3 No No No

Page 729 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-25

DISCUSSION
a) Historic Resources
The 2050 General Plan directs future development primarily to eight infill areas within city limits and three growth areas where annexation may occur, while preserving existing land use patterns elsewhere. Historic resources are primarily located in infill areas, as the growth areas in western Cordelia and Nelson Hill currently lack identified historic resources. Potential impacts in infill areas could include demolition, alteration, or accidental damage to historic structures. A records search and literature review were conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) to identify cultural and historical resources within the Planning Area and surrounding vicinity. This review examined existing survey reports, archaeological site records, and historic maps to determine whether previously documented prehistoric or historic sites, architectural resources, cultural landscapes, or other resources exist. Appendix A lists all historic, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources identified by NWIC. For this purpose, a historic resource is defined as any building, structure, object, archaeological site, or district with physical evidence of human activity over 50 years old. The City and County have policies recognizing the importance of cultural and historic preservation, and project-level CEQA review would evaluate impacts on known or potential historic resources, following Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. 2024 General Plan policies, including LU-9.2, LU-9.4, OSCR-5.2, and OSCR-5.4, provide systematic identification, consultation, inventory, and preservation of historic resources. Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 require evaluation of properties over 50 years old and avoidance or minimization of impacts. With these policies and mitigation, impacts to historic resources under the 2024 General Plan would be less than significant.

None of the five sites proposed for land use redesignation contain any of the historic resources identified in the General Plan EIR. All future development on the sites identified for general plan Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project
Involve New
or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
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

Page 730 of 968 ends

5-26
amendments would be required to perform evaluation on a project-by-project basis and would incorporate mitigation measures, as necessary, to ensure impacts to historical resources are not significant. In addition, all future projects would be subject to General Plan policies intended to preserve important cultural resources in the City. Finally, all future discretionary development projects would be subject to Tribal coordination and consultation requirements of Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and as applicable, Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), which would ensure that significant impacts to Native American historical resources would not occur. Therefore, similar to the General Plan, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on the significance of any historical resources.

Therefore, with compliance of existing regulations, the impact of implementation of the Proposed Project on historical resources would be less than significant. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the severity of any impacts identified in the prior EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to historic resources. b) Archaeological Resources
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the General Plan could potentially disturb previously unknown archaeological resources during grading or other ground-disturbing activities due to the high potential for unrecorded historic and prehistoric sites in the Planning Area. However, compliance with existing state regulations, implementation of Policies OSCR-5.2 and OSCR-5.3 requiring consultation with the Northwest Information Center, archaeological studies by qualified professionals, and mitigation measures such as CUL-3—which provides for worker training and unanticipated discovery procedures—would minimize or avoid impacts.

Therefore, the EIR determined that potential impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant with implementation of these measures.

All future development on the sites identified for general plan amendments are subject to General Plan policies described above and would be required to perform evaluation on a project-by-project basis and would incorporate mitigation measures, as necessary, to ensure impacts to archaeological resources are not significant. Finally, all future discretionary development projects would be subject to Tribal coordination and consultation requirements of Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and, as applicable, Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), which would ensure that significant impacts to Native American archaeological resources would not occur. For these reasons, impacts to archaeological resources from the proposed project would be less than significant. c) Human Remains
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that future development and redevelopment, concentrated in infill and growth focus areas, could potentially disturb human remains during ground-disturbing activities. However, compliance with existing state laws and CEQA protocols, along with Policy OSCR-5.3 and Mitigation Measure CUL-3, which require halting construction, consulting qualified archaeologists, and providing cultural awareness training, would minimize impacts. Therefore, potential impacts on human remains and archaeological resources would be less than significant.

Human remains, particularly those interred outside of formal cemeteries, could be disturbed during grading, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities associated with future development or redevelopment projects allowed under the Proposed Project. No human remains or cemeteries are

Page 731 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-27 known to exist within or near the sites identified under the Proposed Project or the surrounding areas. However, there is always the possibility that subsurface construction activities associated with the Proposed Project, such as trenching and grading, could potentially damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. In the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, implementation of the Proposed Project would be required to act in accordance with Resources Code Section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f); comply with General Plan policies OSCR-5.2 and OSCR-5.3, which require consultation with the Northwest Information Center and archaeological studies by qualified archaeologists in areas of significance; and implement Mitigation Measures CUL-3. These policies ensure that if avoidance of resources is not feasible, site testing and mitigation are implemented, and construction is halted if unexpected cultural resources are discovered, minimizing potential impacts.

At the program level, the impact of implementation of the Proposed Project on human remains would therefore be less than significant with implementation of existing State regulations, General Plan policies, and mitigation measures. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the severity of any impacts identified in the prior EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to human remains or tribal cultural resources. d) Tribal Cultural Resources
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that there is a high potential for unrecorded Native American resources within the Planning Area, particularly near watercourses. The response from the NAHC stated that a search of the Sacred Lands File to identify sacred lands in the Planning Area was positive. Further, according to the NWIC records search, the Planning Area contains 35 recorded Native American archaeological resources. While the exact location of these resources is not public information, consultation with the tribes per SB 18 and AB 52 provides the opportunity for Native American tribes to identify if known resources could be compromised by implementation of the General Plan. Local tribal representatives were sent formal notification under SB 18 and AB 52 on March 22, 2024. While the City has not received any formal requests for consultation, the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation requested projected updates from the City. Future development or redevelopment could indirectly impact these resources through grading, construction vehicle travel, or public access. Tribal consultation under SB 18 and AB 52, along with proposed policies requiring coordination with tribes (OSCR-5.1), consultationwith NWIC (OSCR5.2), and archaeological studies by qualified professionals (OSCR-5.3), would minimize or avoid impacts. Mitigation Measure CUL-3, requiring cultural awareness training and unanticipated discovery protocols, further reduces risks. With these measures, impacts on tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

While the five sites proposed for land use redesignation have not been specifically identified through the NWIC or tribal consultation process as a tribal cultural resource, potential still remains for disturbance of unrecorded Native American resources. All future development proposals on the sites identified for general plan amendments would be required to perform evaluation on a projectby-project basis and would incorporate mitigation measures, to ensure impacts on historical resources are not significant. In addition, all future projects would be subject to General Plan policies intended to preserve important cultural resources in the City. Additionally, all future development projects would be subject to Tribal coordination and consultation requirements of Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and as applicable, Senate Bill 18 (SB 18), which would ensure that

Page 732 of 968 ends

5-28
significant impacts to Native American historical and archaeological resources would not occur.

As such, the impact of implementation of the Proposed Project on tribal cultural resources would therefore be less than significant with implementation of existing State regulations and General Plan policies. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the severity of any impacts identified in the prior EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to human remains or tribal cultural resources.
e) Cumulative Impacts
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that the Planning Area contains numerous historical resources, including approximately 185 recorded buildings and structures, historic districts, and bridges. Additional resources may be identified as buildings over 50 years old are evaluated for significance. Future development and redevelopment would be required to follow City regulations and policies protecting historic resources, and implement Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL2, which ensure assessment and evaluation of potentially significant historic properties. With these measures, Proposed Project-level and cumulative impacts on historical resources would be less than significant.

The EIR also found multiple archaeological sites and areas with high sensitivity for unrecorded cultural resources. Ground-disturbing activities could cumulatively affect archaeological and tribal cultural resources. Compliance with City regulations and policies, along with Mitigation Measure CUL-3 requiring cultural resources awareness training for construction personnel, would reduce impacts to less than significant, and the Proposed Project’s incremental contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

Potential impacts to human remains would be addressed through existing regulations under the Public Resources Code and Health and Safety Code, requiring work to halt and the coroner to be contacted if human remains are discovered. Compliance with these regulations ensures that cumulative impacts related to human remains would be avoided, and the Proposed Project’s incremental contribution less than significant.

Thus, compliance with mitigation measures and General Plan policies, as well as applicable local, State, and federal laws, would ensure that the Proposed Project’s contribution to this impact would not be cumulatively considerable. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the severity of any cumulatively considerable impacts identified in the prior EIR, nor would it result in new cumulatively considerable impacts related to cultural resources.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
MM-CUL-1: Avoidance or Minimization of Effects on Identified Historic Resources. For any individual discretionary project within the Planning Area that the City determines may involve a property that contains a potentially significant historic resource, the resource shall be assessed by a professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards to determine whether the property is a significant historic resource and whether or not the project may have a potentially significant adverse effect on the historic resource. If, based on the recommendation of the qualified professional, the City determines that the project may have a potentially significant effect, the City shall require the applicant to seek to reduce the

Page 733 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-29 effect on historic resource(s) to a less-than-significant level pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15364. Projects that conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are considered to have a less-thansignificant effect on historic architectural resources.

MM-CUL-2: Evaluate Age-Eligible Properties That Have Not Previously Been Evaluated Prior to Development Projects to Identify Historic Resources. As a condition of project approval for a development project proposed on a parcel within the Planning Area that includes a building, structure, or landscape more than 50 years old (typical age threshold applied by the California Office of Historic Preservation) and that has not previously been evaluated for potential historic significance, the City shall require the project applicant shall retain a professional who meets the Secretary of the of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for architectural history or history (as appropriate), to conduct an evaluation of historic significance and eligibility for listing on local, State, or national registers.

The evaluation shall include an Intensive Survey, which is comprised of a field survey, archival research, and preparation of a historic resource evaluation report. The report shall include documentation of methodology and the findings of the historic evaluation, including a determination of historic significance and eligibility for listing on local, State, or national registers. Based on this evaluation, if it is determined that the subject property contains an historic resource, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 shall be implemented.

MM-CUL-3: Conduct Cultural Resources Awareness Training. Prior to the start of any ground disturbance or construction activities, developers of projects within 50 feet of a creek or within 50 feet of recorded archaeological resources or tribal cultural resources in the Planning Area shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist to conduct cultural resource awareness training for construction personnel. This training shall include an overview of what cultural resources are and why they are important, archaeological terms (such as site, feature, deposit), project site history, types of cultural resources likely to be uncovered during excavation, laws that protect cultural resources, and the unanticipated discovery protocol per the PRC Section 21083.

CONCLUSION
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the General Plan EIR, implementation of the Proposed Projectshould not increase the impacts identified, or result in new significant impacts, pertaining to cultural and tribal cultural resources. Adherence to existing policies and regulations and ordinances related to protection of tribal and cultural resources would result in a less than significant impact under the Proposed Project.

Page 734 of 968 ends

5-30

3.6 Energy, Climate Change, and Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
a. Generate greenhouse
gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly,
that may have a
significant impact on
the environment
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM-GHG-1 No No No
b. Conflict with an
applicable plan, policy,
or regulation adopted
for the purpose of
reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases
Less Than
Significant None No No No
c. Cause wasteful,
inefficient, and
unnecessary
consumption of
energy during project
construction,
operation, and/or
maintenance
Less Than
Significant None No No No
d. Conflict with or
obstruct a State or
local plan for
renewable energy or
energy efficiency.

Less Than
Significant None No No No

DISCUSSION
a) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that while Fairfield is generally on track to meet near-term greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals for 2030, forecasted emissions for 2050 remain well above the State’s target of 1.0 MTCO₂e per capita needed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The analysis found that transportation, building energy use, and solid waste are the largest sources of

Page 735 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-31 emissions, with transportation remaining the dominant contributor despite expected state-level reductions from cleaner fuels and vehicles. The City’s proposed Climate Action Plan (CAP) includes strategies focused on reducing emissions in these key sectors and commits to ongoing updates to track progress and incorporate measurable reduction measures. Construction-related GHG emissions would be minimized through compliance with CALGreen requirements and Mitigation Measure GHG-1, which mandates use of best management practices and alternativefueled equipment. With implementation of these measures, operational and construction-related GHG impacts would be less than significant.

The Proposed Project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. As such, the Proposed Project would not involve substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR. Implementation of the Proposed Project would be required to comply with policies in the General Plan and programs in the Climate Action Plan. Therefore, GHG impacts from the Proposed Project would not be significant. The project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the General Plan and what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required b) Applicable Plans Related to GHG
The previous EIR concluded that the General Plan and Climate Action Plan would be consistent with policies and plans that encourage energy conservation, energy efficiency, and sustainability, as it would concentrate new development within key areas of the city, improve the jobs-housing ratio, and promote walkable mixed-use neighborhoods, reducing per capita VMT and associated vehicle trips. Further, with implementation of MM-GHG-1, the General Plan and Climate Action Plan would meet both the CAP’s 2030 and 2050 goals which are in line with State targets. As such, the General Plan and Climate Action Plan is expected to meet State GHG targets and will remain largely consistent with plans, policies, and regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

The proposed General Plan Amendments would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. As such, the Proposed Project would not involve substantial changes that require major revisions to the General Plan EIR. Therefore, GHG impacts from the Proposed Project would not be significant. The project would be within the scope of what is permitted by the General Plan and what was evaluated in the General Plan EIR and would not produce new or substantially more severe environmental impacts. As such, no subsequent environmental analysis and no new mitigation are required.
c) Energy Use
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that development accommodated under the Plan would increase overall energy consumption from construction and building operations, as well as from additional vehicle travel. Construction-related energy use would primarily come from fuel needed to operate equipment and vehicles, while operational energy demand would stem from electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel use. However, compliance with CALGreen standards, the City’s Energy Code, and sustainability and transportation policies in the 2050 General Plan would improve energy efficiency, promote infill and transit-oriented development, and reduce vehicle

Page 736 of 968 ends

5-32
miles traveled. These measures would minimize wasteful or inefficient energy use, and overall energy impacts were determined to be less than significant.

The Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR.

Implementation of General Plan policies and Climate Action Plan programs would further reduce project energy use and ensure consistency with California code. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and impacts from energy consumption would be similar to the General Plan EIR, less than significant. d) Applicable Plans Related to Energy Use
The 2024 General Plan EIR found that while implementation of the General Plan would increase overall energy use compared to existing conditions, it would align with and support state and local renewable energy and energy efficiency plans. Development would be required to comply with CALGreen, the State Energy Code, and policies promoting infill, mixed-use, and high-density development, which collectively enhance energy efficiency and reduce per capita consumption.

State programs such as the Advanced Clean Cars regulations, SB 350, and SB 100 would further improve fuel efficiency, promote zero-emission vehicles, and advance the transition to 100 percent renewable energy. Local utilities, including PG&E and MCE, are also progressing toward ambitious renewable energy targets consistent with state goals. As a result, the General Plan would not conflict with or impede renewable energy or energy efficiency plans, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR.

The project would also not interfere with implementation of state or local energy plans. The Proposed Project would be consistent with General Plan policies and Climate Action Plan programs related to energy efficiency and comply with statewide regulations, including 2022 Title 24 building standards. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and would result in a less than significant impact.
e) Cumulative Impacts
By its nature, greenhouse gas and energy analyses presented above represents a cumulative analysis, because the effects specific to the Proposed Project cannot reasonably be differentiated from the broader effects of regional growth and development. Thus, analyses for these topics reflect not just growth in the Planning Area, but growth elsewhere in the region as well.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
MM-GHG-1 Construction Best Management Practices to Minimize GHGs. All applicants within the Planning Area shall require their contractors, as a condition of contract, to reduce construction-related GHG emissions by implementing recommended best management practices, including (but not limited to) the following measures

Page 737 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-33 (based on the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s 2022 CEQA Air Quality Guidelines):
• Ensure alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment make up at least 15 percent of the fleet. • Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to no more than two minutes (A five-minute limit is required by the state airborne toxics control measure [CCR, Title 13, Sections 2449(d)(3) and 2485]). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrances to the site and develop an enforceable mechanism to monitor idling time to ensure compliance with this measure.
• Prohibit off-road diesel-powered equipment from being in the “on” position for more than 10 hours per day.
• Require all construction equipment is maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. Equipment should be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• Where grid power is available, prohibit portable diesel engines and provide electrical hook ups for electric construction tools, such as saws, drills and compressors, and using electric tools whenever feasible. • Recycle or salvage nonhazardous construction and demolition debris, with a goal of recycling at least 15 percent more by weight than the diversion requirement in Title 24.
• Use locally sourced (within 100 miles of the Planning Area) or recycled materials for construction materials (goal of at least 10 percent based on costs for building materials and based on volume for roadway, parking lot, sidewalk and curb materials). Wood products used should be certified through a sustainable forestry program.
• Develop a plan to efficiently use water for adequate dust control since substantial amounts of energy can be consumed during the pumping of water.

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.

The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

Page 738 of 968 ends

5-34

3.7 Geology and Soils
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
a. Expose people or
structures to potential
substantial adverse
effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:

Less than
Significant None No No No
i. Rupture of a
known
earthquake
fault, as
delineated on
the most recent
Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake
Fault Zoning
Map or based
on other
substantial
evidence of a
known fault;
Less than
Significant None No No No
ii. Strong seismic
ground shaking;
Less than
Significant None No No No
iii. Seismic-related
ground failure,
including
liquefaction;
Less than
Significant None No No No
iv. Landslides? Less than
Significant None No No No
b. Result in substantial
soil erosion and
topsoil loss;
Less than
Significant None No No No

Page 739 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-35 Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
c. Locate structures on
expansive soils or 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 and create
substantial risks to life
or property; or
Less than
Significant None No No No
d. Have 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
e. Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological
resource or site or
unique geologic
feature
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
MM-GEO-1
MM-GEO-2
No No No

Page 740 of 968 ends

5-36

DISCUSSION
a) Seismic Hazards
The 2024 General Plan EIR determined that seismic and geologic hazards, including fault rupture, ground shaking, liquefaction, and landslides, would not result in significant impacts with implementation of existing regulations and General Plan policies. The Planning Area contains two active fault zones, the Green Valley and Cordelia faults, as well as areas with moderate liquefaction susceptibility near Suisun Marsh and limited areas of potential landslide risk along the steeper slopes west of Green Valley. New development would comply with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, and the latest California Building Code standards incorporated into the Fairfield and Solano County Codes, ensuring that structures avoid active faults and are designed to withstand seismic events. Site-specific geotechnical studies required for areas with potential seismic or slope instability would identify localized hazards and appropriate mitigation measures. Additional General Plan policies related to slope stability, erosion control, and siting development away from environmental constraints would further minimize risks. As a result, the 2024 General Plan would reduce potential geologic and seismic hazards to the maximum extent practicable, and all related impacts would be less than significant.

The location of each of the five sites proposed for land use redesignation as part of the Proposed Project are not located in an Alquist Priolo zone, or in an area of high liquefaction or landslide susceptibility. However, the greatest seismic hazard to sites in the Proposed Project is the structural danger posed by groundshaking from earthquakes originating at the Cordelia Fault Line, which traverses the Cordelia neighborhood. The potential for these geologic hazards can be addressed through compliance with State regulations (including the California Building Code) and implementation of standard construction practices and should not be considered a high constraint for future development of the identified sites. Compliance with General Plan policies would also further minimize risks. As such, this impact would be less than significant and implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the severity of impacts identified in the prior EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to seismic hazards. b) Soil Erosion
The 2024 General Plan EIR found that potential impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. The Planning Area is mostly flat and underlain by soils with low erosion susceptibility, which reduces the risk of erosion from stormwater runoff. However, grading, vegetation removal, or construction activity could expose soils to wind or water erosion. To prevent this, projects involving ground disturbance must comply with erosion control requirements.

Projects disturbing at least 500 square feet or 50 cubic yards of soil must prepare an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, while those disturbing more than one acre must obtain coverage under the State Construction General Permit and prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan with best management practices for erosion and sediment control. The Fairfield Municipal Code and Solano County Code also require implementation of on-site stormwater management measures to prevent pollutants from entering the stormwater system. In addition, General Plan policies promote site design that reflects local environmental constraints, requires erosion control and rehabilitation plans, and encourages low impact development techniques to minimize runoff and sedimentation.

Page 741 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-37 With adherence to these regulatory requirements and policies, the 2024 General Plan would avoid substantial erosion or loss of topsoil, and related impacts would be less than significant.

As detailed in the prior EIR, most of the Planning Area is underlain by soils have low erosion susceptibility. Further, since the Planning Area is primarily flat, the risk of soil erosion due to water runoff is relatively low. While implementation of the Proposed Project could include construction and development activities that expose soils to the effects of erosion, they would be required to develop Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which specifies Best Management Practices for temporary erosion controls. Such measures typically include temporary catch basins and/or sandbagging to control runoff and contain sediment transport within the project site. The SWPPP is required for plan check and approval by the City’s Building and Safety Department, prior to provision of permits for projects, and would include construction BMPs. With adherence to existing regulations, this potential impact is similar to the impacts analyzed by the General Plan and are less than significant.
c) Unstable Soils / Expansive Soils
The 2024 General Plan EIR determined that risks related to liquefaction, lateral spreading, landslides, expansive soils, and subsidence would be less than significant. Portions of the Planning Area, particularly in central Fairfield and Cordelia near the Suisun Marsh, have moderate susceptibility to liquefaction, which increases the potential for lateral spreading during seismic events. However, most areas have low to moderate liquefaction risk overall. The Planning Area also has a low risk of subsidence, as Fairfield is not identified by the USGS as an area affected by land displacement, and proposed development would not involve groundwater or resource extraction that could cause subsidence. General Plan Policy HS-1.3 requires detailed geological studies and strict engineering standards for projects in unstable soil areas. Compliance with these requirements, along with other applicable state and local regulations, would ensure that geologic hazards under the 2024 General Plan remain less than significant.

Sites within the Proposed Project are generally underlain by soils that are not considered to be expansive. In addition, detailed design-level geotechnical studies and building plans pursuant to the California Building Standards Code would be required prior to approval of construction of any future development under the Proposed Project. Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils are similar to the impacts analyzed by the General Plan and would be less than significant. d) Septic Tanks
A significant impact could occur if new development under the 2024 General Plan were sited in areas with soils incapable of supporting septic systems. However, new development within city limits would be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer system under General Plan Policy PFS-8.4 and Municipal Code requirements, which also govern installation, sizing, and location of sewer mains. Septic systems would not be permitted within city limits. For areas within the Sphere of Influence outside city limits, development would be subject to Solano County Code Chapter 6.4, which sets standards for on-site sewage disposal and requires connection to a public sewer system where available. Compliance with these regulations ensures adequate wastewater service and proper soil evaluation, minimizing potential impacts.

Page 742 of 968 ends

5-38
The Proposed Project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, soils impacts related to underground septic systems would not occur. All sites are within city limits and would be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer system.

Therefore, impacts related to expansive soils are similar to the impacts analyzed by the General Plan and would be less than significant.
e) Paleontological Resources
The Planning Area is underlain primarily by Quaternary-age alluvium, an unstratified mix of sand, silt, clay, and gravel that has yielded scientifically important fossils and is considered highly sensitive for paleontological resources. Ground-disturbing activities associated with the 2024 General Plan, including construction, excavation, grading, and maintenance, could disturb these sensitive geologic units and potentially destroy unique paleontological resources, which would be a significant impact. To mitigate this risk, project applicants would be required to comply with Public Resources Code Section 5097.5, prohibiting the destruction of historic or prehistoric sites, and implement Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2, which provide training for construction staff and establish protocols in the event of a paleontological discovery. Compliance with these measures would reduce impacts to less than significant.

The Proposed Project includes five sites where land use redesignation is proposed. Construction enabled by the Proposed Project would disturb a geologic unit with high paleontological sensitivity and accordingly has potential to destroy unique paleontological resources. However, the Proposed Project will be required to comply with Public Resources Code Section 5097.5 and mitigation measures described above. Therefore, impacts related to impacts to paleontological resources are similar to the impacts analyzed by the General Plan and would be less than significant. f) Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity are generally localized and would not extend far beyond the Planning Area. While buildout under the Proposed Project would increase the number of residents and employees exposed to seismic hazards or expansive soils, adherence to the California Building Code and relevant General Plan policies would maintain building integrity and reduce geohazard risks to less-than-significant levels. Soil erosion or topsoil loss could occur during construction, but compliance with erosion control plans, permits, codes, and Project policies would prevent substantial impacts, making the Project’s contribution to cumulative erosion impacts not significant. The Planning Area’s geologic units are highly sensitive for paleontological resources, and future ground-disturbing activities could affect unknown fossils.

However, implementation of Project policies, applicable laws, and mitigation measures would ensure that the Project’s contribution to cumulative paleontological impacts is not cumulatively considerable. The Proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more adverse cumulative impacts than identified in the prior EIR.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
Worker Awareness Training. Prior to commencing construction, and ongoing throughout ground-disturbing activities (e.g., excavation, utility installation), the applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area and/or their designee shall ensure that all project construction workers are trained on the contents of a

Page 743 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-39 paleontological resources alert sheet, as provided by the Fairfield Building Safety Division. The paleontological resources alert sheet shall be prominently displayed at the construction site during ground-disturbing activities for reference regarding potential paleontological resources. In addition, the project applicant shall inform the contractor and construction personnel of the immediate stop work procedures and other procedures to be followed if bones or other potential fossils are unearthed at the project site. Should new workers who will be involved in grounddisturbing construction activities begin employment after the initial training has occurred, the construction supervisor shall ensure that they receive the worker awareness training as described above.

The applicant shall complete a standard form/affidavit confirming the timing of the worker awareness training to the City. The affidavit shall confirm the project’s location, the date of training, the location of the informational handout display, and the number of participants. The affidavit shall be transmitted to the City within five business days of conducting the training.

MM GEO-2: Halt Construction, Maintenance, or Landscaping Activity in Case of Finding Paleontological Resources, Evaluate Find, and Excavate Find. In the event that previously unidentified paleontological resources are uncovered during site preparation, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activity, applicants proposing development of projects within the Planning Area shall cease all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery or ensure that all such activity within 25 feet of the discovery ceases until the resources have been evaluated by a qualified professional and specific measures can be implemented to protect these resources in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.5. If the qualified paleontologist determines the find is potentially significant, the project applicant shall ensure a qualified paleontologist shall excavate the find in compliance with state law, document the find, and arrange for curation at a depository, keeping project delays to a minimum. If the qualified paleontologist determines the find is not significant, then the project will continue without delay.

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
a. Create a significant
hazard to the public
or the environment
through the routine
transport, use, or
Less than
Significant None No No No

Page 744 of 968 ends

5-40
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
disposal of hazardous
materials;
b. Create a significant
hazard to the public
or the environment
through reasonably
foreseeable upset and
accident conditions
involving the release
of hazardous
materials into the
environment;
Less than
Significant None No No No
c. Emit hazardous
emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste
within one-quarter
mile of an existing or
proposed school;
Less than
Significant None No No No
d. Allow development
on a site which is
included on a list of
hazardous materials
sites compiled
pursuant to
Government Code
Section 65962.5 and,
as a result, create a
significant hazard to
the public or the
environment;
Less than
Significant None No No No
e. Be located within an
airport land use plan
or, where such a plan
has not been

Page 745 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-41 Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
adopted, within two
miles of a public
airport or public uses
airport, and would
result in a safety
hazard or excessive
noise for people
residing or working in
the project area;
f. Impair
implementation of or
physically interfere
with an adopted
emergency response
plan or emergency
evacuation plan; or
Less than
Significant None No No No
g. Expose people or
structures to a
significant risk of loss,
injury or death
involving wildland
fires
Less than
Significant None No No No

DISCUSSION
a) Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the 2024 General Plan could involve the routine use, transport, and disposal of common hazardous materials during construction and future industrial, manufacturing, or research and development operations. Potential impacts from spills, releases, or improper handling would be minimized through compliance with federal, state, and local regulations, including RCRA, Cal OSHA, USDOT, CUPA requirements, and the NPDES Construction General Permit, as well as proper training and emergency response procedures.

Existing regulatory oversight and 2024 General Plan policies HS-5.4 and HS-5.5 would further reduce risk by requiring environmental review, risk assessments for uses near sensitive populations,

Page 746 of 968 ends

5-42
and updates to emergency response plans. Compliance with these regulations and policies would ensure that potential hazards associated with hazardous materials are reduced to a less-thansignificant level.

The Proposed Project includes a land use redesignation of five sites. During construction of future developments, there would be a minor level of transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous waste that are typical of construction projects. This would include, but is not limited to, fuels and lubricants for construction machinery, coating materials, and other building materials.

Federal, state, and local regulations associated with construction sites and use of associated hazardous materials include routine construction control measures and best management practices for hazardous materials storage, application, waste disposal, accident prevention and clean-up.

These uniformly applicable standards would be sufficient to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, the General Plan contains policies intended to reduce potential impacts from the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact with regard to the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials.
b) Release of Hazardous Materials
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the 2024 General Plan could involve future development with the use, transport, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials, which could pose risks of personal injury, property damage, environmental contamination, or death in the event of an upset or accidental release. While such risks cannot be entirely eliminated, compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations—including CUPA programs, hazardous materials release response plans, and oversight of previously contaminated sites—would minimize potential impacts. 2024 General Plan policies HS-5.2 and HS-5.4 would further reduce risks by involving appropriate agencies in project review, requiring risk assessments for sensitive sites, and ensuring safe handling and disposal of hazardous materials. With these measures, potential impacts associated with hazardous materials would be less than significant.

Buildout of the Proposed Project would occur on vacant sites. The construction and operation of housing generally does not involve the release -- accidental or otherwise -- of hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public. Further, existing regulatory programs associated with handling hazardous materials during construction and operation of the site would decrease potential impacts. The General Plan also includes several policiesthat have been developed to ensure a safe environment for its residents, visitors, and businesses. Following the correct procedures outlined by governing bodies would decrease the chance of an accidental release to a less than significant level. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the severity of impacts identified in the prior EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to the release of hazardous materials.
c) Hazardous Waste near School
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the 2024 General Plan could result in development near existing or proposed schools, where hazardous materials or emissions could

Page 747 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-43 pose a risk. Although some schools are located within one-quarter mile of potential development sites, buildout would generally involve minimal ground disturbance for uses such as housing, and any hazardous materials would be handled in compliance with applicable regulations. Some industrial or manufacturing uses could occur near schools, but 2024 General Plan policies HS-5.2 and HS-5.4 require agency review, risk assessments, and mitigation measures for hazardous materials. Compliance with Municipal Code Chapter 22B and existing regulatory programs would ensure that potential impacts from hazardous materials near schools would be less than significant.

While are schools in Fairfield that are located within one-quarter mile of development sites under the Proposed Project sites, construction projects such as housing would require little ground disturbance (lessening the potential risk of exposure) during construction and any hazardous materials use would still be subject to applicable federal, State, and local requirements mentioned above. Buildout of the Proposed Project would not involve emitting or handling acutely hazardous materials or wastes in the vicinity of schools. Adherence to the requirements of existing regulatory programs would reduce potential impacts associated with handling hazardous materials near a school to a less-than-significant level. The Proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more adverse impacts than identified in the prior General Plan EIR. d) Hazardous Materials Site
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the 2024 General Plan could result in development on sites listed as hazardous materials sites under Government Code Section 65962.5, including both open State Cleanup Program sites and Military Cleanup sites at Travis Air Force Base (TAFB). While such sites have the potential to pose a hazard to the public or environment, existing regulations and programs—including SWRCB oversight, Municipal Code Chapter 22B, CUPA programs, and CEQA requirements—ensure proper cleanup, containment, and reporting of hazardous materials. Proposed General Plan policies HS-5.1 and HS-5.6 further require remediation of contaminated sites and coordination with TAFB and regulatory agencies before approval of development. With adherence to these regulations and policies, potential impacts from development on known hazardous materials sites would be less than significant.

None of the sites included as part of the Proposed Project are located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962. As such, impacts are less than significant with compliance of General Plan policies. The Proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more adverse impacts than identified in the prior General Plan EIR.
e) Airport Land Use Plan
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the 2024 General Plan could result in development within the Travis Air Force Base (TAFB) Airport Influence Area, including Compatibility Zones D and E. While this raises the potential for safety hazards or excessive noise, future development would be required to comply with the TAFB Land Use Compatibility Plan (LUCP), including density limits, prohibited uses, height restrictions, and other safety criteria.

Proposed General Plan policies LU-6.2 and TP-1.2 further ensure consistency with LUCP land use,

Page 748 of 968 ends

5-44
noise, and overflight requirements. Development exceeding height limits or in restricted zones would be referred to the Solano County Airport Land Use Commission for review. Additionally, the Travis Enhanced Use Lease area is federally controlled, and development there is under DoD jurisdiction. With adherence to LUCP requirements and General Plan policies, potential impacts related to airport safety hazards and excessive noise would be less than significant.

There are no public airports or private airstrips within two miles of the sites identified for general plan amendments. Therefore, no impacts related to airport hazards would occur as a result of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would not result in new or substantially more adverse impacts than identified in the prior General Plan EIR.
f) Emergency Response and Evacuation
See analysis in Section 3.17: Wildfire.
g) Exposure to Wildland Fire
See analysis in Section 3.17: Wildfire.
h) Cumulative Impacts
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that the geographic context for hazards and hazardous materials impacts is largely confined to the Planning Area, as potential impacts are localized. Future development under the 2024 General Plan could involve increased commercial and industrial uses, potentially increasing the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials, truck traffic, and the risk of accidental releases. However, the Proposed Project, including land use redesignations of five specific sites, would require compliance with all applicable federal, state, regional, and local regulations, as well as Proposed Project policies related to hazardous materials, as described in Impacts 3.8-1 through 3.8-5. Projects would undergo review by the Fire Department and Solano County Department of Resource Management, incorporate any necessary mitigation measures, and adhere to Fairfield Municipal Code, Chapter 22B, as well as cleanup and remediation requirements for known hazardous sites. As such, the Proposed Project would not contribute to cumulatively significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials, and its contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
None.

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

Page 749 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-45

Page 750 of 968 ends

5-46

3.9 Hydrology and Water Resources
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2030 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed Project
Involve New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements;
Less than
Significant None No No No
b. Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local
groundwater table level;
Less than
Significant None No No No
c. Substantially alter existing
drainage patterns of the area
in a manner which would
result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site;
Less than
Significant None No No No
d. Substantially alter existing
drainage patterns of the area
in a manner which would
create or contribute runoff
water that would exceed the
capacity of existing or
planned storm water
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources
of polluted runoff;
Less than
Significant None No No No
e. Substantially alter existing
drainage patterns of the area
in a manner which would
substantially increase the
Less than
Significant None No No No

Page 751 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-47 rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding onor off-site or impede or
redirect flood flows;
f. In flood hazard, tsunami, or
seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation;
Less than
Significant None No No No
g. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water
quality control plan or
sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Less than
Significant None No No No

DISCUSSION
a) Water Quality Standards
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that the 2024 General Plan would not result in significant water quality impacts. Future development would primarily be residential and commercial, with limited new industrial uses, and all projects would be required to comply with applicable NPDES permits, including the Construction General Permit and Phase II General Permit, which mandate stormwater management, erosion control, and BMPs to prevent pollutant runoff. 2024 General Plan policies further support water quality protection by restoring waterways, minimizing point and nonpoint source pollutants, managing on-site erosion, preserving permeable surfaces, implementing green infrastructure, and remediating contaminated sites. Groundwater quality is poor and not relied upon for municipal supply, but 2024 General Plan policies address potential sea level rise and saline intrusion. Overall, compliance with existing regulations and 2024 General Plan policies would ensure that development does not violate federal, State, or local water quality standards, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

The Proposed Project would not increase the General Plan’s overall development capacity, so growth would remain consistent with the General Plan EIR. Future development on amended sites would be required to prepare Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs) incorporating site design, source control, and treatment BMPs. These measures direct stormwater to water quality basins, preserve natural drainage, minimize impervious surfaces, manage trash and runoff, and remove pollutants through bioretention. Combined with existing General Plan water quality policies, these measures would ensure that water quality impacts from future development remain consistent with the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant. b) Groundwater Supplies
The Planning Area is within the Suisun-Fairfield Subbasin, which is brackish, not used for the City’s water supply, and not subject to SGMA. While the 2024 General Plan would increase impervious surfaces in certain growth areas—such as Cordelia, Business Flex, Nelson Hill, Hale Ranch, and Area A—future development would be subject to stormwater management, clustered development,

Page 752 of 968 ends

5-48
and open space conservation policies. These measures would minimize runoff, preserve infiltration, and maintain groundwater recharge. Because the City does not rely on this aquifer and adequate infiltration would be maintained, the 2024 General Plan would not substantially deplete groundwater or interfere with recharge, resulting in a less-than-significant impact.

The Proposed Project would not increase the General Plan’s overall development capacity, so growth would remain consistent with the General Plan EIR. Future development on amended sites would not use groundwater supplies. Any nominal change in infiltration would not have a significant effect on the groundwater table level. implementation of policies in the Proposed Project, as well as compliance with existing federal, State, and local programs and regulations would ensure that impacts related to substantial decreases in groundwater supply or substantial interference with groundwater recharge from implementation of the Proposed Project would be less than significant. For these reasons, project related impacts to groundwater supplies are similar to those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant. c, d, e) Drainage Pattern - Erosion/Siltation, Runoff Pollution, Surface Runoff The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that buildout of the 2024 General Plan would convert undeveloped and agricultural areas to developed uses, increasing impervious surfaces that could alter existing drainage patterns. Construction activities and land disturbance could temporarily or permanently affect drainage and contribute to erosion or sedimentation. However, all development would be required to comply with applicable NPDES permit requirements, prepare and implement SWPPPs where applicable, and incorporate erosion control and low impact development (LID) best management practices to manage runoff and reduce pollutant discharge. In addition, City policies require submission of storm drainage and erosion control plans, use of green infrastructure, and implementation of floodplain management and flood control improvements consistent with FEMA and NFIP regulations. Therefore, compliance with applicable regulations and implementation of these policies would reduce potential impacts related to drainage pattern alteration that could cause substantial erosion, contribution of excess runoff water that could exceed stormwater drainage capacity or add polluted runoff, and increased flood flows to a lessthan-significant level.

Erosion/Siltation
All of the proposed sites identified for general plan amendments are vacant, which could include potential for erosion due to construction activity. Future development projects on the sites identified for general plan amendments would be required to implement stormwater and drainage improvements that would direct stormwater into the municipal stormwater collection system.

Erosion and siltation reduction measures would also be included in the project design and implemented during construction. At the completion of construction, future development project would consist mostly of impervious surfaces and would therefore not be prone to substantial erosion. As such, the drainage pattern of the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would not be substantially altered in a manner that could cause increases in erosion off-site. For this reason, the project impacts with respect to erosion and siltation would be similar to those previously analyzed in the General Plan and would be less than significant.

Page 753 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-49 Stormwater Drainage Capacity
The proposed sites identified for general plan amendments are vacant, and development of the sites identified would increase the net area of impermeable surfaces in the City. Future development project would include stormwater improvements. Stormwater would be collected on-site in storm drains, retained on site if necessary, and conveyed to the City’s storm drainage system as capacity allows. The drainage improvements would be constructed in accordance with the Fairfield Public Works Department General Development Conditions, Construction General Permit, and Phase II General Permit, which enforce the implementation of stormwater management BMPs. Permits to connect to the existing storm drainage system would be obtained prior to construction of future development. Lastly, the Proposed Project does not permit any new industrial uses and therefore would not result in substantial pollutant loading such that treatment control BMPs would be required to protect downstream water quality. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems and would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff and impacts would be less than significant.

Surface Runoff
Future development of the sites identified for general plan amendments would include drainage facilities that would be designed and constructed with sufficient capacity to safely convey additional stormwater flows and thereby ensure that no habitable structure would be placed within a 100-year floodplain as shown on the FEMA Insurance Rate Maps. Therefore, impacts related to flooding would be similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and less than significant. f) Flooding
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that none of the Planning Area is located within a tsunami hazard zone and there are no major lakes or reservoirs that would pose a risk of seiche. The 2024 General Plan would not result in substantial new development within the 100-year floodplain, and any development in flood zones would be required to comply with FEMA and NFIP regulations.

In addition, individual projects would be required to meet NPDES permit requirements to prevent pollutant runoff into waterways. Therefore, the 2024 General Plan would not increase the risk of pollutant release due to inundation from flooding, tsunami, or seiche, and the impact would be less than significant.

Sites in the Proposed Project are not located in areas with risk of tsunami, seiche, or the 100-year floodplain. All development resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project would likewise be required to comply with FEMA, NFIP, and NPDES requirements to prevent pollutant runoff. Therefore, Therefore, impacts related to flooding would be similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and less than significant.
g) Plan Conflicts
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that water quality in the Planning Area is regulated by the San Francisco Bay Basin Plan, which establishes standards to protect beneficial uses of regional water bodies. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) enforces these standards

Page 754 of 968 ends

5-50
through the NPDES Permit program, along with other state mechanisms such as 401 Water Quality Certification and Waste Discharge Requirements. Individual development projects under the General Plan would be required to comply with these permits and implement policies that maintain and restore waterways, minimize pollutants, and prevent contaminated runoff and erosion. With adherence to these federal, State, and local requirements, development would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Basin Plan. The EIR also found that because the Suisun-Fairfield Subbasin is designated as a low-priority basin under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, no groundwater management plan is required, and implementation of the General Plan would not conflict with groundwater sustainability efforts.

As described above, implementation of the Proposed Project would be required to comply with NPDES and 401 Water Quality Certification and Waste Discharge Requirements. Therefore, impacts related to flooding would be similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and less than significant with adherence with these and other General Plan policies. h) Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality were evaluated at the watershed scale. Although future development under the 2024 General Plan, combined with other regional growth, could contribute to impacts on water quality, flooding, and runoff, compliance with federal, State, and local regulations, along with implementation of 2024 General Plan policies, would ensure these impacts remain less than significant. The City does not rely on groundwater due to its brackish quality, and new development would not substantially inhibit groundwater recharge. While buildout would increase impervious surfaces and potential pollutant runoff, ongoing implementation of the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan, capital improvements, and requirements for stormwater drainage plans and low-impact development (LID) techniques would prevent significant cumulative drainage or flooding impacts. Additionally, continued participation in FEMA and NPDES programs and coordination with regional partners to manage flood risks would ensure that cumulative impacts related to hydrology and water quality remain less than significant.

For these reasons, under the Proposed Project, in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact on hydrology and water quality, and would not be cumulatively considerable.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
None.

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to hydrology and water resources. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

Page 755 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-51

3.10 Land Use and Planning
Would the project:

Environmental Issue
Area
2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Physically divide an
established
community;
Less Than
Significant None No No No
b. Conflict with any
applicable land use
plan, policy, or
regulation of an
agency with
jurisdiction over the
project adopted for
the purpose of
avoiding or
mitigating an
environmental
effect
Less Than
Significant None No No No

DISCUSSION
a) Divide Community
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that the 2024 General Plan would not result in the physical division of existing communities. While physical division can occur from linear barriers such as highways or railroads, or large building configurations that obstruct movement, the 2024 General Plan focuses development primarily within key infill and growth areas while preserving existing land use patterns elsewhere. New roadways in growth areas would enhance connectivity, and coordination with Caltrans and the Solano Transportation Authority would ensure compatibility with ongoing infrastructure projects. Land use, urban design, and circulation policies promote walkable mixed-use corridors, connect residential neighborhoods with jobs and commercial areas, and enhance transit, pedestrian, and bikeway networks, including the Linear Park Trail as a unifying community link. Urban design policies further support clustered development, pedestrian connections, and building orientation that maintain neighborhood connectivity. With implementation of these policies, future development would avoid creating barriers or isolating neighborhoods, resulting in a less-than-significant impact with no mitigation required.

The Proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment to redesignate five parcels. The Proposed Project would not result in the closure of any roadways or the construction of any new roadways or features that would physically divide an established community. Therefore, the project

Page 756 of 968 ends

5-52
would have impacts similar to those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with Any Land Use Plan
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that the 2024 General Plan would not result in significant impacts due to conflicts with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations. While policy inconsistencies alone do not constitute physical environmental impacts, the 2024 General Plan was evaluated for consistency with City, County, regional, and federal land use policies, including the City of Fairfield Zoning Ordinance, specific plans (such as the Heart of Fairfield, Train Station, and Middle Green Valley Specific Plans), Plan Bay Area 2050, the Suisun Valley Strategic Plan, and the Travis Air Force Base Land Use Compatibility Plan. The 2024 General Plan also considers LAFCO standards, Sphere of Influence changes, and annexation of growth areas, including policies for urban services, open space preservation, and protection of agricultural land. Policies in the General Plan guide future development to be consistent with existing specific plans, protect agricultural and natural resources, ensure appropriate urban densities, and coordinate with airport safety zones, the Suisun Marsh Protection Plan, and other regulatory programs. Because the 2024 General Plan does not introduce incompatible land uses, and required zoning amendments and policy updates will ensure continued consistency, adoption and implementation of the 2024 General Plan would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to conflicts with applicable land use plans or policies.

The Proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment to redesignate five parcels; the location of these parcels would only require consistency with the City’s Zoning Ordinance and region-wide plans like Plan Bay Area 2050. Since the Proposed Project avoids introducing incompatible land uses and includes necessary zoning amendments to maintain alignment with existing plans, its adoption and implementation would result in a less-than-significant impact regarding consistency with applicable land use plans and policies. Therefore, the project would have impacts similar to those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant. a) Cumulative Impacts
Consistent with the previous EIR, the Proposed Project does not involve the construction of a linear feature or other barrier and would not remove any means of access or impact mobility.

Implementation of the Proposed Project would in fact improve connectivity in the Planning Area through implementation of General Plan policies and Housing Element programs that foster walkable, higher density, and mixed-use areas which would in turn increase the use of bicycle, transit, and active transportation. Therefore, the cumulative impact of the Proposed Project on the division of an existing community would be less than significant and equivalent to the impacts detailed in the prior EIR.

Impacts from plans and projects in the region that could conflict with existing plans, including the City’s adopted specific plans, are not cumulative in nature. The Proposed Project is consistent with the General Plan’s goals for the Planning Area and includes focused zoning code amendments to ensure consistency. Given that the Proposed Project would not introduce new cumulative impacts or create more severe cumulative impacts than those identified in the previous EIR no additional analysis is required.

Page 757 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-53

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
None.

3.11 Mineral Resources
Would the project:

Environmental Issue
Area
2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Result in the loss of
availability of a
known mineral
resource that would
be a value to the
region and the
residents of the
state;
Significant
and
Unavoidabl
e
None No No No
b. Result in the loss of
availability of a
locally important
mineral resource
recovery site
delineated on a
local general plan,
specific plan or
other land use plan
Less Than
Significant None No No No

DISCUSSION
a) Loss of Known Mineral Resource
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that redevelopment of the Nelson Hill quarry site would result in the permanent loss of access to known mineral resources classified as MRZ-2, representing a significant and unavoidable impact. Nelson Hill is an inactive but permitted quarry with vested

Page 758 of 968 ends

5-54
mining rights that could be reactivated under existing agreements with Solano County. However, under the 2024 General Plan, the site would be redeveloped as a low-density residential neighborhood with clustered housing, open space, and public trails. In accordance with Implementing Policy LU-22.5, all mining rights would need to be extinguished, and reclamation completed prior to annexation. Because redevelopment would permanently preclude extraction of mineral resources that are regionally valuable, and no feasible mitigation exists to reduce the impact while meeting project objectives, this impact would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Proposed Project includes five sites proposed for land use redesignation and require General Plan amendments. None of these sites are located in areas classified as MRZ-2, and as such, there would be no impact. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts greater than to those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
b) Result in Mineral Loss Identified in Plan
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that while the Nelson Hill quarry is currently designated as an Urban Project Area in the 2008 Solano County General Plan, the 2024 General Plan would redesignate the site for park/open space and low-medium density residential uses. Implementing Policy LU-22.5 would require that all mining rights be extinguished, and operations cease prior to annexation, after which the County would amend its General Plan to reflect the City’s land use designations. Because neither the County’s nor the City’s plans identify Nelson Hill as a locally important mineral resource recovery site, redevelopment of the area would not conflict with existing mineral resource designations or policies, and impacts would be less than significant.

The Proposed Project includes five sites proposed for land use redesignation and require General Plan amendments. None of these sites are located in areas classified as locally important mineral resource recovery sites on any land use plans. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts greater than to those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. c) Cumulative Impacts
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that cumulative impacts to mineral resources would be significant and unavoidable due to redevelopment of the Nelson Hill quarry area, which is classified as MRZ-2 and contains known aggregate resources of regional importance. The 2024 General Plan envisions redevelopment of the site for lower-density residential uses with open space and trails, and Implementing Policy LU-21.5 requires all mining rights to be extinguished prior to annexation.

Because redevelopment would permanently eliminate access to these mineral resources, and no feasible mitigation exists that would both preserve the resource and meet General Plan objectives, the cumulative loss of mineral resource availability would be significant and unavoidable.

Because the Proposed Project does not include any sites located in areas of known aggregate resources of regional importance and are neither located in areas classified as locally important mineral resource recovery sites in a land use plan, the contribution of the Proposed Project is not cumulatively considerable.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
None.

Page 759 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-55

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to mineral resources. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

3.12 Noise
Would the project:

Page 760 of 968 ends

5-56
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
c. Be located within the
vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport
land use plan or, where
such a plan has not
been adopted, within
two miles of a public
airport or public use
airport, and could
expose people residing
or working in the
project area to
excessive noise levels
Less than
Significant None No No No

DISCUSSION
a) Temporary or Permanent Increase in Noise Levels
The EIR found that construction under the 2024 General Plan could temporarily increase noise at adjacent properties, particularly from pile drivers, bulldozers, and other heavy equipment. Noise would attenuate with distance, and compliance with the Municipal Code and construction timeof-day restrictions would reduce impacts to less than significant. On-site operational noise from stationary sources—including HVAC, generators, and loading areas—would be subject to City exterior noise standards, and implementation of proposed policies (HS-6.3 through HS-6.7) would ensure future development does not result in substantial permanent noise increases.

Traffic noise from Project-generated trips would elevate ambient noise along several major roadways, potentially exposing new and existing noise-sensitive land uses to significant noise increases. Policies requiring noise studies, site planning with noise mitigation, and siting of sensitive uses would reduce impacts to new development to less than significant. However, existing residences near certain roadways may experience unavoidable increases in traffic noise, and no feasible mitigation exists to fully eliminate these impacts.

The Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR.

While two of the sites would introduce potential for commercial uses sensitive uses, projects would be required to comply with the City’s Noise Ordinance and other General Plan policies, reducing these potential impacts to less than significant. Because the Proposed Project would not result in an

Page 761 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-57 increase to development capacity, it would also not increase traffic noise levels beyond what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Future development projects would be required to prepare project-specific transportation assessments to assess project-level construction and operation impacts and incorporate mitigation measures, if necessary, to reduce short- and long-term noise impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent 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. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impacts greater than to those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. b) Groundborne Vibration
The 2024 General Plan EIR found that future development could generate ground-borne vibration during construction, primarily from bulldozers, loaded trucks, and other high-impact equipment.

Construction vibration would be intermittent, short-term, and site-specific. Compliance with Mitigation Measure NOI-1 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Traffic-induced vibration under the 2024 General Plan would be minimal and below human perception thresholds, resulting in no significant impact. Existing rail operations along the Union Pacific line already produce vibration, and while most new residential development near the tracks would occur in planned areas, projects within 100 feet of the railroad could experience intermittent vibration.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would reduce these impacts to less than significant.

Sites proposed for General Plan redesignation construction operations that have the highest potential for producing vibration (building demolition, grading and scraping, pile driving, and use of jackhammers and other high power tools. Additionally, two of the sites are located within 100 feet of rail lines; however, compliance with MM-NOI-1 and MM-NOI-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant. As such, the Proposed Project would not introduce new impacts or create more severe impacts than those analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. c) Airport Noise
The 2024 General Plan EIR found that the Planning Area is within the Travis AFB Airport Influence Area and subject to the ALUCP, which ensures land use compatibility and limits noise and safety risks. While no sensitive receptors fall within the 65 dBA CNEL contour, parts of Cordelia lie within the 60 dBA contour, where new residences must meet interior noise standards of 45 dBA. Project policies on noise-compatible land use, site design, and coordination with Travis AFB would ensure ALUCP compliance, making the impact less than significant.

None of the sites in the Proposed Project fall within noise contours for the ALUCP. As such, development resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project would not be impacted. As such, the Proposed Project would not introduce new impacts or create more severe impacts than those analyzed in the previous EIR. No additional analysis is required. d) Cumulative Impacts
By its nature, noise analyses presented above represents a cumulative analysis, because the effects specific to the Proposed Project cannot reasonably be differentiated from the broader effects of

Page 762 of 968 ends

5-58
regional growth and development. Thus, analyses for these topics reflect not just growth in the Planning Area, but growth elsewhere in the region as well.

Conclusion
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to noise. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the adoption of the Proposed Project.

3.13 Population and Housing
Would the project:

Environmental Issue
Area
2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Would not induce
substantial
population growth
in an area, either
directly (for
example, by
proposing new
homes and
businesses) or
indirectly (for
example, through
extension of roads
or other
infrastructure
Less than
Significant None No No No
b. displace substantial
numbers of existing
people or housing,
necessitating the
construction of
replacement
housing elsewhere
Less Than
Significant None No No No

Page 763 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-59

DISCUSSION
a) Induce Population Growth
The 2024 General Plan EIR found that while the 2024 General Plan would induce population and job growth, this growth would be consistent with regional forecasts under Plan Bay Area 2050 and the City’s RHNA obligations. The Project anticipates about 10,400 new housing units and 9.8 million square feet of nonresidential space (roughly 15,780 jobs) by 2050, largely as infill within existing urban areas. Limited growth at Nelson Hill, Cordelia, and Hale Ranch would occur within the Urban Limit Line and require LAFCO review. Policies maintaining the Urban Limit Line and coordinating with Solano County would prevent unplanned expansion. Overall, growth-inducing impacts would be less than significant.

The Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR.

The Proposed Project is within the scope of what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would incorporate General Plan policies intended to preserve residential neighborhoods and provide housing opportunities for all City residents. As such, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the lever of growth anticipated under the General Plan and the potential impact would be considered less than significant.
b) Displacement
The 2024 General Plan EIR found that the 2024 General Plan could add up to 13,500 new housing units and 9.8 million square feet of nonresidential uses by 2050, primarily through infill development. While some redevelopment could replace existing housing, the Project would increase overall housing supply and diversity. Potential indirect displacement from neighborhood change would be minimized through implementation of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element, which includes programs for affordable housing production, preservation, tenant protections, and infill incentives. With these measures and consistency with City and County housing policies, the EIR concluded the Project would not cause substantial direct or indirect displacement. The impact would be less than significant.

The proposed sites identified for general plan amendments do not contain any existing residential housing. As such, implementation of the project would not displace existing housing, nor would it necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur. c) Cumulative Impacts
The 2024 General Plan EIR determined that cumulative impacts related to population and housing would be less than significant. Growth anticipated under the 2024 General Plan aligns with regional projections and would not induce unplanned population increases. Although some development would occur outside current city limits, annexation would require LAFCO review to ensure adequate services and orderly growth. Project policies prioritize infill and require development fees to address service demands. While regional displacement pressures may persist, both the City’s and Solano County’s Housing Elements include measures to preserve and expand affordable housing and prevent displacement. As described above, the Proposed Project growth projections would not be greater than what was analyzed in the original General Plan EIR, and as such, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Page 764 of 968 ends

5-60

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
None.

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to population and housing. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

3.14 Public Services and Recreation
Would the project:

Page 765 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-61 Would the project:

Environmental Issue
Area
2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New or
More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
parks, or other
public facilities;
b. Increase the use of
existing
neighborhood and
regional parks or
other recreational
facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the
facility would occur
or be accelerated;
Less Than
Significant None No No No
c. Include recreational
facilities or require
the construction or
expansion of
recreational
facilities which
might have an
adverse physical
effect on the
environment.

Less Than
Significant None No No No

DISCUSSION
a) Impacts to Services
Fire and Emergency Services: The EIR found that future development under the 2024 General Plan would increase demand for fire and emergency services. The Fairfield Fire Department has already expanded staffing and facilities, with additional stations planned to accommodate growth.

Policies under the 2024 General Plan would guide orderly expansion of facilities, ensure coordination with development, and require siting within urbanized areas to minimize environmental impacts. As a result, impacts on fire services would be less than significant.

The Proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment, resulting in revised land use designations for five sites. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. For this reason, the Proposed Project would have impacts similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would not result in the need for new or

Page 766 of 968 ends

5-62
physically altered fire facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives: impacts would be less than significant.

Police Services: Population growth would increase demand for police services, potentially exceeding existing officer-to-population ratios by 2050. 2024 General Plan policies would ensure strategic planning, facility expansion, and monitoring of service delivery to maintain public safety.

Any future police facility development would occur in urbanized areas and follow best management practices, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.

The Proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment, resulting in revised land use designations for five sites. The Proposed Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered police facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives. Therefore, potential impacts from the Proposed Project would be less than significant.

Schools: Growth from the 2024 General Plan would increase the number of school-aged children, potentially exceeding capacity in some locations. The Project identifies sites for new schools, coordinates with FSUSD and TUSD, and implements policies for siting, impact fees, and shared facilities. Construction of new schools would be sited in developed areas, comply with regulations, and be subject to CEQA review, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.

The Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR.

The Proposed Project is within the scope of what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the provisions of the School Districts’ development mitigation fee schedule, which requires a fee payment to assist the Districts in providing for school facilities. Payment of these fees would ensure that the project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional school facilities. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered school facilities and this potential impact would be considered less than significant.

Library Facilities: Increased population would raise demand for library services. Planned expansions, including a new library in the Train Station Specific Plan area and continued digital services, would meet demand without requiring additional facilities beyond those already planned.

Impacts are less than significant.

The Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in the need for new or physically altered library facilities and this potential impact would be considered less than significant.

Parks and Recreation: Population growth would increase demand for parks. The Project establishes parkland ratio standards and identifies locations for new neighborhood and community parks. New parks would follow best management practices and be subject to CEQA review, ensuring impacts remain less than significant.

The Proposed Project is within the scope of the General Plan. Demand for park and recreational facilities are generally the direct result of residential development. The Proposed Project would not

Page 767 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-63 result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. all new development, including the Proposed Project, would be subject to payment of development impact fees to cover its fair share of the cost for facility expansion and maintenance. Therefore, with payment of standard fees, impacts related to deterioration of parks and recreation facilities from the Proposed Project would be less than significant.
b) Parks Deterioration
The EIR found that development under the 2024 General Plan, including approximately 13,500 new homes and nearly 9.8 million square feet of nonresidential space, could increase use of existing parks and recreational facilities. While this growth could accelerate physical wear, the City has planned new neighborhood parks in underserved areas and areas of future development to meet parkland service ratio standards. Implementing Policies OSCR-6.1 and OSCR-6.4, along with the Capital Improvement Plan and the Parks, Recreation, & Open Space Master Plan, would guide park improvements and prevent deterioration. As a result, impacts on parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant.

The Proposed Project falls within the scope of the General Plan EIR analysis. Residential development is the primary driver of demand for parks and recreational facilities, and the project could increase the number of households seeking to use these amenities. However, all new development would be required to pay development impact fees to cover its proportional share of facility expansion and maintenance costs. As a result, impacts on the condition or availability of parks and recreation facilities would be less than significant. c) Recreational Facilities
The 2024 GP EIR found that the General Plan would increase use of existing recreational facilities, including community centers, libraries, school spaces, and regional parks. While new or expanded facilities may be needed, policies such as OSCR-6.5, OSCR-2.3, and LU-1.1 would guide their siting, design, and operation to minimize environmental impacts. Impacts related to traffic, noise, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions are addressed elsewhere in the EIR, and future facilities would tier from this analysis to address site-specific impacts. Overall, the EIR concluded that the Project would result in a less than significant impact on recreational facilities.

The Proposed Project does not involve the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that could have adverse physical effects on the environment. As noted, all future development under the Project would be subject to development impact fees to fund its proportionate share of facility expansion and maintenance. Accordingly, the Project would not cause any significant environmental impacts related to the construction or expansion of outdoor recreational facilities, and associated impacts would be considered less than significant. d) Cumulative Impacts
The EIR found that future development and population growth under the 2024 General Plan would increase demand for public services, including police, fire, schools, libraries, and parks. Policies in the 2024 General Plan would guide orderly expansion of facilities, ensure coordination with service providers, and maintain compliance with CEQA. Impacts on police and fire services would be less

Page 768 of 968 ends

5-64
than significant due to planned service expansions. School impacts could arise from increased enrollment, but coordination with school districts and CEQA review would keep impacts less than cumulatively considerable. Library impacts would be accommodated through planned expansions and online services. Increased demand for parks and recreation could stress existing facilities, but the 2024 General Plan includes policies and funding mechanisms to provide new parks, maintain parkland ratios, and support facility improvements, preventing cumulatively considerable impacts.

As described above, the Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. Development would be subject to all the same General Plan policies that serve to reduce potential significant impacts to public services to less than significant. As such, such, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
None.

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to public services and parks. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

3.15 Transportation
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
a. Conflict with
program, plan,
ordinance or policy
addressing the
circulation system,
including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities;
Significant
and
Unavoidabl
e
None No No No

Page 769 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-65 Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring New
Analysis or
Verification?
b. Conflict or be
inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3,
subdivision (b);
Less than
Significant None No No No
c. Substantially
increase hazards due
to a geometric
design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or
dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses
(e.g., farm
equipment);
Less than
Significant None No No No
d. Result in inadequate
emergency access
Less than
Significant None No No No

DISCUSSION
a) Plan Conflicts
The 2024 General Plan EIR found that the General Plan would not conflict with programs, plans, ordinances, or policies governing the circulation system, including transit, roadways, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. While new development would increase travel demand, 2024 General Plan policies promote higher-density, infill development, walkable and bikeable neighborhoods, and coordinated transit improvements consistent with Plan Bay Area 2050, the Congestion Management Program, and the Solano County Active Transportation Plan. With these policies and continued coordination with regional agencies, impacts on circulation and transit would be less than significant.

The Proposed Project includes a General Plan Amendment to redesignate five parcels to Mixed Commercial and Very High Residential land uses. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR. The Proposed Project is within the scope what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. Future development projects on the sites identified for

Page 770 of 968 ends

5-66
rezoning and/or general plan amendments would be reviewed by the City to ensure no significant transportation related impacts would occur. Future development projects would also be subject to General Plan policies intended to mitigate impacts to the circulation system. Therefore, with incorporation of existing General Plan policies, impacts from the Proposed Projectwould be similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would result in less than significant impacts on the circulation system.
b) CEQA Guidelines (VMT)
The 2024 General Plan EIR found that the 2024 General Plan would result in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) exceeding CEQA thresholds for both home-based VMT per resident and home-based work VMT per employee, making this a potentially significant impact. The Project includes infill development strategies, mixed-use land use designations, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and transit policies to encourage alternative modes of travel. However, due to Fairfield’s largely suburban, auto-oriented context, limitations on employer-based transportation demand management for commuters traveling outside the city, and the City’s authority over only certain transit services, these measures would not reduce VMT to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure MM-VMT-1 requires individual projects that generate significant VMT impacts to implement applicable CAPCOA travel demand management and physical measures, and participate in a VMT impact fee or exchange program if available. Despite this, the 2024 General Plan EIR concludes that the VMT impact of the 2024 General Plan would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR.

The Proposed Project is within the scope of what was analyzed in the General Plan EIR. As such, future development projects would also be subject to General Plan policies intended to reduce the amount of VMT in the City. Should individual projects result in significant VMT, they would be required to implement MM-VMT-1. While the results of these reductions cannot be known at this time, the VMT impacts of these projects are conservatively considered significant and avoidable.

Therefore, with incorporation of existing General Plan policies, impacts from the Proposed Project would be similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. c) Roadway Hazards
The 2024 General Plan EIR found that implementation of the 2024 General Plan may involve construction of new streets and roadways within the three “growth” focus areas—Cordelia, Nelson Hill, and Hale Ranch—but no specific roadway projects are proposed at this time. All future public access improvements would be required to comply with City standards, the Municipal Code, and applicable federal and state guidance for safe, multimodal roadway design. Roadway improvements would be coordinated with the Solano Transportation Authority and Caltrans, and development would incorporate safety-focused design features and streetscape improvements. The EIR concluded that the 2024 General Plan would not substantially increase hazards due to design features and would remain compatible with surrounding uses, resulting in less-than-significant impacts.

The Proposed Project includes General Plan amendments to five sites. Development of the proposed sites identified would not involve any unusual design features. Future development

Page 771 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-67 projects on the sites identified for rezoning and/or general plan amendments would be required to submit design plans to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of permits. Development of the proposed sites would not require closure or reconfiguration of any roadways, nor would it result in features such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections. Existing public streets and controlled intersections would be utilized by future development projects on the sites. Lastly, future development projects would also be subject to General Plan policies intended to prevent circulation design hazards. Therefore, with incorporation of existing General Plan policies, impacts from the Proposed Project would be similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR. d) Evacuation
The 2024 General Plan EIR found that the 2024 General Plan would not result in inadequate emergency access. While implementation may involve new streets and roadway improvements within the Cordelia, Nelson Hill, and Hale Ranch growth areas, all future designs must comply with Municipal Code requirements, adopted roadway standards, and fire and police review to ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles. Construction in public rights-of-way would require Encroachment Permits with traffic control measures to maintain emergency routes. With these measures and policies, the EIR concluded that impacts on emergency access would be less than significant.

Future development projects on the sites identified for general plan amendments would be required to submit design plans to the City for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits to ensure compliance with all design requirements. Per state Fire and Building Codes, sufficient space would be provided around any proposed buildings for emergency personnel and equipment to access. Future development of the sites identified for general plan amendments would be required to comply with the California Fire Code in terms of emergency access. Lastly, future development projects would also be subject to General Plan policies intended to prevent emergency access impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.
e) Cumulative Impacts
By its nature, transportation analyses presented above represents a cumulative analysis, because the effects specific to the Proposed Project cannot reasonably be differentiated from the broader effects of regional growth and development. Thus, analyses for these topics reflect not just growth in the Planning Area, but growth elsewhere in the region as well.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
MM-VMT-1: Implement VMT Reduction Measures. Individual project development proposals that do not screen out from VMT impact analysis shall provide a quantitative VMT analysis using the methods applied in this EIR, with modifications if appropriate, based on future changes to the City of Fairfield practices and VMT analysis methodology guidelines. Projects which result in a significant impact shall include travel demand management measures and physical measures to reduce VMT.

Potential strategies are listed below; the first two apply to development projects, and the third applies at a Citywide scale.

Page 772 of 968 ends

5-68

1. A project applicant shall modify the project’s characteristics to reduce VMT generated by the project prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. This might involve changing the density or mixture of land uses on the project site, or changing the project’s location to one that is more accessible by transit or other travel modes.

2. A project applicant shall implement transportation demand management (TDM), physical design measures, or participate in a VMT impact reduction program to reduce VMT generated by the project prior to issuance of an occupancy permit. A description of trip reduction strategies is included in Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA).

3. The City shall participate in a VMT impact fee program and/or VMT exchange/banking program if the City or Solano Transportation Authority (or other responsible agency) chooses to create one.

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to transportation. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project. project.

3.16 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
a. Require or result in
the construction of
new water or
wastewater
treatment facilities, or
expansion of existing
facilities, the
construction of which
could cause adverse
environmental
effects.

Less than
Significant None No No No

Page 773 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-69 Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
b. Have insufficient
water supplies
available to serve the
project and
reasonably
foreseeable future
development during
normal, dry, and
multiple dry years;
Less than
Significant None No No No
c. Result in a
determination by the
wastewater
treatment provider
which serves or may
serve the project that
it does not have
adequate capacity to
serve the project's
projected demand in
addition to the
provider's existing
commitments;
Less than
Significant None No No No
d. 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;
Less than
Significant None No No No
e. Not comply with
federal, State, and
local management
and reduction
statutes and
Less than
Significant None No No No

Page 774 of 968 ends

5-70
Would the project:

DISCUSSION
a) Construction or Expansion of Facilities
Implementation of the 2024 General Plan allows for development of new residential, commercial, and industrial uses, which increases demand on water, wastewater, stormwater, and utility infrastructure. Water demand under General Plan buildout is expected to remain below the City’s planned treatment capacity with the anticipated expansion of the North Bay Regional Water Treatment Plant. Additional transmission pipelines, a booster pump station, and storage tanks may be needed to serve new growth areas, and all new development is required to fund and design infrastructure consistent with City standards and environmental protections, resulting in less-thansignificant impacts. Wastewater flows are accommodated by the existing treatment plant capacity, with developers required to fund and connect to collection systems. Stormwater runoff is managed through compliance with City regulations, low-impact development practices, and development review requirements, minimizing impacts to conveyance systems. Electric, natural gas, and telecommunications services are sufficient to serve planned growth, and conservation measures further reduce demand. Overall, with adherence to General Plan policies, development standards, and public works requirements, impacts on public services and utilities are less than significant.

The Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR.

For this reason, the Proposed Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water facilities, water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Therefore, impacts from the Proposed Project would be similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant. b) Water Supplies
Implementation of the 2024 General Plan would increase water demand by approximately 523 million gallons per year, which remains well within the City’s reliable supply from the Solano Project, State Water Project, and Settlement Water. The City’s typical annual supply of 47,837 acrefeet (approximately 15,587 MG) exceeds projected demand under normal, dry, and multiple dryyear conditions, leaving over 2,000 MG of capacity. General Plan policies ensure continued acquisition of water supplies, maintenance of storage, conveyance, and treatment infrastructure,

Page 775 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-71 promotion of long-term water conservation, and exploration of non-potable and recycled water systems to support large irrigation and industrial users. The General Plan also requires monitoring of State and Federal actions affecting water supplies. With these policies and existing infrastructure, impacts on water availability are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Potentially significant impacts could occur if development of the sites identified for general plan amendments resulted in insufficient water supplies available to serve the developments and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. The Proposed Project is within the scope of the General Plan. Because the General Plan EIR determined that existing and future water supplies would have the capacity to serve the General Plan at buildout, and because the Proposed Project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR, there would be sufficient water supplies to support the Proposed Project.

Therefore, impacts from the Proposed Project would be similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
c) Wastewater Capacity and Treatment
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the 2024 General Plan would increase population and employment, resulting in higher wastewater flows into the Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District’s wastewater treatment plant. Projected average dry weather flows would rise from approximately 12.5 mgd to 15.2 mgd, which remains below the WWTP’s 23.7 mgd capacity, leaving sufficient remaining capacity for existing commitments. General Plan policies ensure continued operation and maintenance of wastewater collection and treatment facilities, require new development to construct necessary sewer infrastructure, provide adequate funding for system use, and participate in development impact fees to support public facilities. With these measures, wastewater treatment capacity impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

The Proposed Project would not result in an increase in the General Plan’s development capacity, and so the project would not result in greater growth than was evaluated by the General Plan EIR.

For this reason, the Proposed Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Therefore, impacts from the Proposed Project would be similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
d,e) Solid Waste Reduction Goals and Conflict with Solid Waste Regulations The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the 2024 General Plan would increase population and employment, resulting in higher solid waste generation during both construction and operation. Construction activities would temporarily increase waste, but compliance with the CALGreen Code requiring diversion of at least 65 percent of nonhazardous construction materials minimizes this impact. Operationally, projected growth could increase demands on solid waste disposal, but the Potrero Hills Landfill is expected to have adequate capacity through at least 2048, and the City can redirect waste to other facilities if needed. General Plan policies promote waste reduction, recycling, composting, and participation in Countywide waste management programs, while compliance with state laws such as AB 939, AB 341, AB 1826, and SB 1383 ensures ongoing diversion and organics management. With these measures, solid waste impacts are less than significant.

Page 776 of 968 ends

5-72
The Proposed Project does not increase the General Plan’s development capacity and would not generate solid waste beyond State or local standards, exceed the capacity of local infrastructure, or hinder solid waste reduction goals. The project complies with all applicable federal, State, and local statutes and regulations governing solid waste. As a result, it does not introduce new or more severe solid waste impacts than those evaluated in the General Plan EIR Therefore, impacts from the Proposed Project would be similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
f) Cumulative Impacts
Implementation of the 2050 General Plan would increase water, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste, energy, and telecommunications demands; however, the City has adequate capacity and policies in place to manage these increases. Water demand associated with General Plan buildout remains within the City’s supply and treatment capabilities, with planned expansions of the North Bay Regional Water Treatment Plant and water conservation measures addressing potential future deficits. Wastewater flows remain below the Fairfield Suisun Sewer District’s treatment capacity, and new development is required to fund its fair share of conveyance and treatment infrastructure.

Stormwater impacts are managed through City requirements for detention, low-impact development, and post-construction stormwater controls. Solid waste generation remains within landfill capacity, supported by State and local waste reduction regulations and City policies. Energy and telecommunications demand increases are mitigated through compliance with efficiency standards, coordination with service providers, and planned infrastructure improvements.

The PROPOSED PROJECT, which implements the General Plan, would be subject to the same policies and standards, and does not increase the development capacity established by the General Plan. Therefore, the General Plan’s contribution to cumulative utility and service impacts is not cumulatively considerable, and impacts are less than significant., and would not create new or more severe cumulative impacts than those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
None.

CONCLUSION
There is no new information identifying new significant effects, nor is there an increase in the severity of previously identified impacts related to utilities. The conclusions from the previous EIR remain unchanged when considering the implementation of the Proposed Project.

Page 777 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-73

3.17 Wildland Fires
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
a. Substantially impair
implementation of or
physically interfere
with an adopted
emergency response
plan or emergency
evacuation plan; or
Less than
Significant None No No No
b. Due to slope,
prevailing winds, and
other factors,
exacerbate wildfire
risks, and thereby
expose project
occupants to
pollutant
concentrations from a
wildfire or the
uncontrolled spread
of a wildfire;
Less than
Significant None No No No
c. Require the
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;
Less than
Significant None No No No

Page 778 of 968 ends

5-74
Would the project:

Environmental Issue Area 2024 GP EIR
Findings
Mitigation
Measures
Does the
Proposed
Project Involve
New or More
Severe
Impacts?
New
Circumstances
Involving New
or More Severe
Impacts?
New
Information
Requiring
New Analysis
or
Verification?
d. 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
Less than
Significant None No No No

DISCUSSION
a) Emergency Response Plan
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that a significant impact could occur if implementation of the General Plan would substantially impair an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan, particularly in high wildfire hazard areas such as Area A (west of Business Center Drive) and near Area 1 (west of I-80), where construction- and operation-related traffic could affect emergency access. Construction activities would involve transport of equipment, materials, and workers, which could temporarily obstruct routes; however, compliance with City requirements for Encroachment Permits—including traffic control measures, detours, and signage—would ensure construction does not impair emergency plans. Operational impacts would be addressed through project-specific reviews, adherence to evacuation and emergency preparedness policies (Implementing Policies TP-2.6, PFS-2.1–2.3, SUS-2.1, HS-7.2–7.5, HS-7.10–7.11), and Fire and Police Department approvals for all new developments, ensuring interconnected evacuation routes, adequate capacity, safe access for multiple threat scenarios, and public awareness of emergency preparedness. Coordination with Solano County emergency plans, the Know Your Zone program, and infrastructure improvements (e.g., I-80/I-680/SR-12 interchange) further reduces risk.

The sites identified for general plan amendments are not designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) in a Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Development resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the same policies, programs, and associated plans as those included in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, impacts from the Proposed Project would be similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.

Page 779 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-75 b) Pollutant Concentrations
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that significant impacts could occur if development substantially increased wildfire risk or exposure. The City is generally surrounded by moderate to high wildfire hazard areas, including SRAs to the west and north, uplands in the Coast Range ridges, and portions of the city with elevated utility-associated wildfire risk, though most of the city is within an LRA and outside CAL FIRE’s primary responsibility. The 2024 General Plan contains policies requiring Fire Department and Planning Division review of all new development, sitespecific Fire Protection Plans, defensible space, fuel modification, fire-resistant building materials, and avoidance of critical infrastructure in high-risk areas (Implementing Policies PFS-3.1, HS-2.1–

2.4, HS-7.1–7.7, LU-6.4–6.5, LU-22.2). Targeted development areas, including Area A, Area 1, and Nelson Hill (Area B), would be subject to these measures. Additional policies strengthen emergency response and evacuation protocols and improve firefighting capabilities (PFS-2.1–2.3, SUS-2.1–2.3, SUS-4.4, HS-2.6, HS-2.8).

Because the Proposed Project does not increase General Plan development capacity and implements these wildfire risk reduction policies, development would not expose residents to uncontrolled wildfire spread, and impacts would be less than significant. The sites identified for general plan amendments are not designated as a VHFHSZ in an LRA. Development resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the same policies, programs, and associated plans as those included in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, impacts from the Proposed Project would be similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
c) Wildfire Infrastructure
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that development in undeveloped areas could increase wildfire risk or require substantial new infrastructure. Under the 2024 General Plan, most development would occur on urban infill sites using existing roads and utilities, while targeted areas—Area 1 (Cordelia Commercial Center and adjacent dairy/low-density residential), Area 2 (Business Flex parcels), Area A (vacant land for Low-Medium Density Residential), Area B (Nelson Hill for Low-Medium Density Residential), and Area C (Hale Ranch for Advanced/Food and Beverage Manufacturing)—may require limited infrastructure improvements. Development must minimize site disturbance, maintain safe setbacks from power lines, prepare Fire Protection Plans in moderate- and high-fire zones, and comply with State and local codes. Water supply is sufficient for fire flows, and projects are reviewed individually. With these measures, development under the General Plan would not exacerbate wildfire risks or require new emergency water infrastructure, and the impact would be less than significant.

The sites identified for general plan amendments are not designated as a VHFHSZ in an LRA.

Development resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the same policies, programs, and associated plans as those included in the General Plan EIR.

Therefore, impacts from the Proposed Project would be similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.

Page 780 of 968 ends

5-76
d) Post-Fire Risk
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that development in undeveloped areas could expose people or structures to post-fire hazards such as flooding or landslides. Implementation of the General Plan would primarily occur in urbanized areas, which would not significantly alter landforms or increase post-fire risks. Targeted development areas outside of the City limit are more vulnerable due to proximity to open space and topographically higher burned areas. However, use of lowimpact development and green infrastructure, and submittal of storm drainage plans help ensure runoff does not exceed system capacity. Additionally, new development must minimize site disturbance, implement erosion control, conduct geotechnical studies, and comply with grading regulations to address slope instability and landslide hazards. Post-fire recovery measures, such as revegetation and slope stabilization, are also encouraged. With State and local compliance, as well as implementation of General Plan policies, development under the General Plan would not expose people or structures to significant post-fire hazards, and the impact would be less than significant.

The sites identified for general plan amendments are not designated as a VHFHSZ in an LRA, nor are they in areas subject to flooding or liquefaction. Development resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project would be required to comply with the same policies, programs, and associated plans as those included in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, impacts from the Proposed Project would be similar to those analyzed in the General Plan EIR and would be less than significant.
e) Cumulative Impacts
The 2024 General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of the 2050 General Plan could result in additional development within the Planning Area, but it would not significantly increase wildfire risk. Policies in the General Plan require all new development to be reviewed by the Fire Department and Planning Division to ensure designs minimize wildfire hazards, including postwildfire conditions, promote clustered development, and avoid siting critical infrastructure in highrisk areas. Other development in surrounding areas would also be subject to state and local regulations for VFHSZ and Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) areas. The General Plan is consistent with the Solano County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan and includes measures to strengthen emergency response, evacuation protocols, and firefighting resources. Enforcement of these policies and coordination with other jurisdictions ensures that the General Plan’s contribution to cumulative wildfire risk is not cumulatively considerable and impacts are less than significant.

The Proposed Project, which implements the General Plan and does not result in any additional growth beyond projections in the 2050 General Plan, would follow the same policies and standards and would not result in new or more severe cumulative impacts related to wildfire than those previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

APPLICABLE MITIGATION MEASURES
None.

Page 781 of 968 ends

Chapter 2: Project Description
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 3-77

CONCLUSION
Based on an examination of the analysis, findings, and conclusions of the General Plan EIR, implementation of the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the severity of any impacts identified in the General Plan EIR, nor would it result in new significant impacts related to wildland fires. Since the approval of the General Plan, no new information has emerged, nor have environmental conditions changed such that, new environmental impacts would be expected to emerge, or previously identified impacts would become more severe.

Page 782 of 968 ends

Page 783 of 968 ends

4-1
4 List of Preparers
A list of contributing City staff and consultant team members, their titles, and affiliations, is provided below.

CITY OF FAIRFIELD
• Meily Sheehan, Director of Development Services & Planning Manager • Vicrim Chima, Senior Planner

CONSULTANTS
Dyett and Bhatia
• Alison Moore, Associate Principal
• Isha Bhattarai, Senior GIS Specialist

Page 784 of 968 ends

Page 785 of 968 ends

5-1
5 References
California Department of Conservation. (2023, August). California Farmland Conversion Report 2016-2018. Retrieved from Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Documents/fmmp/pubs/2016- 2018/FCR/FCR_1618_Report.pdf
Solano County LAFCO. (2012). Solano County Uniform Rules and Procedures Governing Agricultural Preserves and Land Conservation Contracts. Retrieved from:
https://www.solanocounty.com/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=2492 Bay Area Air Quality Management District. May, 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: May 10, 2024.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2022. California Environmental Quality Act, Air Quality Guidelines. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa-guidelines-2022/ceqa-guidelines-chapter-7-plan-level-impacts_finalpdf.pdf?rev=4caa6c8509fc446bb8c01ecd093856a1&sc_lang=en. Accessed: May 1, 2024.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. Final 2017 Clean Air Plan. Adopted April 19.

Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: July 1, 2021.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2012. Recommended Methods for Screening and Modeling Local Risks and Hazards. May. Available:
http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/risk-modeling-approachmay-2012.pdf. Accessed: July 1, 2021.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2024. California Natural Diversity Database.

Biogeographic Data Branch, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento, California. Available online at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed:

February 2021.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Sacramento, California. Online at: http://rareplants.cnps.org/; most recently accessed: April 2024.

NatureServe. 2021. NatureServe Conservation Status. Available:
http://explorer.natureserve.org/ranking.htm. Accessed: February 2021.

Page 786 of 968 ends

5-2
Solano County Water Agency (SCWA). 2012. Solano Habitat Conservation Plan. October 2012.

Northwest Information Center. 2024. Record search results for the proposed City of Fairfield General Plan Update. NWIC File No.: 23-1360, Sonoma State University, Sonoma.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May. Available: https://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-andresearch/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed: August 16, 2021.

California Air Resources Board. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. November. Pages 1, 3, 5, 20, 25, and 26.

Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed: August 16, 2021.

Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. December 2018. Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. Available: https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20190122- 743_Technical_Advisory.pdf. Accessed December 13, 2023.

University of California Museum of Paleontology. 2020. Advanced Specimen Search. Available:
https://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/cgi/ucmp_query2 https://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/advanced.html.

Accessed: May 20, 2024.

Department of Toxic Substances Control. Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor - Sites and Facilities Mapping Tool. Available: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/, Accessed: May 7, 2024.

Solano County Office of Emergency Services. (2024). Solano County Emergency Operations Plan.

Available: https://www.solanocounty.com/depts/oes/eoc/emergency_operations_plan.asp Solano County Office of Emergency Services Solano County Local Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan. (2022). Available at https://mitigatehazards.com/solanohmp/ Kennedy Jenks. July 2020. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared for the City of Fairfield.

Available:
https://www.fairfield.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/5128/637648843436330000 Accessed: April 26, 2024.

Solano County Water Agency. 2016. 2015 Solano County Water Agency Urban Water Management Plan. Solano County: Solano County Water Agency.

California Department of Conservation. 2018. Mineral Land Classification: Concrete Aggregate in the Greater Sacramento Area Production-Consumption Region. Available:
https://www.calcima.org/files/DOCSR245-SacRegion.pdf. Accessed: January 11, 2024.

Association of Bay Area Governments. May 2021. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031. Available:
https://abag.ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2021-05/ABAG_2023- 2031_Draft_RHNA_Plan.pdf. Accessed: July 13, 2023.

Page 787 of 968 ends

Chapter 3: Environmental Analysis
City of Fairfield Addendum to 2024 General Plan EIR 5-3 City of Fairfield (2023). 6th Cycle Housing Element, 2023-2031. Available at:
https://www.fairfield.ca.gov/government/city-departments/communitydevelopment/planning-division/general-plan/housing-element Fairfield Fire Department. October 2022. Fairfield Fire Department Master Plan.

Fairfield-Suisun Unified School District. June 16, 2022. Facilities Master Plan. Available:
https://www.fsusd.org/page/facilities-master-plan. Accessed: June 10, 2024.

Solano County Library. March 7, 2021. Solano County Library Facilities Master Plan. Available:
https://solanolibrary.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Solano-County-Library-FacilitiesMaster-Plan-2021.pdf. Accessed: May 30, 2024 R. Herrick, personal communication, May 11, 2024.

City of Fairfield. 2024. Draft 2024 Public Utility Master Plan. (Internal Report) Fairfield Suisun Sewer District. February, 2020. Fairfield Suisun Sewer District Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update.

Page 788 of 968 ends

Print Name: Alison Moore Date:

I, the the undersigned, have been granted access to historical resources information on file at the Northwest Information Center of the Califronia Historical Resources Information System.

I understand that any CHRIS Confidential Information I receive shall not be disclosed to individuals who do not qualify for access to such information, as specified in Section III(A-E) of the CHRIS Information Center Rules of Operation Manual, or in publicly distributed documents without written consent of the Information Center Coordinator.

I agree to submit historical Resource Records and Reports based in part on the CHRIS information released under this Access Agreement to the Information Center within sixy (60) calendar days of completion.

I agree to pay for CHRIS services provided under this Access Agreement within sixty (60) calendar days of receipt of billing.

I understand that failure to comply with this Access Agreement shall be grounds for denial of access to CHRIS Information.

Signature:

Affiliation: Dyett & Bhatia
Address:

Billing Address (if different from above):

City/State/ZIP:

Special Billing Information
Telephone: (713) 818-4815 Email: [email protected] Purpose of Access:

Reference (project name or number, title of study, and street address if applicable):

City of Fairfield General Plan Update
County: SOL USGS 7.5' Quads:
**This is not an invoice. Sonoma State University will send separate Invoice** File Number: 23-1360

ACCESS AGREEMENT SHORT FORM
Fairfield North & South, Elmira, Denverton, Cordelia
Appendix A: Historic, Cultural, and Tribal Resources Correspondence

Page 789 of 968 ends

May 31, 2024 NWIC File No.: 23-1360
Alison Moore
Dyett & Bhatia
4001 Howe Street
Oakland, CA 94611
Re: Record search results for the proposed City of Fairfield [GPU] General Plan Update Dear Alison Moore:

Per your request received by our office on the 22nd of March, 2024, a records search was conducted for the above referenced project by reviewing pertinent Northwest Information Center (NWIC) base maps that reference cultural resources records and reports, historic-period maps, and literature for Solano County. Please note that use of the term cultural resources includes both archaeological resources and historical buildings and/or structures.

The Planning Area where development may feasibly occur includes the City of Fairfield (approximately 41 square miles), its Sphere of Influence (SOI) (approximately 11 square miles), and an area of approximately ~0.15 square miles just to the west of Hale Ranch Road in the unincorporated County. The SOI is generally coterminous with the City boundary but includes a handful of areas surrounding the City limits, with the largest section located in the northeast area of the City limits, adjacent to Travis Air Force Base. The City is surrounded by undeveloped hills on its western and northern borders. To its east and northeast are grazing and prairie grasslands. Suisun Valley, one of the county’s most productive and intensive agricultural regions, adjoins Fairfield and separates the central city from the Cordelia planning area. Additionally, between Fairfield and nearby Vacaville to the northeast is the FairfieldVacaville-Solano Greenbelt.

The Fairfield General Plan Update will have all elements required by State law plus additional elements to incorporate strategies for achieving the plan vision, complying with new State law enacted since the Fairfield General Plan was last comprehensively updated, and addressing emerging trends and new technologies. The General Plan is anticipated to have the following elements: Land Use; Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation; Circulation; Economic Development; Health and Safety; Sustainability; Public Health and Environmental Justice; Public Services; Community Design; Agriculture; and Travis Air Force Base Protection; these elements may be combined or further separated out when the General Plan is drafted.

Review of the information at our office indicates that there have been 243 cultural resource studies covering approximately 2/3 of the City of Fairfield GPU project area. See attached Report Listing. This City of Fairfield GPU project area 35 recorded Native American archaeological resources, including lithic scatters, and isolates, habitation sites, burials, bedrock milling features, architectural features, such as rock shelters and caves, and hearths and pits.

This City of Fairfield GPU project area contains 37 historic-period archaeological resources,

Page 790 of 968 ends

2 23‐1360
including isolates, historic dumps, foundations, fences, walls, graves/cemeteries, landscaping and orchards, mines/quarries, wells/cisterns, a water conveyance system. See attached Resource List.

In addition, there are 13 Informal Resources within the City of Fairfield GPU project area including five prehistoric isolates, such as obsidian flakes; C-1478, 482B-002, 482B-003, 482B004, and 482B-006, an undated rock cairn 482B-005, the Cement Historic District, 499D-005, three historic buildings and structures including; C-1479, an historic wood frame farmhouse of John Morris circa 1882, C-1480, a one room structure post 1920, 482B-012 an historic homestead, and two unknown informal resources: 499D-002 and 499D-004. Informal Resources are those resources not recorded on DPR 523A primary record forms and not submitted in CHRIS standard format to an IC by OHP.

The State Office of Historic Preservation Built Environment Resources Directory (OHP BERD), which includes listings of the California Register of Historical Resources, California State Historical Landmarks, California State Points of Historical Interest, and the National Register of Historic Places, lists a total of approximately 185 recorded buildings and structures within the proposed City of Fairfield GPU project area. See attached BERD Listings for the City of Fairfield, as well as Cordelia and Travis Air Force Base, as they are within the boundaries provided for the City of Fairfield GPU project area. Also enclosed is the California Historical Resource Status Codes List. In addition to these inventories, the NWIC base maps show 74 recorded buildings, 33 recorded structures, two recorded Districts, P-48-000446, the Village of Cordelia Historic District, and P-48-000984, the Sacramento Northern Railway Historic District, and 37 Elements of Districts within the proposed City of Fairfield GPU project area. The Caltrans Bridge Inventory Lists 62 bridges. See attached Bridge Listing.

At the time of Euroamerican contact, the Native Americans that lived in the area of the City of Fairfield GPU were speakers of the Patwin language, which is part of the Southern Wintuan language family (Johnson 1978:350). Using Milliken’s study of various mission records, the proposed project area is located within the lands of the Malaca, Suisun and Tolema tribes (1995: 247, 257). In addition, there are known shellmounds within or in close proximity to the City of Fairfield GPU project area (Nelson 1909).

Based on an evaluation of the environmental setting and features associated with known sites, Native American resources in this part of Solano County have been found in areas at the hill to valley interface, in valleys, near intermittent and perennial watercourses and near areas populated by oak, buckeye, manzanita, and pine, as well as near a variety of plant and animal resources. The City of Fairfield GPU project area is located in Solano County and includes the City of Fairfield, the town of Cordelia, and Travis Air Force Base. The project area is located in the hills at the far northwestern portion of Suisun Bay and includes a portion of American and Jameson Canyons, extends north into a portion of Green Valley, and extends East past Travis Air Force Base, and across the edge of marshland above Cordelia and Suisun Sloughs. The project area is bisected by several watercourses including Union Creek, Putah South Canal, Denverton Creek, Green Valley Creek, American Canyon Creek, Suisun Creek, Ledgewood Creek, and Laurel Creek. Given the similarity of these environmental factors, and the ethnographic and archaeological sensitivity of the area, there is a high potential for unrecorded Native American resources to be within the proposed City of Fairfield GPU project area.

Review of historical literature and maps indicated historic-period activity within the City of Fairfield GPU project area. Early General Land Office Plat Maps and Rancho maps indicate roads, buildings, and bridges within the project area (1855, 1861). The 1898 Carquinez Strait

Page 791 of 968 ends

3 23‐1360
and 1908 Vacaville USGS 15-minute topographic quadrangles depict roads, trails railroads, gas wells, buildings, bridges, and the Bridgeport Horizontal Control Station within the project area.

With this information in mind, there is a high potential for unrecorded historic-period archaeological resources to be within the proposed City of Fairfield GPU project area.

The 1951 Mt. Vaca, 1940 Carquinez Strait, and 1953 Vacaville USGS 15-minute topographic quadrangle depicts buildings and structures, including roads, trails, highways, bridges, railroads, transmission lines, water tanks, as well as orchards, and Travis Air Force Base with Runways within the City of Fairfield GPU project area. If present, any unrecorded buildings or structures meet the Office of Historic Preservation’s minimum age standard that buildings, structures, and objects 45 years or older may be of historical value.

RECOMMENDATIONS:
1) There are 72 recorded archaeological resources in the proposed City of Fairfield GPU project area. There have been 243 cultural resource studies covering portions of the City of Fairfield GPU project area. According to our research there is a high potential of identifying Native American archaeological resources and a high potential of identifying historic-period archaeological resources in unsurveyed portions of the project area.

Given that the proposed City of Fairfield General Plan Update project area covers such a large area with known sensitivity, and the proposed improvements will guide future projects, it is recommended that these future projects be considered on an individual basis under the Northwest Information Center’s Project Review Program. This Program is organized to aid cities and counties in meeting their CEQA obligations on a project-by-project basis. These reviews result in project specific information and recommendations. Please contact the NWIC Coordinator at 707/588-8455 for additional information. 2) If archaeological resources are encountered during construction, work should be temporarily halted in the vicinity of the discovered materials and workers should avoid altering the materials and their context until a qualified professional archaeologist has evaluated the situation and provided appropriate recommendations. Project personnel should not collect cultural resources. Native American resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heataffected rock, or human burials. Historic-period resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits or bottle dumps, often located in old wells or privies.
3) It is recommended that any identified cultural resources be recorded on DPR 523 historic resource recordation forms, available online from the Office of Historic Preservation’s website: https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28351

Page 792 of 968 ends

4 23‐1360
4) We recommend the lead agency contact the local Native American tribe(s) regarding traditional, cultural, and religious heritage values. For a complete listing of tribes in the vicinity of the project, please contact the Native American Heritage Commission at 916/373-3710. 5) Our research indicates that there are a total of 185 recorded buildings and structures included in the OHP BERD within the City Of Fairfield General Plan Update project area that includes Cordelia and Travis Air Force Base. NWIC Base Maps show 74 recorded buildings, 33 recorded structures, two recorded Districts, P-48-000446, the Village of Cordelia Historic District, and P-48-000984, the Sacramento Northern Railway Historic District, and 37 Elements of Districts within the proposed City of Fairfield GPU project area. The Caltrans Bridge Inventory also includes 62 bridges within the project area. Additionally, the project area has the potential to contain other unrecorded buildings or structures that meet the minimum age requirement.

Therefore, prior to commencement of project specific activities, it is recommended that the above listed resources, and any other ones that have yet to be inventoried, be assessed by a professional familiar with the architecture and history of Solano County. Please refer to the list of consultants who meet the Secretary of Interior’s Standards at http://www.chrisinfo.org. 6) Review for possible historic-period buildings or structures has included only those sources listed in the attached bibliography and should not be considered comprehensive.

Due to processing delays and other factors, not all of the historical resource reports and resource records that have been submitted to the Office of Historic Preservation are available via this records search. Additional information may be available through the federal, state, and local agencies that produced or paid for historical resource management work in the search area. Additionally, Native American tribes have historical resource information not in the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) Inventory, and you should contact the California Native American Heritage Commission for information on local/regional tribal contacts.

The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) contracts with the California Historical Resources Information System’s (CHRIS) regional Information Centers (ICs) to maintain information in the CHRIS inventory and make it available to local, state, and federal agencies, cultural resource professionals, Native American tribes, researchers, and the public.

Recommendations made by IC coordinators or their staff regarding the interpretation and application of this information are advisory only. Such recommendations do not necessarily represent the evaluation or opinion of the State Historic Preservation Officer in carrying out the OHP’s regulatory authority under federal and state law.

Thank you for using our services. Please contact this office if you have any questions, (707) 588-8455.

Sincerely,
Jillian Guldenbrein
Researcher

Page 793 of 968 ends

5 23‐1360

LITERATURE REVIEWED
In addition to archaeological maps and site records on file at the Northwest Information Center of the Historical Resources Information System, the following literature was reviewed:

Fickewirth, Alvin A.
1992 California Railroads. Golden West Books, San Marino, CA.

General Land Office
1800s Survey Plats for Township 4 North/Ranges 1, 2, 3 West. 1800s Survey Plats for Township 5 North/Ranges 1, 2, 3 West, and 1 East. 1855 Portions of Rancho Suisun
1861 Portions of Ranch Tolenas
Gudde, Erwin G.
1969 California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names.

Third Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Hart, James D.
1987 A Companion to California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.

Helley, E.J., K.R. Lajoie, W.E. Spangle, and M.L. Blair 1979 Flatland Deposits of the San Francisco Bay Region - Their Geology and Engineering Properties, and Their Importance to Comprehensive Planning. Geological Survey Professional Paper 943. United States Geological Survey and Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, and Ethel Rensch, revised by William N. Abeloe 1966 Historic Spots in California. Third Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Hoover, Mildred Brooke, Hero Eugene Rensch, and Ethel Rensch, William N. Abeloe, revised by Douglas E. Kyle
1990 Historic Spots in California. Fourth Edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA.

Hope, Andrew
2005 Caltrans Statewide Historic Bridge Inventory Update. Caltrans, Division of Environmental Analysis, Sacramento, CA.

Johnson, Patti J.
1978 Patwin. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 350-360. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Kroeber, A.L.
1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Reprint by Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1976)

Page 794 of 968 ends

6 23‐1360
Kroeber, A.L.
1932 The Patwin and their Neighbors. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 35(2):15-22. University of California Press, Berkeley. (Reprint by Kraus Reprint Corp., New York, 1965)
Milliken, Randall
1995 A Time of Little Choice: The Disintegration of Tribal Culture in the San Francisco Bay Area 1769-1810. Ballena Press Anthropological Papers No. 43, Menlo Park, CA.

Nichols, Donald R., and Nancy A. Wright
1971 Preliminary Map of Historic Margins of Marshland, San Francisco Bay, California.

U.S. Geological Survey Open File Map. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geological Survey in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C.

Roberts, George, and Jan Roberts
1988 Discover Historic California. Gem Guides Book Co., Pico Rivera, CA.

State of California Department of Parks and Recreation
1976 California Inventory of Historic Resources. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento.

State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation 1988 Five Views: An Ethnic Sites Survey for California. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation and Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.

State of California Office of Historic Preservation **
2022 Built Environment Resources Directory. Listing by City (through September 23, 2022). State of California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento.

Williams, James C.
1997 Energy and the Making of Modern California. The University of Akron Press, Akron, OH.

Woodbridge, Sally B.
1988 California Architecture: Historic American Buildings Survey. Chronicle Books, San Francisco, CA.

Works Progress Administration
1984 The WPA Guide to California. Reprint by Pantheon Books, New York. (Originally published as California: A Guide to the Golden State in 1939 by Books, Inc., distributed by Hastings House Publishers, New York.)
**Note that the Office of Historic Preservation’s Historic Properties Directory includes National Register, State Registered Landmarks, California Points of Historical Interest, and the California Register of Historical Resources as well as Certified Local Government surveys that have undergone Section 106 review

Page 795 of 968 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation
NWIC File # 23-1360 City of Fairfield General Plan Update S-002840 1981 First Addendum Archaeological Survey for
the Proposed Fairfield Bypass Project,
Solano County, 10-Sol-12/80 R3.1/R6.2,

15.0/16.8, 10102-071600.

Caltrans - 10102- Wayne C. Wiant Caltrans, District 10
071600;
Voided - ASC #351c
S-005057 1976 Archaeological Survey, Proposed County
Road Project on Sunset Avenue, 10-Sol-FAU
Sunset Avenue.

Archeology Study Center,
California State University,
Sacramento
Voided - ASC #72 Henry S. Keesling
S-005060 1975 An Archaeological Impact Study of the
Fairfield City Undercrossing Project on Air
Base Parkway at North Texas Street.

Archeology Study Center,
California State University,
Sacramento
Voided - ASC #79 Wayne C. Wiant
S-005067 1974 Archeological Survey of the Proposed
Fairfield-Suisun Wastewater Management
Facilities.

California State University,
Sacramento
Jerald Jay Johnson and
Patti Johnson
Voided - ASC #269
S-005072 1976 Cultural Resource Assessment of the
Fairfield Redevelopment Plan, Solano
County, California.

Voided - ASC #330 Ann S. Peak and Associates
S-005072a 1978 Historic Property Survey of the Proposed Travis Boulevard/I-80 Interchange
Modification, Fairfield, Solano County,
California
Ann S. Peak & Associates
S-005073 1976 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Road
Expansion and Installation of a 24" Water
Transmission Main Along Cement Hill Road
From Dover Avenue East to New Travis
A.F.B. Hospital
Ann S. Peak & Associates,
Inc.

Voided - ASC #331
S-005074 1976 Cultural Resource Assessment of Mankas
Park in the City of Fairfield, California
Ann S. Peak and
Associates, Inc.

Voided - ASC #332
S-005075 1976 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Road
Improvement of North Texas Street from
Atlantic Boulevard North to the I-80
Interchange.

Ann S. Peak and
Associates, Inc.

Voided - ASC #333
S-005076 1976 Cultural Resource Assessment of Three
Sections of Drainage Ditch in the City of
Fairfield, California.

Ann S. Peak & Associates,
Inc.

Voided - ASC #334
S-005077 1976 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Allen Witt Community Park in Fairfield, California.

Ann S. Peak and
Associates, Inc.

Voided - ASC #335
S-005078 1976 Cultural Resource Assessment of the
Margins of Cordelia and Chadbourne Roads
in the City of Fairfield, California.

Ann S. Peak & Associates,
Inc.

Voided - ASC #336 Ann S. Peak

Page 1 of 41 ends

Page 796 of 968 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation
NWIC File # 23-1360 City of Fairfield General Plan Update S-005079 1976 Cultural Resource Assessment of Nelson Hill and the Margins of Cordelia Road from
Nelson Hill to Hale Ranch Road, Solano
County, and City of Fairfield, California
Ann S. Peak & Associates,
Inc.

Voided - ASC #337
S-005080 1976 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Site of the New Police Station Addition in the City of
Fairfield, California.

Voided - ASC #338 Ann S. Peak & Associates
S-005081 1976 Cultural Resource Assessment of the
Proposed Site of Fairfield Fire Station No. 3.

Ann S. Peak and
Associates, Inc.

Voided - ASC #339
S-005082 1976 Cultural Resource Assessment of the
Stonedene Apartment Project, Solano
County, California.

Ann S. Peak and
Associates, Inc.

Voided - ASC #340
S-005085 1977 Cultural Resource Assessment of the William H.M. Smith Property, Cordelia, California.

Voided - ASC #343 Ann S. Peak & Associates
S-005086 1977 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Citation Homes Development, Green Valley,
California.

Voided - ASC #344 [none] Ann S. Peak & Associates
S-005087 1977 Cultural Resource Assessment of the
Proposed Dover Valley Subdivision, Fairfield,
California
Voided - ASC #345 Ann S. Peak and Associates
S-005093 1977 Archaeological Survey: Realignment of
Highway 12, Fairfield, California.

University of California,
Davis
Voided - ASC #351a D. L. True
S-005094 1978 Archaeological Survey Near Fairfield,
California: Alternate Route for Highway 12.

University of California,
Davis
Voided - ASC #351b D. L. True
S-005106 1978 Archaeological Investigations Near Cordelia, California: Cordelia Villages.

University of California,
Davis
Voided - ASC #362 Joan E. Hellen
S-005107 1978 Archaeological Investigations for a Planned Residential Development, Fairfield, California
Department of
Anthropology, University of
California Davis
Voided - ASC #363 Joan E. Hellen
S-005108 1978 Archaeological Investigations Near Green
Valley, California: Hofmann Project
University of California,
Davis
Dave Dickle and D. L.

True
Voided - ASC #364
S-005112 1978 Cultural Resource Assessment of the Neitzel Hill Property, Solano County, California.

Voided - ASC #369 Ann S. Peak & Associates
S-005114 1978 Progress Report on the test excavation of CASOL-60, located on the Cadenasso property, Fairfield, California (ARS 78-62) (letter report)
Archaeological Resource
Service
Submitter - ARS 78- Katherine Flynn
62;
Voided - ASC #371a
S-005114a 1978 Mitigation procedure, CA-SOL-60/Cadenesso property, Fairfield, California (letter report)
Archaeological Resource
Service
Katherine Flynn

Page 2 of 41 ends

Page 797 of 968 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation
NWIC File # 23-1360 City of Fairfield General Plan Update S-005115 1978 Cultural Resources Survey of the Peabody
230 kV Transmission Line and 230/21 kV
Substation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Voided - ASC #372 Kenneth L. Wilson
S-005116 1978 Archaeological Investigation: Cordelia Water Line for City of Fairfield.

University of California,
Davis
Voided - ASC #373 Joan E. Hellen
S-005117 1978 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the
Rockville Road Bridge Over Ledgewood
Creek, Fairfield, Solano County, California
Department of
Anthropology, University of
California Davis
Voided - ASC #374 Paul Bouey
S-005117a 1979 Historical/ Cultural Resources Survey,
Rockville Road Bridge at Ledgewood Creek
and Rockville Road Corridor East to Oliver
Road
Charles Hall Page &
Associates, Inc.

Charles J. Hasbrouck
and Ellen Lipsey
S-005118 1978 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of
Certain Portions of the Dunnell Ranch,
Fairfield, Solano County, California.

Archaeological Consulting
and Research Services
Voided - ASC #376a;
Voided - S-5121
S-005118a 1978 Archaeological Reconnaissance of the 140 acre land addition to the previously
reconnoitered Dunnell Ranch in Solano
County, California (letter report)
Archaeological Consulting
and Research Services, Inc.

Stephen A. Dietz
S-005119 1981 Evaluation of the Proposed Road and
Pipeline Location with Respect to
Archaeological Resources DR-1 and DR-2
(Sol-55, 67) on the Dunnell Ranch, Fairfield,
Solano County, California (letter report)
California State University,
Sacramento
Voided - ASC #376b; Marianne L. Russo
Voided - ASC #376c;
Voided - S-5120
S-005119a 1981 Archeological Monitoring of the Pipeline Location on the Dunnell Ranch, Fairfield,
Solano County, California, with Respect to
the Boundary Locations of CA-SOL-55 and
CA-SOL-67 (letter report)
Eleanor H. Derr
S-005123 1978 Report of Preliminary Archaeological Survey, Hoffmann Property, Green Valley, Solano
County, California
Archaeological Consulting
and Research Services
Voided - ASC #379
S-005124 1978 Hoffman Property, Green Valley (letter report) Archaeological Planning Collaborative
Voided - ASC #380a Theo N. Mabry
S-005125 1978 Archaeological Records Check and
Reconnaissance Report, Toobey Farms,
Solano County, CA
Archaeological Planning
Collaborative
Voided - ASC #381
S-005126 Voided - ASC #382 1977 Mangels Ranch Archeological Survey

Page 3 of 41 ends

Page 798 of 968 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation
NWIC File # 23-1360 City of Fairfield General Plan Update S-005127 1979 Archaeological Survey of Waterman Ranch
and Gregory Heights, City of Fairfield (letter
report)
Archaeological Planning
Collaborative
Voided - ASC #383 Theo N. Mabry
S-005130 1979 Preliminary Cultural Resources Assessment of the Cement Hill Location, Solano County,
California
Voided - ASC #386 David Chavez
S-005132 1979 Archaeological Records Search and
Reconnaissance Survey, Fairfield
Redevelopment Project, Fairfield, CA.

Archaeological Planning
Collaborative
Voided - ASC #388 Theo N. Mabry
S-005133 1979 Recommendations for the Treatment of
Archaeological Site CA-Sol-254.

Frederick Geier
S-005134 1979 Records Search and Reconnaissance
Survey, Morrison Homes Development,
Fairfield, California
Archaeological Planning
Collaborative
Voided - ASC #390
S-005135 1979 Archaeological Reconnaissance Survey and
Records Search, Northern Sacramento
Railroad Right-of-Way, Fairfield, California
Archaeological Planning
Collaborative
Voided - ASC #391
S-005136 1979 Archaeological Records Search and
Reconnaissance Survey, Cement Hill Road
Sewer and Water Project.

Archaeological Planning
Collaborative
Voided - ASC #392 Walter J. Wood
S-005136a 1980 Additional survey and amendment to the
original Archaeological Record Search and
Reconnaissance Survey of the Cement Hill
Road Sewer and Water Project, Fairfield,
California (letter report)
Walter J. Wood Archaeological Consulting
S-005139 1980 Archaeological evaluation of the Area of
Potential Environmental Impact (APEI) for the
Interstate 80/Highway 12 Interchange Project
(letter report)
Voided - ASC #530 David Chavez
S-005143 1980 An Archeological Records Search and Field Reconnaissance of the Strassberger
Industrial Park, Fairfield, California.

Archeological Study Center;
California State University,
Sacramento
Voided - ASC #575 Steven B. Dondero
S-005144 1980 A Cultural Resources Study of the Proposed Route of the Jameson 230 kV Transmission
Line Tap, Solano County, California.

Archaeological Study
Center, California State
University, Sacramento
Voided - ASC #576 Michael F. Rondeau
S-005145 1980 An Archeological Records Search and Field Reconnaissance of the Dittmer Property,
Cordelia, California
Archeological Study Center,
California State University
Sacramento
Voided - ASC #585 Steven B. Dondero

Page 4 of 41 ends

Page 799 of 968 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation
NWIC File # 23-1360 City of Fairfield General Plan Update S-005148 1980 An Archeological Survey of the Fairfield
Linear Park, Solano County, California.

Archeological Study Center,
California State University,
Sacramento
Voided - ASC #607 Eleanor H. Derr
S-005153 1981 Archaeological reconnaissance of proposed "Sunset Oaks" subdivision, east of Sunset
Avenue and northeast of Travis Blvd.,
Fairfield, CA. (letter report)
Archaeological Resource
Service
Submitter - ARS 81- Katherine Flynn
18;
Voided - ASC #654
S-005154 1981 Archaeological reconnaissance of "Lands of Low/Nicandros/Harvest Park" off Magellan
Road, Fairfield, California (P.O. 000535 FP)
(letter report)
Archaeological Resource
Service
Submitter - ARS 81- Katherine Flynn
02;
Voided - ASC #655
S-005156 1965 Archeological Survey and Excavation Along the Tehama-Colusa Canal, Central California
Adan E. Treganza, San Francisco State College
Robert L. Edwards, and
Thomas F. King
Submitter - Contract
No. 14-10-0434-
1414;
Voided - ASC #690
S-005158 1981 Archaeological Records Check and Field
Survey, Green Valley Road Development
Property, Cordelia, California
Larry Seeman Associates,
Inc.

Voided - ASC #705
S-005163 1982 Archeological Survey Report for the
Proposed Air Base Parkway Interchange
Project, 10-Sol-80, PM 18.4/20.4, 10102-
California Department of
Transportation
Caltrans - 10102- Valerie A. Levulett
165401;
Caltrans - 10102-
165401;
Voided - ASC #715;
Voided - S-5812
S-005163a 1983 First Addendum Archaeological Survey
Report for the Proposed Air Base
ParkwayInterchange Project, 10-SOL-80,
P.M. 18.4/20.4, 10102-165401
California Department of
Transportation
Margaret C. Biorn
S-005167 1980 Cultural Resources Evaluation of the North Bay Aqueduct Alignment Alternatives (Routes
1, 4 and 6), Solano County, California.

Voided - ASC #720a David Chavez
S-005168 1981 Subsurface Archeological Investigations at CA-SOL-268: North Bay Aqueduct Project,
Solano County, California.

David Chavez, Consulting
Archaeologist
Voided - ASC #720b David Chavez
S-005168 North Bay Aqueduct - Archaeological
Assessment
Office of Historic
Preservation
Knox Mellon
S-005172 1976 Archeological EIR Report for Cordelia
Commerce Park, Fairfield, California.

California State University
Sacramento
Voided - ASC #724a Wayne C. Wiant
S-005173 1981 Archeological Site Mapping, CA-SOL-25,
Fairfield, California.

Larry Seeman Associates,
Inc.

Voided - ASC #724b

Page 5 of 41 ends

Page 800 of 968 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation
NWIC File # 23-1360 City of Fairfield General Plan Update S-005174 1980 Rockville Hills Park Project, Solano County, California (letter report)
Voided - ASC #726 David Chavez
S-005213 1982 Cultural Resources Evaluation for the
Cordelia Hills Wind Turbine Generator (WTG)
Project EIR, Solano County, California
David Chavez
S-005688 1982 Report of Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Kacor Project Area, Near Cordelia,
Solano County, California
Matthew R. Clark Holman & Associates
S-005846 1983 Solano Ranch EIR (ESA Project No. 2227)
(letter report)
David Chavez
S-005993 1982 A Cultural Resource Survey of Portions of the Solano County Cordelia Redevelopment
Project.

Archeological Study Center,
California State University,
Sacramento
Kenneth McIvers
S-006121 1976 An Archaeological Evaluation of the
Proposed Wastewater Storage Ponds of the
Vacaville Easterly Treatment Plant
Enlargement Project
Dean H. Gaumer
S-006281 1982 The Prehistoric and Historic Resources of Cordelia and Portions of Green and Suisun
Valleys, Solano County, California: An
Overview for Cordelia Redevelopment Plan
Archaeological Study
Center, California State
University, Sacramento
Eleanor H. Derr
S-006506 1984 A preliminary report of findings from the archaeological field reconnaissance of the
proposed Nelson Hill Quarry operation,
Solano County, California.

Miley Paul Holman Holman & Associates
S-006552 1984 Fairfield Vicinity Streams, Solano County, California: Intensive Cultural Resource Survey
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Sannie Kenton and Patti
Johnson
S-006552a 1976 Fairfield Vicinity Streams, California,
Intensive Cultural Resources Survey
S-006793 1984 Archaeological and Historical Evaluation and Field Survey of the Green Valley Creek
Bridge, Cordelia, California
Archaeological Study
Center, California State
University, Sacramento
Michael J. Marchak III
S-007137 1984 Cultural Resources Inventory of the Proposed Travis Air Force Base Medical Facility,
Fairfield, Solano County, California, Final
Report
Archaeological Resource
Service
Katherine Flynn and
William Roop
Voided - S-11032

Page 6 of 41 ends

Page 801 of 968 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation
NWIC File # 23-1360 City of Fairfield General Plan Update S-007137a 1989 Archaeological Data Recovery at CA-SOL313, within the Proposed Travis Air Force Base Medical Facility, Fairfield, Solano
County, California, Final Report
Archaeological Resource
Service
William Roop, Katherine
Flynn, Jeff Parsons, and
Lawrence Silva
S-007137b 1989 Archaeological Data Recovery at CA-SOL313 Within the Proposed Travis Air Force Base Medical Facility, Fairfield, Solano
County, California, Final Report
Archaeological Resource
Service
William Roop, Katherine
Flynn, Jeff Parsons, and
Lawrence Silva
S-007137c Voided-See S-51579
S-007457 1985 Archaeological Investigations at CA-SOL-315 and -316, Within the Green Valley Lake
Parcel, Solano County, California
California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.

Peter M. Banks
S-007743 1985 Cultural Resource Assessment of the
Proposed California National Guard's Fairfield
Armory, Solano County, California. Fairfield
Armory, Solano County, California.

Peak & Associates
S-007905 1986 Travis Air Force Base SATCOM Project
(letter report).

David Chavez
S-008653 1978 A Minor test excavation at CA-SOL-60, on
Ledgewood Creek, near Fairfield, Solano
County.

Archaeological Resource
Service
Voided - ASC #371b Katherine Flynn
S-008951 1986 Cultural Resources Evaluation for the North Bay Aqueduct Water Treatment Facilities
EIR, Solano County, California
Voided - S-9122 David Chavez & Associates
S-008951a 1987 Supplement to Cultural Resources Evaluation for the North Bay Aqueduct Water Treatment
Facilities EIR, Solano County, California --
Treated Water Reservoir Site Alternatives
David Chavez David Chavez & Associates
S-009124 1987 A Cultural Resources Study for the Vaca
Dixon-Moraga 230 kV Transmission Line
Reconductoring Project, Contra Costa, Napa,
and Solano Counties, California
Hager/Holson and
Associates
John Holson and Lori
Hager
S-009508 1987 An Archaeological Survey at Oakwood Drove and Suisun Valley Road, Near Cordelia,
Solano County, California
California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.

Robert I. Orlins

Page 7 of 41 ends

Page 802 of 968 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation
NWIC File # 23-1360 City of Fairfield General Plan Update S-010549 1989 Travis Air Force Base, Solano County,
California, Proposed Section 801 Family
Housing, Cultural Resources Survey and
Evaluation
US Army Corps of
Engineers
Sannie Kenton Osborn
and Richard A. Weaver
S-010706 1989 Upper Mangels Ranch Archaeological Study, Survey Report
Cultural Resources
Unlimited
Eleanor H. Derr
S-011042 1989 An Archaeological Survey of the Stonedene Parcel and Site CA-SOL-71, Suisun, Solano
County, California
California Archaeological
Consultants, Inc.

Robert I. Orlins
S-011907 1990 An Evaluation of CA-SOL-307H, the Mangels Ranch Complex, Solano County,California
Submitter - Job #90- Peak & Associates, Inc.
49a
S-012104 1990 Negative Archaeological Survey Report:

Addendum 1, Two Additions to the New
Benicia/Martinez Bridge System Project, 04-
SOL-080 P.M. 0.0/1.0, 12.0/16.15, 04136-
006010
Caltrans - 04136- Michael W. Love Caltrans, District 04 006010
S-012206 1990 Archaeological Survey Report, park and ride lot, 10-SOL-80 PM R11.5 421400
Susan E. Page Caltrans
S-012490 1991 Archaeological Survey of the Cordelia Pump Station Buffer Properties Near Cordelia,
Solano County, CA. (ARS 91-01)
Archaeological Resource
Service
Other - ARS -91-01 Katherine Flynn
S-012530 1991 Cultural Resources Assessment of Nelson
Hill Quarry Project, Cordelia, Solano County,
California
Basin Research
Associates, Inc.

Donna M. Garaventa,
Michael R. Fong, Stuart
A. Guedon, James C.

Bard, Steven J. Rossa,
and John E. YeldingSloan
S-012741 1989 A Cultural Resources Study of North
Fairfield - Town of Cement, Solano County,
California: for the North Fairfield Water
Transmission Facilities Project
Archaeological Study
Center, California State
University, Sacramento
Kenneth J. McIvers
S-012743 1975 An archaeological survey for a proposed
highway widening project, 10-SOL-Walters
Rd. 10201-926434
Caltrans - 10201- Greg Greenway Caltrans
926434
S-012751 1979 Addendum to the Historic Property Survey
Report, Chadbourne Road to Marina
Boulevard, City of Fairfield
Dan Peterson, Geraldine A.I.A. and Associates
Peterson, and Judith A.

Munns
S-012752 1976 Archaeological Evaluation of the Proposed Urban Development of Suisun City, Solano
County, California
Miley Paul Holman, Dean
H. Gaumer, and David
Chavez

Page 8 of 41 ends

Page 803 of 968 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation
NWIC File # 23-1360 City of Fairfield General Plan Update S-012758 1991 Report of Archaeological Investigation at the Four Seasons Development in Green Valley,
Fairfield, Solano County, California
Randy S. Wiberg Holman & Associates
S-012887 1991 An Archaeological Study of the Serpas Ranch Property, Hilborn Road, Fairfield, Solano
County, California
Bruce Dahlstrom Sonoma State University
S-013470 1991 Extended Phase I Archaeological Report,
Benicia-Martinez Bridge System Project in
Contra Costa and Solano Counties, 04-CC680 P.M. 21.2/21.5, 04-SOL-680 Voided - S-013470 Mick Hayes Caltrans
S-014344 1992 Archaeological Data Recovery at Sites CASOL-69 and CA-SOL-315, Green Valley, Solano County, California
Randy S. Wiberg, David Holman & Associates
G. Bieling, James P.

Quinn, Eric Wohlgemuth,
and Jerry Doty
S-014587 1993 An Archaeological Study of Approximately
126 Acres Located at 194 Walters Road in
the City of Fairfield, Solano County, California
Cultural Resources Facility,
Sonoma State University
Eric Allison
S-014627 1993 Final Report: Archaeological Data Recovery at Prehistoric Site CA-SOL-355/H, Green
Valley, Solano County, California
Randy S. Wiberg, David Holman & Associates
G. Bieling, Edward Luby,
Randy Milliken, James P.

Quinn, Philip N.

Williamson, Eric
Wohlgemuth, and Jerry
Doty
S-014732 1993 Cultural Resources Field Survey, Fieldcrest Project, Solano County
Beth Padon LSA Associates, Inc.

S-015028 1993 Phase I Archaeological Reconnaissance:

Regional Commerce Center and Planned
Employment Center, Green Valley, Fairfield,
California
Randy S. Wiberg Holman & Associates
S-015030 1993 Report of Archaeological Subsurface Testing at the Cordelia Commons #4 Project Area,
Fairfield, Solano County, California
Randy S. Wiberg Holman & Associates
S-015489 1993 Preliminary Report: Phase II Evaluative
Testing of Archaeological Site CA-SOL-356,
Fairfield, Solano County, California
Randy S. Wiberg Holman & Associates
S-016376 1994 Site Perimeter Identification and Monitoring of Geotechnical Test Trenching at CA-SOL-391,
Green Valley, in the City of Fairfield, Solano
County, California
S. Psota and M. R. Clark Holman & Associates

Page 9 of 41 ends

Page 804 of 968 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation
NWIC File # 23-1360 City of Fairfield General Plan Update S-016497 1994 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the
Approximately Twenty Acre Greystone
Mangels Ranch Parcel in the Cordelia Area of
the City of Fairfield, Solano County
Submitter - H&A 94- Matthew R. Clark Holman & Associates 33 S-016747 1993 Archaeological Survey Report, proposed new right of way for a weave section between
Green Valley Road and the next westbound
offramp on Highway 80, 10-SOL-80 PM

11.0/12.0 10-110 39170K
Susan E. Page Caltrans
S-017483 1979 An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the
Martin Hill Ranch Site at Fairfield, Solano
County, California (letter report)
Archaeological Consulting
and Research Services, Inc.

Stephen A. Dietz
S-017713 1995 Report on 1995 Testing and Monitoring at
Archaeological Site CA-SOL-25/H, Solano
County, California
Far Western
Anthropological Research
Services, Inc.

Patricia Mikkelsen,
Randall Milliken, Leslie
Glover, Elizabeth
Honeysett, Eric
Wohlgemuth, Patricia
Welsh, and Tammara
Ekness
S-017828 1995 Mechanical Field Testing of the Rolling Hills Neighborhood Park for Suspected
Archaeological Materials Associated with
Archaeological Site SOL-67, Fairfield,
Miley Paul Holman
S-017899 1969 Archaeological Resources of the West
Sacramento Canal Unit
University of California, Los
Angeles
Joseph L. Chartkoff

Page 10 of 41 ends

Page 805 of 968 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation
NWIC File # 23-1360 City of Fairfield General Plan Update S-017993 1995 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
Brian Hatoff, Barb Voss,
Sharon Waechter,
Stephen Wee, and
Vance Bente
S-017993a 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix A - Native American
Consultation
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993b 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix B - Looping Segments -
Class 1
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993c 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix C -Monitoring and
Emergency Discovery Plan
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993d 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix D - General Construction
Information
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993e 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix E - Archaeological Site
Records
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993f 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix F - Historic Features
Evaluation Forms
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993g 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix G - Railroad Crossing
Evaluation Forms
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants

Page 11 of 41 ends

Page 806 of 968 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation
NWIC File # 23-1360 City of Fairfield General Plan Update S-017993h 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix H - Crossing Diagrams and
Plan View Maps
Woodward Clyde
Consultants
S-017993I 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix I - Railroad Depot NRHP
Nomination Forms and Related Records
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993j 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix J - Looping Segment and
Compressor Station Site Records
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993k 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix K - Historic Site Records /
Isolate Forms
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993l 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix L - Photodocumentation
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-017993m 1995 Proposed Mojave Northward Expansion
Project: Appendix M - Curricula Vitae of Key
Preparers
Woodward-Clyde
Consultants
S-018043 1994 Magellan Road Park and Ride Facility,
Fairfield, Solano County, California (letter
report)
Miley Paul Holman Holman & Associates
S-018058 1995 Archival Research and Field Inspection of the Lower Mangels Ranch Project Area, Fairfield,
Solano County, California (letter report)
Miley Paul Holman Holman & Associates
S-018865 1996 Archaeological Excavations at Site CA-SOL356, Fairfield, Solano County, California:

Final Report
Holman & Associates;
Washington State University
Randy S. Wiberg, David
G. Bieling, Victor
Bjelajac, Jerry Doty,
Richard E. Hughes, Julia
Jarrett, James P. Quinn,
Dwight Simons, Brian
Wickstrom, and Eric
Wohlgemuth

Page 12 of 41 ends

Page 807 of 968 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation
NWIC File # 23-1360 City of Fairfield General Plan Update S-019263 1991 Finding of Effect Report, Benicia-Martinez Bridge System Improvement Project, Contra
Costa and Solano Counties, California, CC680 21.2/21.5, SOL-680 0.0/13.1, SOL-780

0.7/7.2, SOL-80 10.8/14.2, 04193-006010
California Department of
Transportation
Caltrans - 04193-
006010;

OHP PRN -
FHWA890809A;
Voided - S-22300;
Voided - S-25518

Page 13 of 41 ends

Page 808 of 968 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation
NWIC File # 23-1360 City of Fairfield General Plan Update S-019263a 1990 FHWA890809A Re: Benicia-Martinez Bridge
Project, IR-680-1 (), IR-780-1 ()
California Office of Historic
Preservation
Bruce E. Cannon,
Kathryn Gualtieri, Mara
Melandry, and C.

Thomas Hosley
S-019263b 1988 An Evaluation of the Southern Pacific
Martinez-Benicia Bridge
California Department of
Transportation
John W. Snyder
S-019263c 1991 Section 3.4 "Alternatives Considered and Eliminated from Consideration" from
Preliminary Draft - "Project Description of
Benicia-Martinez Bridge System Project"
Dames and Moore
S-019263d 1989 Historic Properties Survey Report, BeniciaMartinez Bridge System Improvement Project in Contra Costa and Solano Counties, CC680 21.2/21.5, SOL-680 0.0/13.1, SOL-780

0.7/7.2, 04193-006010
John Holson Caltrans, District 4
S-019263e 1989 Archaeological Survey Report for the BeniciaMartinez Bridge System Improvement Project, 10-SOL-680 P.M. 0.0/13.1, 10-SOL780 P.M. 0.7/7.4, SOL-080 P.M. 0.8/3.7 and

10.8/14.2, 04-CC-680 P.M. 21.0/25.5 04193-
006010
John Holson Caltrans
S-019263f 1988 Historic Architectural Survey Report BeniciaMartinez Bridge System Improvement Project, 11-Sol-680, 11-Sol-780, 4-CC-680,
04193-006010
California Department of
Transportation
Gregory King, Stephen
D. Mikesell, Gloria Scott,
and John Snyder
S-019263g 2002 Benicia-Martinez Bridge System
Improvements Project Addendum,
Archaeological Survey Report - Maritime
Archaeology, Contra Costa and Solano
Counties; 04-SOL-680 PM 0.0/13.1, 04-SOL780 PM 0.7/7.4, 04-SOL-80 PM 0.8/3.7,

10.8/14.2, 04-CC-680 PM 21.0/25, EA 04193-
006010
James M. Allan William Self Associates, Inc.

S-019263h 1989 Benicia-Martinez Bridge System
Improvement Project
California Office of Historic
Preservation
Kathryn Gualtieri
S-019456 1997 An Archaeological Investigation of Peachtree and Ellen Courts, Fairfield, Solano County,
California
Sunshine Psota
S-019494 1997 An Archaeological Investigation of 1/2-Acre of Land at 890 E. Travis Blvd., Fairfield, Solano
County, California
David G. Bieling Holman & Associates

Page 14 of 41 ends

Page 809 of 968 ends

Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation
NWIC File # 23-1360 City of Fairfield General Plan Update S-020632 1998 Archaeological Monitoring and Burial
Removal at Green Valley Lake Units Nos. 2
and 3 (Sites CA-SOL-69 and CA-SOL-315),
Fairfield, Solano County, California
Randy S. Wiberg, Alisa Holman & Associates
Reynolds, Ellen Moore,
and David Bieling
S-021077 1998 Cultural Resources Study of the Meyer
Property in Fairfield, California
Terry L. Joslin Albion Environmental, Inc.

S-021246 1999 Report of Further Archaeological Monitoring and Burial Removal at Green Valley Lake
Unit 3 Residential Development (CA-SOL69), City of Fairfield, Solano County, California Alisa Reynolds and Holman & Associates
Randy S. Wiberg
S-021316 1998 Archaeological Survey Report, 04-SOL-80
PM 19.02 EA 0S9601, Repair of Slipout to
Shoulder on Eastbound Route 80 (Caltrans)
Nina Ilic and David
Chavez
S-021343 1998 Pacific Bell Wireless: 2440 North Texas
Street, Fairfield, Solano County, Site # SF366-03 (letter report) Eleanor H. Derr
S-021827 1999 Reburial of Native American Skeletal
Remains Recovered at Green Valley Lake
Units 2 and 3, Fairfield, Solano County,
California (letter report)
Holman & Associates
Archaeological Consultants
Randy S. Wiberg
S-021916 1999 An Archaeological Field Inspection of a
Portion of the Upper Mangels Ranch,
Fairfield, Solano County, California
Randy S. Wiberg Holman & Associates
S-022309 1999 Archaeological Mechanical Testing of the
Duffel/City of Fairfield Property, Portions of
APN's 045-028-010, -026 and -027, Fairfield,
Solano County, California
Randy S. Wiberg Holman & Associates
S-022342 2000 Cultural Resources Investigation of the Tooby II Project, Solano County, California
PAR Environmental
Services, Inc.

Tracey Bakic, Lynn
Compas, and Cindy
S-022348 1999 An Evaluation of Significance of a Farm
Complex Within the Gold Ridge East Project,
Solano County, California
Melinda Peak and Robert Peak and Associates
Gerry
Submitter - Job #98-
085
S-022497 1999 Report of Further Archaeological Monitoring and Burial Removal at the Green Valley Lake
Unit 2 Residential Development (CA-SOL315), City of Fairfield, Solano County, California
Alisa Reynolds Holman & Associates

Page 15 of 41 ends

Fairfield City CouncilJanuary 20, 2026

Fairfield City Council
January 20, 2026