Table 6-3: Commercial and Mixed-Use Development Standards1 Land Use District
Downtown
Commercial
(DC)
Downtown
Mixed Use
(DMU)
Main Street
Mixed Use
(MSMU)
Historic
Commercial
(HC)
Waterfront
Commercial
(WC)
LOT / SITE DESIGN
1. Lot Coverage2 80% max 80% max 100% max 70% max 50% max
2. Density3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
3. Floor Area Ratio 0.25-2.0 0.30-3.0 0.75-2.0 0.25-1.0 0.25-1.0
4. Lot Area 4,000 sf min 3,000 sf min 2,500 sf min 2,500 sf min 2,500 sf min
5. Lot Width 50’ min 50’ min 30 min 30 min 40’ min
6. Lot Depth 70’ min 60’ min 60’ min 60’ min 60’ min
BUILDING PLACEMENT AND HEIGHT
Primary Building Setback4
1. Front Setback 0’ min-20’
max 0’ min-15’ max 0’ min-15’ max4 5’ min-15’ max5 5’ min-15’ max
2. Side Setback
(street)
0’ min-15’
max 0’ min-15’ max 0’ min-15’ max 5’ min-15’ max 10’ min-20’ max
3. Side Setback
(interior)
0’ min (non)
15’ min (res)
0’ min (non)
15’ min (res)
0’ min (non)
15’ min (res)
5’ min (1-2
stories); 15’ min
(3+ stories)
0’ min (non)
15’ min (res)
4. Rear Setback6 15’ min 15’ min 0’ min (non)
15’ min (res) 5’ min 0’ min (non)
15’ min (res)
5. Height Limit 60’ max 60’ max7 16’ min; 50’
max7 35’ max 35’ max
Notes:
du/ac = dwelling units per acre, min = minimum, max = maximum, sf = square feet, non = nonresidential, res = residential
1 Residential development within a commercial or mixed-use zone shall be subject to the development standards for the Residential High Density Zone (RHD), identified in Table 6-1. 2 Lot coverage includes primary buildings, accessory buildings, covered parking, and covered patios. 3 Density bonuses or increases may be allowed for the provision of affordable housing and project amenities, such as day care facilities and additional open space, as addressed in the Suisun City Zoning Code, Chapter 18.47 for residential density bonuses.
4 Yards and setback areas shall be landscaped in accordance with water-efficient landscaping standards, addressed in Title 20 of the Suisun City Zoning Code and the State Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. 5 Front setbacks shall be within five feet of the setbacks of adjacent buildings on the street. 6 Rear garage setback for a detached garage shall be a minimum of 3 feet from the rear property line. Rear setbacks for an attached garage shall be the same as that required for the primary structure. 7 Building heights shall be stepped to respect the heights of existing adjacent residential development.
338
6.3 Commercial Development + Design Standards
October 2023 Page 6-9
6.3.3 Main Street Mixed Use and Downtown Mixed
Use Zones in the Downtown Core
The following design standards apply to the Main Street Mixed Use and Downtown Mixed Use Zones. This District consists primarily of commercial buildings typically built up to the sidewalk edge, rectilinear in form, with large storefronts on the ground floor facade. Where residential structures exist on the west side of Main Street, the residential standards in Section 6.1 shall govern. Refer to Chapter 4 for street and streetscape design standards for Main Street and other Downtown commercial and residential areas.
A. Building Height, Placement, and Setbacks
1. The height of new street-facing facades shall be greater than sixteen (16) feet but no more than fifty (50) feet, as measured from the sidewalk to the top of the cornice.
2. Along Main Street, building facades shall be a minimum of 16 feet in height and appear as a two (2) story building, if not two (2) stories or greater in height.
3. Where building heights differ between adjacent properties, the adjacent heights of major facade elements, such as storefronts, ground floors, upper floors, sill lines and strong horizontal features, such as belt courses and cornices shall be related.
4. Buildings and facades shall be constructed to the back of the sidewalk of the adjacent street(s). Only entries and flanking display windows may be recessed from the property line.
Doorways shall be designed to focus on the street to create more activity along the sidewalk.
5. Businesses and buildings on Main Street shall face and orient toward Main Street.
B. Building Form and Style
1. Like the historic buildings on Main Street, building forms shall be primarily rectilinear and parallel to existing nearby streets or buildings. Oblique, polygonal, and circular-shaped buildings are prohibited.
2. Architectural character-defining features of buildings that are eligible historical resources shall be maintained or replaced in- kind in any renovation or remodeling work.
3. When a new building is proposed to replace a historic structure, key architectural elements of the original building shall be used in the construction of the new building.
4. The architectural character of new construction and
rehabilitation shall reflect the traditional building forms of historic Suisun City by containing design elements that procure historic elements within the commercial styles in a modern
Downtown commercial structures are typically
rectilinear and built to the edge of the sidewalk.
Where building heights differ between
adjacent properties, the height of adjacent
major façade elements shall be related.
The scale of new infill construction shall be
harmonious with that of adjacent buildings of
historic interest.
339
Chapter 6 | Development + Design Standards
context. Highly contemporary and articulated building forms are not permitted. “Wild West” themes typified by false front architecture, embellished with gingerbread-style detail, board- and- batten siding, and bright colors are not an appropriate or acceptable building motif.
C. Exterior Walls
1. Exterior walls shall be designed with brick, wood, painted or architectural metal (such as cast iron and pressed metal with anodized finish or painted).
2. Except in limited amounts and in locations other than along Main Street, exterior wall materials not permitted include concrete, concrete block, stone veneer, stucco, granite, modern metal applications, large expanses of glass, tile, or plastic.
3. New storefronts along Main Street shall approximate the rectangular shape, proportions, and architectural character of adjacent historic buildings. Storefronts with recessed entries shall be divided into three bands with a base, middle, and top, including a transom band, a band of display windows, and a small spandrel or paneled band under the display windows. One-story buildings shall have a solid wall space above the storefront and a cornice, with or without a parapet. Two-story buildings shall usually have a horizontal band and a second floor with windows and cornice. All of the above bands shall align with those of adjacent buildings to the extent possible.
4. If provided, awnings shall be regularly cleaned and maintained.
Awnings shall go through design review. Metal and glass awnings are not permitted. Free form and geometric form awnings or other sidewalk covers are discouraged. Care shall be taken in choosing
Storefronts along Main Street shall be designed as three bands that include a base, middle, and top.
Exterior walls shall be designed with brick,
wood, and painted or anodized finish metal.
New storefronts along Main Street shall
approximate the rectangular form,
proportions, and character of adjacent
buildings of historic interest.
Canvas awnings attached above street level
storefronts and windows shall be used.
340
6.3 Commercial Development + Design Standards
October 2023 Page 6-11
the size, type, location, configuration, and color of awnings to ensure compatibility with the building’s architecture and the character of adjacent structures. Awnings or canopies that obscure transom windows or that are used primarily for signage rather than cover are not permitted.
5. Protrusions such as balconies, canopies, and porches must undergo architectural design review, to ensure compatibility with the style of historic structures along Main Street. Other important architectural features shall not be obscured or destroyed in the building of these features.
6. Retail continuity along Main Street’s west side is essential.
Storefronts shall be varied in design and architectural character, but continuous where possible along each block. Storefronts shall wrap around corners to create a sense of transparency and activity at intersections.
7. Buildings at key intersections (such as Main Street and Driftwood Drive) shall be designed to “mark the corner” with such architectural features as a tower or a cupola. Such features may be erected to a greater height than fifty (50) feet, provided the design is in keeping with the overall architectural character of the structure and surroundings.
8. The backs and sides of buildings that are visible from public streets shall incorporate window and door openings, where possible. For new construction, backs and sides shall be as carefully designed as front facades. On existing buildings, original openings shall be restored or compatible new ones provided where feasible.
Windows shall be organized vertically, in multiple bays, although several vertical elements may be combined to form a horizontal opening.
Traditional design features, such as wooden
balconies, canopies, and porches shall be
used.
Buildings at key intersections, such as Main
Street and Driftwood Drive shall be designed
to mark the corner.
341
Chapter 6 | Development + Design Standards
D. Windows and Doors
1. Except on narrow building fronts, windows shall be organized in multiple bays, in coordination with ground-level storefronts. The directional expression of windows and doors shall be vertical, although several vertical elements may be combined to form a horizontal opening.
2. Fenestration shall be heavy wood rectilinear assemblies. Metal window assemblies or metal window frames are discouraged.
Fenestration shall be well proportioned and compatible with the dimensions of a given wall.
3. Glass in windows, doors, and transoms shall primarily be kept clear.
Plastic materials shall not be used in place of glass.
4. Upper floor facades shall be composed as solid surfaces with punched openings for individual windows or discrete sets of windows. The openings may be highlighted with special
treatment at the head, sill, and/or sides, such as special brick coursing, arched heads, or other accents.
5. Large areas of blank wall with few openings or enriching details shall be avoided on street facades. New and substantially rehabilitated buildings shall have wall to window area ratios and proportions that are similar to the traditional Downtown buildings. For minor rehabilitated buildings, existing window openings, which have been boarded up, stuccoed, or painted over shall be restored and reglazed.
6. Original or existing storefront areas and window openings shall not be filled in or covered up from either the interior or exterior of the building. Where buildings with retail storefront display areas have been converted to non-retail uses, such as offices, the storefront glazing shall not be covered over or permanently obscured. Removable interior window coverings may be used to provide some degree of privacy, but visual contact with the street shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible.
7. At least 50 percent of the ground floor shall include windows, door, glazing that is transparent and allows views of the interior
8. At least one main entrance shall be directly from the street.
E. Roofs
1. Building roofs shall reflect the historic styles in the Downtown Core and shall be either gable, gambrel, hip, or shed. False fronts or parapet walls shall conceal pitched or flat roofs from view along Main Street. Mansard, free form, and geometric roof shapes are discouraged. Flashings shall be unobtrusive.
Upper floor facades shall be composed of
solid surfaces with punched openings for
individual or sets of windows.
Exterior colors shall complement the color of
neighboring buildings or storefronts and the
overall Downtown landscape character.
False fronts or parapet walls shall conceal
pitched or flat roofs.
342
6.3 Commercial Development + Design Standards
October 2023 Page 6-13
2. Pitched roofs shall include dark asphalt shingles. Roofing materials not normally allowed include weathered wood
shingles, concrete, plastic tile, or fabric.
3. Rooftops with mechanical equipment shall be concealed.
F. Color
1. Choice for building exteriors may express individual taste, but shall always contribute to the historical character of the area.
Exterior colors shall harmonize with other colors on the same building and on the streetscape.
2. Exterior colors shall complement the colors of neighboring buildings or storefronts and shall add to the overall character of the streetscape.
3. Where brick has been painted, repainting is appropriate. Where brick remains unpainted, use of paint on the exterior is prohibited.
4. Colors for building walls and storefronts shall be uniform for a shop, which occupy multiple storefront buildings.
5. The use of different colors to mark individual shops within a building can be visually disruptive and obscure the overall composition of the facade. Where existing buildings have been painted in this manner, they shall be repainted complementing colors when rehabilitation or change in tenancy occurs.
6. A range of complementary colors may be selected for signs and awnings of individual shops within the same building. The sign and awning color of individual businesses shall be coordinated wherever possible. Patterned or multi-colored awnings shall be used with care and in consideration of the color(s) of adjacent awnings.
6.3.4 Historic Commercial Zone
The buildings that front on Main Street between Morgan Street and Cordelia Street and the areas within the HC zone are predominantly residential. These structures are expected to convert to retail or limited commercial uses over time. The following sections address these “transitional” buildings and provide standards for their renovation for commercial use. Standards also apply to the design of new commercial structures so that residential elements are incorporated and are compatible with the existing structures in which they adjoin.
Complementary colors shall be selected for
signs and awnings of individual shops within
the same building.
Additions to existing structures shall be a
height and scale that does not overwhelm
the original building.
343
Chapter 6 | Development + Design Standards
A. Building Height, Placement, and Setbacks
1. The maximum height of any new building or addition to an existing building shall be thirty-five (35) feet.
2. Additions to existing structures shall not exceed the height of the original building by more than 80 percent and shall not exceed the square footage of the original building by more than 50 percent.
3. Building setbacks shall be provided from all property lines. The front yard and side setback from the street shall approximate that of adjacent residential buildings on the block. Rear and side setbacks shall be similar to those provided for existing residential buildings, with greater setbacks provided for new structures or additions of significantly greater height or scale.
Building setbacks from the street will help to maintain a consistent street wall and signal the transition from the commercial area to the adjacent residential area. Side and rear setbacks can provide buffer zones to protect the privacy of adjacent residential areas.
4. Setback areas shall be adequately landscaped to provide a residential character to the street and to form green buffers between buildings. The presence of trees and planting around buildings is typical of residential areas and will provide an appropriate transition between them and the commercial area.
B. Building Form and Composition
1. Unique architectural features and the overall residential quality and appearance of a structure shall be maintained and
respected. Major form-giving elements to be retained include pitched rooflines, projecting or recessed entry porches, dormers, and bay windows. Important features and details may include multi-paned windows set in wood frames, overhanging eaves, decorative brackets and balustrades, and substantially designed porch bases and steps.
The conversion of a residential structure to commercial use shall not destroy the residential character of the building.
Where modifications are necessary to improve access, they shall be done in a manner that is least disruptive of the original building fabric. Closing or filling porches or window openings destroys the building's character and is prohibited.
2. New construction and additions to existing buildings shall utilize the major residential form-giving elements described above.
3. Roof forms shall be expressed rather than concealed behind parapets or false fronts. Appropriate forms are those typically used for residential development in and adjacent to the area.
These include hip, gable, and shed forms with projecting eaves.
Unique architectural features and the
residential quality and appearance of
structures should be maintained.
Conversion of a residential structure to a
commercial use should not destroy the
character of the building.
New larger buildings should use smaller-scaled
elements that approximate the scale or form
of adjacent residential development.
Setback areas shall be adequately
landscaped to provide a residential
character and green buffer to the street.
344
6.3 Commercial Development + Design Standards
October 2023 Page 6-15
Roof forms for building additions shall be consistent with those of the original structures.
4. Building massing shall relate to the scale of surrounding residential structures. Where a new building will be significantly larger than surrounding structures, it shall be composed of smaller elements that approximate the scale or form of the existing, adjacent residential structures.
In order to avoid changes in scale that would overwhelm adjoining residential structures, new buildings shall use smaller- scaled elements as building blocks. Devices, such as partial or full setback upper floors, building projections or recesses, and changing or articulated roof forms help to reduce the apparent mass of a building.
C. Material Finishes and Colors
1. Exterior wall materials shall be limited to those commonly used for residential buildings, including wood siding and brick.
2. Additions to existing buildings shall be finished in the same material as the original structure. Complementary materials, such as wood shakes with wood siding or brick with stucco may be used for architectural accents or special details.
3. Existing window openings and multi-paned windows shall be retained. Large expanses of glass shall be avoided in building additions and new construction in favor of individual window openings with multi-paned windows or multiple window units.
4. Window frames shall be of painted wood, metal, dark anodized aluminum, or in the case of a renovation, a material and finish which matches the existing original window frames.
5. Metal window grilles or other exterior devices which imply security problems are discouraged.
Visible security devices detract from the area's image. Security problems shall be addressed in less visible ways, such as internal alarm systems, which will not detract from the visual image of the area.
6. Appropriate paint colors for building wall surfaces include white or light, neutral pastels similar to those called for in other commercial zones, medium toned natural finishes for brick.
Where wood siding or shakes are used, darker stains or painted finishes may also be appropriate. Trim elements and details may be painted to match the building wall or in a contrasting color.
7. If used, awnings shall be placed to avoid obscuring architectural features or overwhelming the scale of the building. Awnings may be placed over windows or entries but must be attached
directly to the building and be self-supporting. Extended sidewalk canopies are prohibited.
Exterior wall materials shall use
traditional residential building materials,
such as wood siding, stone, and brick.
Use of fabric shall be used, where
appropriate to the building design.
345
Chapter 6 | Development + Design Standards
6.3.5 Waterfront Commercial Land Zones
A. Waterfront Commercial Zone Design Standards
New development in this area shall be guided by the design standards in Section 6.3.4, addressing the Historic Commercial zone, and the following additional standards.
The area located north of the City boat ramp is intended primarily to accommodate the service retail needs of boaters and marine-related industries. Design of these buildings shall be reflective of traditional maritime architecture; that is, buildings with high ceilings, and large floor areas, but which reflect the character of the Waterfront and do not obscure it from view.
The following design standards shall be observed within the Waterfront Commercial zone.
1. Roofs shall be pitched, without parapet facades. Flat roofs are prohibited.
2. Extensive areas of glazing or storefronts shall be utilized where the building faces a public street, common area, or the waterfront.
6.3.6 Downtown Mixed Use Zone within ½ mile of the
Suisun -Fairfield Train Depot
B. Building Height, Placement, and Setbacks
1. The height of new buildings shall be multi-story, but no more than fifty (50) feet, as measured from the sidewalk to the top of the roof line.
2. Where building heights differ between adjacent properties, the adjacent heights of major facade elements, such as storefronts, ground floors, upper floors, sill lines, and horizontal features, such as belt courses and cornices shall be related.
3. Building facades and openings shall be designed to front onto Main Street or Downtown side streets rather than facing the railroad tracks.
4. Setback areas shall be adequately landscaped to provide an appropriate transition between the commercial development on Main Street, the residential development south of the district, and streets and parking areas.
5. Public open space shall be internally located and buffered from rail or freight traffic.
C. Building Form and Style
1. Building massing shall relate to the scale of surrounding Downtown structures. Where a new building will be larger than surrounding structures, it shall be broken down into smaller
New waterfront development shall be
consistent with the scale and character of
existing waterfront commercial development.
Setback areas shall be adequately
landscaped to provide a residential
character and green buffer to the street.
Building massing shall be broken to smaller
massing, approximating the scale or form
of existing adjacent structures.
346
6.3 Commercial Development + Design Standards
October 2023 Page 6-17
elements and massing which approximate the scale or form of the existing adjacent structures.
Design strategies, such as partial or full setback upper floors, building projections or recesses, and changing or articulated roof forms help to reduce the apparent mass of a building.
2. New construction and renovation of existing buildings shall respect the waterfront design themes and historic character in the Specific Plan Area and shall maintain the distinct character of the Downtown Waterfront District.
3. More contemporary building designs and reuse of industrial structures shall be utilized in this district, while respecting the traditional design elements of Main Street and the adjacent residential neighborhoods in Old Town.
D. Exterior Walls
1. Exterior walls shall usually be designed with brick, wood, painted or architectural metal (such as cast iron and pressed metal with anodized finish or painted), consistent with materials encouraged for commercial development along Main Street.
2. Balconies, canopies, and porches are encouraged and shall be designed to be compatible with the appearance of adjacent structures.
3. The back and side of buildings, visible from public streets, shall incorporate window and door opening In new construction, backs and sides shall be carefully designed as front facades. On existing buildings or building renovations, original openings shall be restored or compatible new ones provided, where feasible.
Interesting details, awnings, painting, and landscaping shall be used to add visual interest to these areas.
E. Windows and Doors
1. Except on narrow building fronts, windows shall be organized in multiple bays.
2. Glass in windows, doors, and transoms shall primarily be kept clear. Plastic materials shall not be used in place of glass.
3. For rehabilitated buildings, existing window openings, which have been boarded up, stuccoed, or painted over shall be restored and reglazed.
4. Removable interior window coverings may be used to provide some degree of privacy, but visual contact with the street shall be maintained.
F. Color and Material Finishes
1. Choice for building exteriors may express individual taste, but shall contribute to the character of the Waterfront District.
Contemporary design and reuse of
industrial structures shall be used.
Exterior walls shall be designed with brick,
wood, and painted or architectural metal.
Windows shall be organized into multiple
bays.
347
Chapter 6 | Development + Design Standards
2. Exterior colors shall harmonize with landscape themes in the district and Downtown waterfront themes.
3. The use of different colors to mark individual shops or residential units within a mixed-use building shall be avoided.
However, accent colors applied to highlight architectural features and trim elements and details painted in a contrasting color, compatible with the building wall are encouraged.
4. Window frames shall be of painted wood, metal, dark anodized aluminum.
5. A range of complementary colors may be selected for signs and awnings of individual shops within the same building. The sign and awning color of individual businesses shall be coordinated, wherever possible.
A. Downtown Commercial and Downtown Mixed Use within
the Western Marina Public Space and Pedestrian
Amenities
1. Public spaces, such as plazas, courtyards, and outdoor dining spaces shall be designed to enhance the vitality of the district and support commercial patronage.
2. Public spaces, plazas, and courtyards shall be designed as outdoor living rooms, enhanced with seating and other
pedestrian furniture, street lights, shade, and landscaping.
3. Street furnishings and landscaping, including planters or tree grates and potted plants, shall be provided along walkways, to support a pleasant urban retail experience.
4. Public art shall be considered for focal points or gateway entrances into the commercial district.
5. Textured or colored pavement shall be used to clearly define pedestrian access ways or intersection crossings, articulate different sidewalks activity zones, and highlight special areas within the district.
B. Building Height, Placement, and Setbacks
1. The height of new buildings are encouraged to be multi-story to establish a pedestrian-friendly character, consistent with the Downtown Waterfront District, but shall be no more than sixty (60) feet, as measured from the sidewalk to the top of the building roof line.
2. Commercial buildings shall have facades built to the edge of the sidewalk in order to maintain an active and interesting edge for window shoppers, strollers, and passersby.
3. To nurture a pedestrian-focused community, buildings shall be designed to front onto the commercial main street or internal common space. Setbacks shall be landscaped and buildings shall
Street furnishings and landscaping can help
support a pleasant, urban retail experience.
Public spaces shall be provided to enhance
commercial vitality and activity in the district.
Commercial building facades shall front onto
the sidewalk to maintain an active edge for
shoppers and pedestrians.
Exterior colors shall be chosen to
complement the architectural and landscape
themes in the district.
Buildings shall be clustered to support a
pedestrian-friendly shopping experience.
348
6.3 Commercial Development + Design Standards
October 2023 Page 6-19
be oriented to activate common spaces and public rights-of-way, with courtyards, plazas, seating, and other public amenities.
C. Building Form and Style
1. Building forms shall be primarily rectilinear and parallel to existing nearby streets or buildings.
2. Commercial buildings shall be clustered to support a pedestrian- friendly shopping environment.
3. Buildings at key intersections shall be designed to "mark the corner" with architectural features, such as towers.
D. Exterior Walls
1. Large areas of blank wall with few openings or enriching details shall be avoided on street facades. The backs and sides of buildings, which are visible from public streets, shall incorporate window and door openings, where possible. Building backs and sides shall be as carefully designed as front facades. Interesting details, awnings, painting, and landscaping shall be used to add visual interest to these areas.
2. Exterior walls shall be designed with traditional building materials, such as brick, wood, painted or architectural metal (such as cast iron and pressed metal, with anodized finish or painted).
3. Doors, windows, cornice lines, floor lines, signage, and overhangs shall be incorporated into the building design to support interesting building façades.
4. Individual tenants in a multi-tenant structure shall be easily distinguished, using architectural features, including:
1. columns, piers, or pilasters placed between building bays;
2. building setback variations for recessed entrances, niches for landscaping, outdoor seating or dining, or other
pedestrian amenities;
3. arcades and roof overhangs; and
4. changes in building or roof heights between adjacent tenants.
5. Awnings, attached above street-level storefronts and over individual windows may be used. Canvas awnings may be used. If provided, awnings shall be regularly cleaned and maintained.
Care shall be taken in choosing the size, type, location, configuration, and color of awnings to ensure compatibility with the building's architecture.
Color and different architectural treatments
shall be used to distinguish individual
tenants in multitenant buildings.
Architectural details, such as doors, windows,
building lines, signage, and overhangs shall
be used to articulate the building façade.
Commercial storefronts and ground floor
common areas shall provide a transparent
façade along the street.
349
Chapter 6 | Development + Design Standards
E. Windows and Doors
1. Commercial storefronts and ground floor common areas shall provide a transparent façade along the street, consisting of storefronts, entries, and windows.
2. Storefronts shall be varied in design and character, but continuous where possible along each block. Storefronts shall wrap around corners to create a sense of transparency and activity at intersections.
3. Doorways shall be designed to focus on the street to create more activity along the sidewalk.
F. Color and Material Finishes
1. Choice for building exteriors may express individual taste, but shall contribute to the waterfront themes of the Downtown Waterfront District. Exterior colors shall complement the colors of neighboring buildings or storefronts and shall be selected to be mutually supportive and beneficial to the overall character of the streetscape.
2. Colors for building walls and storefronts shall be uniform for a shop, which occupy multiple storefront buildings.
3. The sign and awning color of individual businesses shall be coordinated, wherever possible.
Color shall be selected to coordinate with
the streetscape and landscape themes of
the district.
350
6.3 Commercial Development + Design Standards
October 2023 Page 6-21
6.3.7 Civic and Open Space Standards
Table 6-4: Civic and Open Space Development Standards
Land Use District Civic (C) Park or Open Space (P/OS)
A. LOT / SITE DESIGN
1. Lot Coverage1 80% of the lot 20% of the lot
2. Density N/A N/A
3. Floor Area Ratio N/A N/A
4. Lot Area N/A N/A
5. Lot Width N/A N/A
6. Lot Depth N/A N/A
B. BUILDING PLACEMENT AND HEIGHT
Primary Building Setback3
1. Front Setback 0’ min 20’ min
2. Side Setback (street) 0’ min 20’ min
3. Side Setback (interior) 0’ min 10’ min
4. Rear Setback4 0’ min 15’ min
5. Height Limit5 50’ max 35’ max
Notes:
min = minimum, max = maximum
1 Lot coverage includes primary buildings, accessory buildings, covered parking, and covered patios. 2 Setback areas shall be landscaped as addressed by the Suisun City Zoning Code. 3 Front setback shall be within five feet of setbacks of adjacent buildings on the street. Garage shall be no closer than 15 feet from the front property line.
351
Chapter 6 | Development + Design Standards
6.4 General Development Standards
6.4.1 General Requirements
A. Buildings
1. Where originally constructed building facades remain, their appearance shall not be altered. Such facades shall be repaired and preserved. Where facades have been altered, as much original material and details shall be retained in the rehabilitation as possible.
2. Existing windows and door openings that have been boarded up or painted over shall be restored and reglazed. Replacement windows and doors shall meet all the requirements of Section
6.3.3.D. Awnings, where provided, shall be regularly cleaned and maintained.
B. Landscaping
Landscaping is an transitional feature between the public and private realms, and shall be maintained and improved.
1. Landscaping around the perimeter of buildings and parking areas provides a visual extension of the front landscaping and a green buffer between building and land uses. Landscaping shall be provided in front setback areas and in setback areas around the perimeter of buildings and parking areas, where provided.
2. Landscaping shall be provided within parking areas where needed to break up large expanses of parking and/or to provide additional shade, as required by the City’s Zoning Code.
C. Mechanical Equipment and Service Areas
All mechanical equipment, whether on rooftops or at ground level and service areas shall be adequately screened from view?
1. Mechanical equipment, conduit, utility equipment, HVAC units and trash disposal areas, visible from a public right-of-way or common area, shall be screened from view.
2. Where conduit or equipment cannot be screened without disrupting or covering other important features of the building, these shall be painted to match the adjacent surface to reduce their visibility as much as possible.
3. Trash areas, storage, and service areas shall be screened from public view with a wall or fence and landscaping. Trash enclosure shall be designed and located, so as not to be visible from adjacent streets or properties.
352
6.4 General Development Standards
October 2023 Page 6-23
D. Use of Public Right-of-Way
Merchandise, whether for sale or rent, shall not be placed on display upon the public right-of-way except by special permit.
6.4.2 Sign Standard s
The following standards address the number, location, size, and types of allowable signs applicable to all uses throughout the Specific Plan Area.
Additional signage standards, included in Chapter 18.44 of the Suisun City Zoning Code also apply, except where in conflict with the more restrictive standards of this Specific Plan. Where this section is silent, the standards of the Zoning Code shall apply.
A. Type and Placement
1. Signs shall be designed to directly relate to the exterior design of the building. Signs shall not cover important features or cross transitions between features. Signs shall be at the first floor level, shall not project above the cornice or facia line, and shall be primarily oriented to the pedestrian. However, painted lettering on second story windows, to identify separate uses located there, is appropriate.
2. Signs shall be flush with the facade and not protrude more than eight (8) inches from the wall. Projecting signs may be considered when the sign does not conflict with the building's exterior design.
3. Under canopy signs and signs painted on canvas awnings are permitted. Symbolic three-dimensional signs, such as barber poles, can be utilized. Moving and rotating signs are permitted.
4. Freestanding signs are not allowed, except to identify a specific development, district, or multiple-business complex. One permanent directory or freestanding master identification sign, not to exceed twenty-five (25) square feet per sign face, is allowed at each main entrance to a public street.
5. A projecting sign or shingle sign may be permitted to be placed on a building frontage only if all of the following standards are met:
a. The sign is historically accurate or appropriate for the building.
b. The sign does not impair the visibility of adjacent signs. c. The size, location, and materials of the sign are compatible with the building and conform to the requirements of this section.
6. The height of the sign does not extend above the cornice line of a one story building or the sill of a second floor window.
7. A permanent sign is limited to the name and graphic logo of the business, the type of service rendered, the principal brand 353
Chapter 6 | Development + Design Standards
names or classification of merchandise for sale, and street address. Brand names may occupy not more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the allowable sign area, except for storefront window signs.
8. Neon signs are permitted only when all of the following standards are met.
a. The sign does not impair the visibility of adjacent signs. b. The sign, location, and materials of the sign are compatible with the building and conform to the other requirements of this Chapter.
c. Where an otherwise illuminated sign is not possible.
B. Sign Area
1. A maximum area of one (1) square foot of signage may be permitted for each linear foot of a business on a primary frontage (facing a public street, public parking lot, or public space) not to exceed forty (40) square feet on any one frontage.
2. A maximum of one-half (1/2) square foot of signage may be permitted for each linear foot of a business on a secondary frontage (facing an alley, private driveway, an adjacent building, private parking or service area) not to exceed twenty (20) square feet on any one frontage.
3. Projecting signs shall not exceed twenty (20) square feet per sign face and shall not project more than four (4) feet from the wall.
4. The maximum areas noted above shall apply to all wall, window, and projecting signs and signs painted on awnings.
5. Each business with first floor frontage or direct sidewalk access may have a pedestrian-oriented sign attached below a canopy not exceeding three (3) square feet per sign face and with a minimum clearance of eight (8) feet above the sidewalk. Such a sign will not count as part of the maximum business sign allowance.
6. Multiple business directories may be permitted when not exceeding two (2) square feet per tenant and twenty (20) square feet total per sign face. Such a sign will not count as part of the maximum business sign allowance.
C. Materials
1. Signs shall be painted and/or carved wood, wrought iron, cut out, non-reflective metal lettering such as brass, or glass (including stained glass). Signs painted directly on plain surfaces, windows and canvas awnings are generally appropriate. Metal "can" signs are not permitted. Decorative neon identification signs may be used as an accent or design feature, but shall not dominate the general appearance of the facade.
354
6.4 General Development Standards
October 2023 Page 6-25
D. Graphics
1. Graphics shall be simple and bold. Lettering styles shall be in keeping with the area's historic character.
E. Illumination
1. Illumination shall be indirect such as that provided by "goose necked" light fixtures.
2. Fluorescent, flashing, intermittent, and interior-illuminated signs are prohibited.
F. Temporary Signs
1. Temporary signs pertaining to special store events or sales lasting no more than thirty (30) days may be painted or affixed to display windows provided that their total area shall not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the window area.
2. Banners or other promotional signs may be displayed for up to thirty (30) days provided that the total area of all temporary signage displayed (including window signage) shall not exceed the allowed area of the permanent signage.
3. All such temporary signage shall be displayed for no more than thirty (30) days. The same or similar signage shall not be replaced within thirty (30) days after removal.
G. Illegal Construction
If the Administrator finds that any sign has been constructed or erected in violation of the provisions in effect at the time of such construction, they shall give written notice of such conditions to the property owner upon which the sign is located to remove or alter the sign so as to comply with this Chapter. Thirty (30) days after such notice, such signs may be removed or altered to comply with legal standards by the Administrator at the expense of the permittee or the property owner upon which the sign is located.
6.4.3 Parking Standards
Parking regulations are established to ensure adequate parking facilities are provided to meet the parking demand anticipated for development.
A. Minimum Parking Requirements
The minimum number of off-street parking space shall be provided for each land use, as summarized in Table 6-4. For uses not listed in the table, refer to Zoning Code Chapter 18.42, Parking and Loading Areas.
The parking standards in Table 6-4 apply to any new building or use, except as follows:
1. For existing structures, only those off-street parking spaces required at the time of construction, addition, or substantial 355
Chapter 6 | Development + Design Standards
modification of the structure, or are present on the site at the time of adoption of this Specific Plan, are required to be maintained as off-street parking spaces. Any additional floor area to an existing structure or construction of new structures made subsequent to the effective date of this Plan shall require the provision of off-street parking as provided in Table 6-5. ▪ Parking within the one-quarter mile radius of the Suisun City train depot will be waived.
B. Parking in Commercial and Mixed Use Zones
Generally, parking required for existing and proposed new uses within most of the commercial and mixed use zones will be met by a combination of public and private on- and off-street public parking facilities, associated with specific uses and properties. Public parking is provided on Main Street, in and around the marina and Harbor Plaza.
Because of the variety of uses envisioned in the Specific Plan Area, peak demand periods will vary, allowing opportunities for shared facilities by more than one use or property.
1. Required parking for all existing uses at the date of adoption of this Specific Plan are satisfied by existing private on-site facilities and public parking on Main Street and Harbor Plaza.
Table 6-5: Off-Street Parking Requirements
Land Use Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Required
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Single-Family Residential 1 covered space and 1 uncovered space per unit Multi-Family Residential1
Studio 1 space per unit
One-Bedroom 1 space per unit
Two+ Bedrooms 1.5 space per unit
Guest spaces
1 space per 5 units, except that on-street parking may be substituted for visitor parking where sufficient on-street parking space is provided on the street adjacent to the development
NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Hotel/Motel 1 space per room
Commercial or Public Use
Refer to parking requirement in the City Zoning Code, except that the minimum off-street parking spaces shall not be greater than 1 space per 300 gross square feet. Proposed buildings of less than 5,000 square feet with adjacent on-street parking shall not be required to provide any off-street parking.
Notes:
1. For developments containing five or more units, up to thirty-five percent (35%) of the required uncovered spaces may be compact car spaces.
*** On-street parking spaces adjacent to the property street frontage may be used to satisfy required off-street parking requirements.
356
6.4 General Development Standards
October 2023 Page 6-27
2. New uses established after the adoption of this Specific Plan shall be required to meet parking standards with either on-site parking, on-street parking, or a combination of on-site and on- street parking, consistent with the requirement of this Specific Plan. Off-site parking may be used, where it is demonstrated that such spaces are available during the peak demand periods for the particular use in question (see requirements for shared parking below).
C. Fees In-Lieu of Required Parking
Where a use cannot satisfy its parking requirement through on-site or shared parking, the remaining requirement may be satisfied by payment of a fee in lieu of actual development of the required parking. Said fee is to be set by resolution of the City Council and shall be equal to the estimated cost of land acquisition and development of one off-street surface parking space. This fee will be charged for each of the required parking spaces which cannot otherwise be provided for the proposed use.
D. Reduced Parking Requirement
An exception reducing the required parking spaces to less than the above standards may be approved by the Administrator provided the following findings are made:
1. The actual parking demand for the use in question will be less than the above standards.
2. The proposed use will not generate additional long-term parking demand.
3. If a new building or structure, the probable long-term occupancy will not generate additional parking demand.
The applicant will be responsible for the collection and submittal of survey or other data sufficient for the above findings to be made. Refer to Section 7.6.5 of the Specific Plan for the procedures for exceptions.
E. Shared Parking Requirements
Parking spaces may be shared by more than one use when operations are not normally conducted during the same hours or when hours of peak use vary. Requests for the use of shared parking may be considered within the project review process as a strategy to meet required off-street parking requirements and must meet the following conditions:
1. The applicant must satisfactorily demonstrate that substantial conflict shall not exist in the principal hours or periods of peak demand for the uses for which shared spaces are proposed. 357
Chapter 6 | Development + Design Standards
2. Parking spaces designated for shared use shall not be located farther than eight hundred (800) feet from any structure or use served, unless otherwise approved.
3. A written Agreement shall be drawn to the satisfaction of the City attorney and executed by all parties concerned ensuring the continued availability of the number of stalls designated for shared use.
4. The number of existing parking stalls which may be credited against the requirements for proposed structures or uses shall not exceed the number of stalls reasonably anticipated to be available during differing hours of peak demand.
5. In determining the availability of parking spaces for shared use; peak and off-peak demand shall be calculated using the
standards and methods described in the City’s Zoning Code, Section 18.42.090 or other approach approved by the City.
6. Total required on-site parking spaces for mixed-use
developments shall be determined by computing the parking requirements for each of the above time periods. The largest total demand for the four periods shall be the required number of spaces to be provided.
F. Parking in Residential Front Yards
No portion of any front yard other than a paved driveway shall be utilized for parking or storing of any motor vehicle, recreational vehicle, boat, trailer, or camper.
G. Parking Design
Dimensions, geometrics, and landscaping of parking areas shall be as specified by the City’s Zoning Code, unless otherwise specified in this section.
1. Where on-site parking is utilized, it shall be provided in a location which is least visually disruptive. The preferred location of parking lots is at the rear of the property or screened from view by the building. An alternative location would be at the side of the building. Parking shall not be sited in the setback area between the street and the building line, where such setback exists. Parking located in front of buildings, adjacent to the public right-of-way, shall be screened with vegetation and/or fencing. Access drives shall be located besides the building or at the rear of the building on corner lots.
2. Parking lots shall be adequately landscaped within and at the perimeter, adjacent to abutting streets and buildings. Parking areas, which abut residential uses or zones, shall be screened with a dense hedge and/or a fence. Lighting shall be directed away from residences.
358
Waterfront District Specific Plan
October 2023 Page 7-1
CHAPTER 7| SPECIFIC PLAN
ADMINISTRATION
7.1 Administration
7.1.1 Administrator – Designation
The Administrator of the Specific Plan shall be the Development Services Director or their delegate.
7.1.2 Administration
The Planning Division shall administer this Specific Plan in accordance with the provisions of this Plan and the instructions of the Planning Commission. Refer to the Suisun City Zoning Code (Zoning Code), Section 18.84 for the process for appeals.
7.1.3 Administration - Consistency with Applicable
General Plan Policies and Programs
Prior to issuance of a building permit, applicants must demonstrate consistency with applicable General Plan Policies and Programs listed in Section 4 of the City’s Specific Plan Consistency Analysis (under the California Environmental Quality Act or “CEQA”), as relevant and appropriate to the activity requiring the permit. The City’s Specific Plan Consistency Analysis is on file with the Development Services Department under separate cover. Notwithstanding other provisions of this Specific Plan and the Specific Plan Consistency Analysis, all development and associated public improvements and environmental mitigations shall be consistent with the current adopted version of the Travis Air Force Base Land Use Compatibility Plan Update.
7.2 Specific Plan Adoption
A Specific Plan is similar to a Zoning Code in that it implements the General Plan through land use designation on a map, listing or referencing permitted specific uses, standards for development, and appropriate special conditions. Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Article 8, Sections 65450-65457 of the California Government Code provides the requirements for the contents and adoption process of a Specific Plan. 359
Chapter 7 | Specific Plan Administration
7.2.1 Specific Plan Amendment
Amendments to the Specific Plan may be initiated by a resident or property owner, as well as by the City, in accordance with the procedures outlined for initial adoption. In addition to these requirements, major amendments shall require a public hearing and notification, similar in nature to the process for amendments, addressed in the City Zoning Code, Chapter 18.82, “Amendments.”
7.2.2 Application
Application for a Specific Plan Amendment shall be filed with the Planning Division upon such forms and accompanied by such data as may be prescribed by the Planning Division, so as to ensure the fullest practicable presentation of the facts for the permanent record. A fee set by resolution of the City Council shall accompany each application. A Specific Plan Amendment may be initiated by the City.
7.2.3 Scope of Amendment
The Administrator will be responsible for determining “major” amendments as opposed to “minor” amendments to the Plan and its Standards. “Major” amendments shall be processed as outlined above through the Planning Commission and City Council. Among the items which would be considered major are:
▪ Introduction of a new type of land use not discussed in the Specific Plan or City Zoning Code that would affect one or more property owners.
▪ Major changes to the layout of land uses (affecting one acre of land or more) or other changes, which may significantly affect a planning concept spelled out in this Specific Plan.
▪ Major changes to the proposed street system that would significantly alter land use or circulation concepts described in this Specific Plan.
▪ Changes or additions to design standards, which could significantly change the stated intent of this Specific Plan.
▪ Any change to the Specific Plan which could create new environmental impacts or substantially increase environmental impacts beyond that reported in the Specific Plan Consistency Analysis.
Minor amendments shall be decided by the Administrator, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission. Minor amendments include:
▪ A proposed land use not identified in the Specific Plan or City Zoning Code that is substantially similar to a permitted use with respect to characteristics, intensity, and compatibility, according to the requirements of section 7.4.3 of this chapter. Minor changes to 360
7.2 Specific Plan Adoption
October 2023 Page 7-3
the land use diagram and/or alignment of streets that maintain the general pattern of permitted land uses and circulation and that are consistent with the vision, goals, and policies of the Specific Plan. ▪ A change to the development and design standards that does not significantly change the physical characteristics or purpose and intent of the Specific Plan and is determined by the Administrator as minor or requests for an adjustment that is 10 percent or less of quantifiable or measurable standards contained in the WDSP. ▪ Changes not expected to substantially increase any environmental impact beyond the levels identified in the Specific Plan Consistency Analysis.
▪ Minor text revisions required to clarify the intent of the Specific Plan, remove ambiguities, or maintain consistency with other adopted City planning and policy documents.
▪ Other modifications of a similar nature to those listed above, which are deemed minor by the Administrator and in keeping with the purpose and intent of the Specific Plan.
7.2.4 Findings
In considering any amendment to the Specific Plan the appropriate decision-making body shall make the following findings:
▪ The proposed amendment would benefit the Specific Plan Area. ▪ The proposed amendment would conform to the General Plan or would be considered in conjunction with an amendment of the General Plan.
▪ The proposed amendment would not adversely affect adjacent properties.
▪ If use specific, the subject property could be properly served by public facilities and services.
7.2.5 Amendment Procedures
The process for Major Amendments to the WDSP shall be the same as the process to amend the Zoning Code as described in Chapter 18.82 of the Zoning Code. Minor Amendments to the WDSP, unlike Major Amendments, may be approved by the Administrator in accordance with the following procedures and do not require public hearings.
1. Application Requirement
Applications shall be made in writing on a form prescribed by the Development Services Department for the purposes of site plan and architectural review and shall be accompanied by site plans, elevations, and/or relevant data required to grant the application.
361
Chapter 7 | Specific Plan Administration
2. Application Processing
The Administrator or their designee shall review all applicable information and within thirty (30) days of receiving all relevant information, make a determination as to the appropriate level of review, based on applicable regulations and the characteristics of the project.
For Minor Specific Plan Amendments, the Administrator shall make one of the following determinations:
a. Approve the application upon determination that the
project substantially complies with all applicable standards of the Specific Plan and relevant City standards and meets the criteria for Minor Amendments in Section 7.3.2.
b. Require or recommend the project be reviewed as a Major Amendment, including going through the appropriate public hearing process. However prior to making this
determination, when possible, the Administrator shall
provide the applicant an opportunity to modify or correct the application to bring the project into conformance with the Specific Plan, relevant City standards, and the criteria for Minor Amendments, addressed in Section 7.3.2.
c. Request further information, as may be needed to decide to approve the application.
In granting a Minor Amendment, the Administrator may impose conditions to safeguard public health and safety and ensure that development is consistent with the objectives and intent of the Specific Plan.
362
7.3 Conflicts and Interpretation
October 2023 Page 7-5
7.3 Conflicts and Interpretation
The provisions of this Specific Plan are not intended to interfere with or void any easements, covenants, or other existing agreements, which are more restrictive than the provisions of this Specific Plan.
7.3.1 Conflict with Other Regulations
Whenever the provisions of this Specific Plan impose more restrictive regulations upon buildings or structures or use of lands; or require larger open spaces, yards, or setbacks; or otherwise establish more restrictive regulations than are imposed or required by any other law, title, ordinance, code, or regulation, the provisions of this Plan shall govern. Where this Plan is silent, other applicable development standards or regulations shall govern.
7.3.2 Clarification of Ambiguity
If ambiguity arises concerning the appropriate classification of a particular use within the meaning and intent of this Specific Plan, or if ambiguity exists with respect to matters of height, yard requirements, area requirements, or District boundaries as set forth herein, it shall be the duty of the Administrator, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission, to ascertain all pertinent facts and interpret the applicability of the provisions of this Plan.
7.3.3 Use Determination
Upon request regarding whether a use is allowed within a particular zone of the WDSP, the Administrator, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission, shall provide a written determination as to whether the use in question is substantially similar in characteristics, intensity, and compatibility to a use or uses permitted within the zoning district for the property.
7.3.4 General Interpretation
A. The word “shall” is mandatory and not discretionary. The words “should” and “may” are permissive and discretionary.
B. In case of any difference of meaning or implication between the text of any provision and any caption or illustration, the text shall control.
C. The word “used” shall include arranged, designed, constructed, altered, converted, rented, leased, occupied, or intended to be utilized.
363
Chapter 7 | Specific Plan Administration
7.4 Nonconforming Uses and Structures
7.4.1 Purpose
This section is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses by regulating their enlargement, their reestablishment after abandonment, and the alteration or restoration after destruction of the structures they occupy. This section is also intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming structures by prohibiting their being moved, altered, or enlarged in a manner that would increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the standards prescribed in this Plan.
7.4.2 Regulation
Nonconforming uses shall be regulated consistent with Chapter 18.68 of the Zoning Code and the standards addressed in this section.
7.4.3 Continuation and Maintenance
A. A use lawfully occupying a structure or a site that does not conform with the use regulations or the development standards for the zone in which the use is located shall be deemed to be a nonconforming use and may be continued, except as otherwise limited by Chapter
18.68 of the Zoning Code and this section.
B. A structure, lawfully occupying a site, that does not conform with the standards for front yard, side yards, rear yard, height, coverage, distances between structures, parking facilities, and other applicable development standards for the zone in which the structure is located, shall be deemed to be a nonconforming structure and may be used and maintained, except as otherwise limited by Chapter
18.68 of the Zoning Code and this section.
C. Buildings under construction shall not be required to modify the plans, construction, or designated use of any building upon which construction was lawfully begun prior to the effective date of this ordinance.
7.4.4 Alteration and Additions to Nonconforming
Uses and Structures
No nonconforming structure shall be altered or reconstructed so as to increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the standards for front yard, side yards, rear yard, height of structures, distances between structures, parking facilities, and other applicable development standards as prescribed for the zone in which the structure is located, as addressed in Section 18.68 of the Zoning Code.
364
7.4 Nonconforming Uses and Structures
October 2023 Page 7-7
7.4.5 Discontinuation of Nonconforming Use
Whenever a nonconforming use has been discontinued for a continuous period of 180 days or more, all applicable regulations of the WDSP and the Zoning Code apply.
7.4.6 Restoration of a Damaged Structure
A. Whenever a structure which does not comply with the standards for front yard, side yards, rear yard, height of structures, distances between structures, parking facilities, and other applicable standards as prescribed in the regulations for the zone in which the structure is located, or the use of which does not conform with the regulations for the zone in which it is located, is destroyed by fire or another calamity, to the extent of fifty percent (50%) or less, the structure may be restored and the nonconforming use may be resumed, provided that the restoration is started within one year and diligently pursued to completion. When the destruction exceeds fifty percent (50%) or the structure is voluntarily razed or is required by law to be razed, the structure shall not be restored except in full conformity with the regulations for the zone in which it is located and the nonconforming use shall not be resumed.
B. The extent of damage or partial destruction shall be based upon the ratio of the estimated cost of restoring the structure to its condition prior to such damage or partial destruction to the estimated cost of duplicating the entire structure as it existed prior to the damage. Estimates for this purpose shall be made by or shall be reviewed and approved by the Chief Building Official and shall be based on the minimum cost of construction in compliance with the Building Code.
C. All applicable provisions of State law relating to rebuilding nonconforming residences, including multifamily dwellings damaged or destroyed by fire, shall supersede local requirements, including the City shall not enact or enforce any ordinance, regulation, or resolution that would prohibit the reconstruction, restoration, or rebuilding of a multifamily dwelling that is involuntarily damaged or destroyed by fire, other catastrophic event, or another calamity.
D. Permits
7.4.7 Site Plan and Architectural Review
A. Purpose
Site Plan and Architectural Review is required to ensure that the function, character, and appearance of the physical environment are consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and standards of this Specific Plan.
365
Chapter 7 | Specific Plan Administration
B. Applicability
Site Plan and Architectural Review approval shall be required prior to issuance of a building permit, certificate of occupancy, business license, grading permit, or utility service connection for the following:
1. Commercial and Mixed-Use Zones (DC, HC, WC,
DMU, MSMU) and Historic Residential Zone (HR). For
projects or purposes that include demolition, new construction, or construction changes substantially affecting the exterior appearance of the building as viewed from a public right-of-way or circulation to the site, signs, and changes or intensification in use, occupancy, or tenancy of an existing building or portion of a building. Demolition requests shall follow the procedures in Appendix A of this Specific Plan.
2. Other zones. For all projects, except individual single-family residences not a part of a proposed subdivision or development project that involve new construction or exterior alterations, additions, and signs.
3. Exceptions:
a. Multi-family housing projects that qualify for streamlined approval under State law (excluding projects within historic or landmark districts), including development projects with up to two primary units, qualifying lot splits, or at least two- thirds of the square footage of the development shall be designated for residential use.
b. Affordable housing project that qualify under State density bonus laws, if such standards would have the effect of
physically precluding the construction of that project at the densities or with the concessions or incentives allowed by State density bonus laws, unless failure to apply the standard would result in one or more specific adverse impacts on public health or safety or the physical environment, and there is no other feasible method to mitigate the adverse
impact(s).Infill developments as follows:
i. Horizontal or vertical additions equivalent to 50 percent or less for buildings with less than 1,000 square feet of existing gross floor area;
ii. Horizontal or vertical additions equivalent to less than 25 percent for buildings with 1,000 to 10,000 square feet of existing gross floor area;
366
7.4 Nonconforming Uses and Structures
October 2023 Page 7-9
iii. Horizontal or vertical additions equivalent to less than 15 percent for buildings with more than 10,000 square feet of existing gross floor area.
C. Procedure
Site Plan and Architectural Review shall consist of the procedures described in Chapter 18.76 of the Zoning Code.
1. Renewal. The Administrator may renew Site Plan and
Architectural Review approval for a period of one year upon determining that the original findings made remain valid.
Request for renewal shall be made in writing at least thirty (30) days prior to expiration.
2. Changed Plans. The Administrator or the Administrator’s designee, or the Planning Commission, as the case may be, may approve changes to approved plans or Conditions of Approval upon determining that the changes in conditions are minor and are consistent with the intent of the original approval. Revisions involving substantial changes in project design or conditions of approval shall be treated as new applications.
3. Alternative Development and Design Standards.
Alternative approaches to the development and design
standards (Chapter 6) shall be identified by the applicant and shall be reviewed during the site plan and architectural review process. Approval of deviations to development and design standards may be permitted, if the applicant can demonstrate that the deviation(s) would still accomplish the intent of the Specific Plan standards to the same degree or better. The applicant must request a Minor Specific Plan Amendment, accompanied by adequate justification for the proposed changes in accordance with the procedures for Minor Specific Plan Amendments described in Section 7.3.4.
D. Appeals
1. Rights of Appeal and Review. Site Plan and Architectural Review decisions of the Administrator may be appealed by any interested party to the Planning Commission. Planning
Commission decisions may be appealed to the City Council, in accordance with the standards for appeals, addressed in Chapter 18.84 of the Zoning Code.
367
Chapter 7 | Specific Plan Administration
7.4.8 Planned Unit Development (PUD) Permit
A. Purpose
1. To provide for development of parcels greater than two acres in land area, designated for a mix of residential and/or commercial uses. The specific location, layout, design, and phasing of these zones may be determined through this process.
2. To allow a flexible approach to the application of development standards, where a higher quality of design, amenity, and community environment would result. The PUD Permit
procedure is not intended as a means to circumvent the
application of normal and appropriate development standards.
3. To encourage variety and avoid monotony in large
developments by allowing greater freedom in selecting the means to provide access, light, open space, and amenity.
B. Application and Procedure for Approvals and Amendments Application for and the process for approving and amending PUD Permits shall be as described in Chapter 18.72 of the Zoning Code.
7.4.9 Administrative Review and Conditional Use
Permits
A. Purpose
1. Administrative Review. Administrative review is required to verify that an intended use or structure complies with the allowed list of activities, all applicable development standards, and does not negatively impact adjoining properties and/or the surrounding area. Administrative review applications may be reviewed and approved by the Administrator or their designee, without requiring a public hearing or noticing within the area for which the use will be located.
2. Conditional Use Permits. Conditional use permits are required for uses typically having unusual site development features or operating characteristics requiring special consideration so that they may be designed, located, and operated compatibly with uses on adjoining properties and in the surrounding area. Such uses may be consistent with the purpose of a particular land use zone but the characteristics stated above might preclude their compatibility in every location within a zone. Use Permits provide the flexibility to allow such uses where appropriate, while disallowing those uses where conflict with surrounding uses or the purposes of the zone would occur.
368
7.4 Nonconforming Uses and Structures
October 2023 Page 7-11
3. Exceptions:
a. Multi-family housing projects that qualify for streamlined approval under State law, including development projects with up to two primary units, qualifying lot splits, or at least two-thirds of the square footage of the development shall be designated for residential use.
b. Affordable housing project that qualify under State density bonus laws, if such standards would have the effect of
physically precluding the construction of that project at the densities or with the concessions or incentives allowed by State density bonus laws, unless failure to apply the standard would result in one or more specific adverse impacts on public health or safety or the physical environment, and there is no other feasible method to mitigate the adverse impact(s).
B. Applicability
When required by the zoning district in which the use or structure is located, administrative review clearance or a conditional use permit, as the case may be, is required prior to the commencement of construction or use.
C. Regulation
Upon request regarding whether a use is allowed within a particular WDSP zone, the Administrator, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission, shall provide a written determination as to whether the use in question is substantially similar in characteristics, density, intensity, and compatibility to a use or uses permitted within the zoning district for the property and whether the use is permitted, requires administrative review, conditionally permitted, or disallowed within the zone.
Application for and the process for administrative review and conditional use permits shall be as follows.
1. Administrative Review
Application for administrative review shall be made in writing on a form prescribed by the Development Services Department and shall be accompanied by plans and elevations, site plans, and relevant data required to grant the application. The
Administrator or their designee shall review all applicable information and within thirty (30) days of receiving all relevant information, decide whether the proposed structure or use meets all applicable standards of the Specific Plan and other relevant City standards.
369
Chapter 7 | Specific Plan Administration
The Administrator shall make one of the following
determinations:
a. Approve the application upon determination that the
project complies with all applicable standards of the Specific Plan and relevant City standards. Public hearings are not required for administrative review applications unless the decision of the Administrator or their designee is appealed. b. Deny the application if it is determined that the project will not comply with all applicable standards of the Specific Plan and relevant city standards. However, prior to denying the application, the Administrator shall provide the applicant an opportunity to modify or correct the application to bring the project into conformance with applicable City
standards.
c. Request further information, as may be needed to make the determination to approve or deny the application.
2. Conditional Use Permits
Application for and the process for conditional use permits shall refer to the standards in Chapter 18.73 of the Zoning Code and standards in this section. In approving a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission may impose reasonable conditions necessary to satisfy the findings, identified in subsection D, below.
D. Findings Required to Grant
1. Administrative Review
Administrative review applications shall be subject to the following findings:
a. That the proposed location of the use is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of this Plan, the General Plan, and the purposes of the zone in which the site is located. b. That the proposed use is similar in character, intensity, and compatible with other uses permitted within the zoning
district for the property.
2. Conditional Use Permits
Conditional use permits shall be subject to the findings in Section 18.73.080 of the Zoning Code.
370
7.4 Nonconforming Uses and Structures
October 2023 Page 7-13
7.4.10 Temporary Use Permit
A Temporary Use Permit, authorizing certain temporary use classifications, shall be subject to the provisions in Section 18.73.120 of the Zoning Code.
7.4.11 Variances and Exceptions
A. Purpose
1. Variances
Variances are intended to resolve practical difficulties or unnecessary physical hardships that may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from geographic, topographic, or other physical conditions on the site or the immediate vicinity or from street locations or traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity of the site. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict compliance with a regulation shall not, in and of itself, constitute sufficient reason for granting a variance.
Variances may be granted with respect to fences, walls, landscaping, screening, site area, site dimensions, yards, height of structures, courts, distances between structures, open space, signs, off-street parking, and off-street loading standards.
2. Exceptions
Due to the unique conditions of design and construction in the HR and HC district, where structures were sometimes built close to lot lines, densities are mixed, and parcel configurations have changed over the years, it is sometimes in the public interest to provide for a higher quality of design and/or enhance the historic character of the neighborhood by making an exception to normal setback, parking, landscaping, fencing, and screening requirements, where such an exception does not interfere with the public health or safety.
Exceptions may be made within the HR and HC districts for the same purposes as a variance, but where the strict findings of a variance cannot be made.
Exceptions may also be permitted for parking requirements.
B. Application and Authority to Grant
Application for and the process for variances and exceptions, shall refer to Chapter 18.80 of the Zoning Code and the standards in this section.
The Administrator shall have the authority to grant Variances and Exceptions, subject to appeal to the Planning Commission by any 371
Chapter 7 | Specific Plan Administration
person or persons affected by the variance or exception, except that Planning Commission approval is required for all major construction, enlargement, additions, improvements, alterations, and removal in the HR or HC districts that exceed 500 square feet.
Refer to Appendix A of the Specific Plan for demolition and review procedures in the HR and HC zones. In no case, shall a Variance or Exception be granted, which allows a use of land or buildings not permitted in the district in which the subject property is located.
C. Public Noticing and Hearings
The process for public noticing and hearings for Variances and Exceptions shall be as addressed in Section 18.80 of the Zoning Code. Additionally, notices shall be provided to all property owners within 600 feet of the property, which is the subject of the application.
D. Findings Required to Grant
1. Variances
Variances shall be subject to the findings in Section 18.80.020 of the City Zoning Code.
2. Exceptions
a. Exceptions to development standards in the HR and HC zone shall be subject to the criteria provided in Appendix A of the Specific Plan.
b. Exceptions to parking standards may be permitted, as specified in Section 6.5.4 of the Specific Plan.
E. Conditions of Approval
In approving a Variance or Exception, the Administrator or Planning Commission, as the case may be, may impose reasonable conditions necessary to:
1. Achieve the general purpose of the Specific Plan or the specific purposes of the zoning district in which the site is located.
2. Protect the public health, safety, and general welfare.
3. Ensure operation and maintenance of the use in a manner compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the surrounding area.
372
7.5 Approval to Extend with the Land
October 2023 Page 7-15
7.5 Approval to Extend with the Land
7.5.1 Approvals
Except where otherwise specified by the approving authority, approvals of all discretionary permits governed by this Plan shall extend with land.
7.5.2 Lapse of Approvals
Approvals for Site Plan/Architectural Review, Conditional Use Permit, Variances, and minor deviations shall lapse and become void twelve (12) months from the approval date, unless a different expiration date is specifically established as a Condition of Approval. Such approvals shall not lapse if any of the following actions occur prior to twelve (12) months from project approval or as extended, subject to Section 7.7.3:
A. A building permit is issued in accordance with the approved entitlement and construction is commenced and diligently pursued toward completion; or,
B. The use addressed under the approved Use Permit has commenced; or,
C. A certificate of occupancy for the use or improvement addressed under the entitlement is issued.
7.5.3 Extensions
An extension may be issued for project approvals described in the previous sections. The Administrator may only extend approvals originally granted by the Administrator. The Planning Commission may only extend approvals originally granted by the Planning Commission.
An extension may be granted for twelve (12) months and shall not exceed a total of two (2) years from the original date of approval. All requests for extensions should be filed with the Planning Division sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date.
The Administrator or Planning Commission may extend the approval of a project if they find that there have been no significant changes in the goals, objectives, policies and regulations of this Specific Plan, or character of the area within which the project is located, that would cause the approved project to become inconsistent or nonconforming.
The granting of an extension should not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
373
Chapter 7 | Specific Plan Administration
7.6 Hearings
Public hearings shall be held for the purpose of considering public testimony regarding the granting of various permits and actions as specified by this Chapter and as required by State law. The Planning Commission and/or City Council may, from time to time, determine that a public hearing is necessary or desirable even when not specifically required and may set the time and place for such hearing to occur.
7.6.1 Notice of Hearing
The Planning Division shall cause notice of the time and place of the public hearing on the project to be given at least ten (10) days in advance of the public hearing or as required by the current Zoning Ordinance requirement.
7.6.2 Other Notice Requirements
Notices required by this section shall be in addition to any other or different notice required by other provisions of this Code or by State law, provided, however, that nothing therein shall require separate notices to be given if the same notice will satisfy the requirements of this Section and any other application section of this Code or State law.
7.6.3 Continuance of Hearings
Any public hearing may be continued from time to time by the body or official conducting the hearing, subject to limitations provided by law, and in such case no further notice need be given.
7.7 Enforcement
Enforcement of this Plan shall be subject to the enforcement standards for the Zoning Code, addressed in Chapter 18.86, “Administration and Enforcement” of the Zoning Code.
7.8 Appeals
Appeals shall be subject to the standards in the City Zoning Code, Chapter 18.76, “Appeals.”
7.9 Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Plan is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Plan. The Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Plan and each section, subsection, sentence, clauses, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, sentence, clauses, or phrases has been declared invalid or unconstitutional, and if for any reason this 374
7.9 Severability
October 2023 Page 7-17
Plan should be declared invalid or unconstitutional, then the remaining provisions shall be in full force and effect.
375
Chapter 7 | Specific Plan Administration
This page intentionally left blank.
376
377
378
379
380
381
City of Suisun Parking In-lieu
Fee
Analysis for the Waterfront District Specific Plan
City of Suisun City
October 2023
DRAFT
382
City of Suisun Parking In-lieu Fee DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Suisun City
AECOM
Prepared for:
City of Suisun City
Development Services Department
Prepared by:
AECOM
2020 L Street, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95811
T: +1 (213) 593 8100
F: +1 (213) 593 8178
aecom.com
383
City of Suisun Parking In-lieu Fee DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Suisun City
AECOM
Table of Contents
1. Executive Summary .....................................................................................4
2. Introduction ...................................................................................................4 The Waterfront District Specific Plan ............................................................................................................ 5 City Parking Goals ........................................................................................................................................ 7
3. Methodology .................................................................................................7
4. Analysis ........................................................................................................8 Parking Demand ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Costs of Development ................................................................................................................................. 13 Additional Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 15
5. Conclusion ................................................................................................. 16 Appendix A .......................................................................................................... 17 A.1 Existing In-lieu Fees in Comparable Jurisdictions ......................................................................... 17
Figures
Figure 1: City of Suisun City Waterfront Specific Plan Land Use Map ......................................................... 6 Figure 2: Parking Demand by Land Use by Time of Day ............................................................................ 12
Tables
Table 1: New Land Use Assumptions for Specific Plan Area – Maximum Development Scenario .............. 9 Table 2: Anticipated Non-Residential Development Converted to Non-Residential Land Use Types ........ 10 Table 3: Waterfront District Specific Plan Off-Street Parking Requirements .............................................. 11 Table 4: Parking Demand Rates for Weekday and Weekend by Land Use ............................................... 11 Table 5: Seasonally and Temporally Adjusted Demand by Land Use......................................................... 12 Table 6: Net New Parking Demand by Land Use at Specific Plan Buildout ............................................... 13 Table 7: Comparable Parking Structures .................................................................................................... 13 Table 8: Pro Forma Parking Structure Construction Costs ......................................................................... 14
384
City of Suisun Parking In-lieu Fee DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Suisun City
AECOM
4 1. Executive Summary
AECOM carried out a parking in-lieu fee study to estimate the potential costs of providing off-street parking for residents and businesses in the City of Suisun City Waterfront District Specific Plan (Specific Plan) area through an in-lieu fee instead of providing parking on-site.
Parking in-lieu fees offer an alternative to meeting parking requirements where providing required on-site parking would be expensive, would be challenging based on site or design constraints, or where excessive surface parking would impede economic development or walkability objectives . This study adapts the parking requirements in the Specific Plan and the City’s parking ordinances to address the demand estimate by land use, adjusted by time and season, to meet the need through a shared parking strategy.
Public parking facilities or structures can allow for shared use among various land uses, where fewer spaces are needed to meet parking demand. Shared parking strategies have been used by many cities in California to advance their environmental and economic goals, and a range of fees have been established to reflect these jurisdictions’ policy goals and financial resources. Once a new development has been built or planned, collected parking in-lieu fees can help fund the public parking structure needed to meet collective demand or contribute towards funding for multimodal alternatives to driving and parking, such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit-related improvements.
Both a survey of recently built parking facilities in nearby jurisdictions and a pro forma construction cost estimate indicate that the price of building a single new parking space in a centralized parking structure is approximately $34,000, including all hard and soft costs of development. The City could set fees at a level that is equivalent to construction costs, at a level sufficient to also cover land acquisition and maintenance, or at a level that is lower than construction costs in order to encourage participation.
2. Introduction
The City of Suisun City (City) is planning for increased infill development through the implementation of the Waterfront District Specific Plan (Specific Plan). The Specific Plan describes the City’s long-term vision to increase housing, retail, and employment opportunities, and maximize access to regional commuter rail access. At buildout, the planned housing, retail, and office growth in the Specific Plan Area will increase demand for parking options beyond the existing capacity. The Specific Plan proposes policies and strategies to encourage a walkable, compact development pattern.
To complement the Specific Plan’s focus on economic development and fiscal sustainability through compact, mixed-use infill development, the City is exploring a shared parking strategy and multimodal alternative funding strategy. Specifically, a shared public parking strategy that could be financed through the collection of in-lieu parking fees that allow developers to pay into a fund rather than provide required parking on-site. This would allow visitors to leave their vehicle at a centralized shared parking facility while visiting multiple destinations either by alternative methods such as by foot or bicycle. The multimodal alternative funding strategy could include targeting funds for specific pedestrian, bicycle , and transit improvements to encourage alternatives to vehicle use. This could include contributing towards revitalizing the Suisun City train depot, repairing or improving sidewalks, integrating safe and accessible pedestrian connections, incorporating landscaping on existing pathways, adding bicycle or scooter parking, expanding existing bicycle routes, etc. Both strategies are consistent with the long-term vision and goals of the Specific Plan Area.
Several cities have adopted ordinances that allow parking in-lieu fees to be utilized for alternatives to building parking. The City of Healdsburg established a deposit account to be used for alternative 385
City of Suisun Parking In-lieu Fee DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Suisun City
AECOM
5 transportation projects, including bicycle and pedestrian improvements, that may reduce demand for parking downtown by providing alternatives to driving downtown. The City of Santa Monica collects funds in a dedicated Downtown Parking Fund which can be used to finance trip reduction strategies, including, but not limited to, improvement to parking utilization rates by means of improved wayfinding, signage, information systems, management, and circulation and access.
This memo assesses key elements of a parking in-lieu fee program as an option for managing and growing downtown parking supply by providing insights regarding forecasted parking demand and development costs and provide recommendations to support fee estimation. This approach addresses parking in-lieu fees specific to the Waterfront District Specific Plan Area (Specific Plan Area).
The Waterfront District Specific Plan
The Waterfront District Specific Plan (previously called the "Downtown Waterfront Specific Plan"). as adopted by the City in 1983 and comprehensively amended in 1999 and 2016. The 1979 Suisun City General Plan called for special treatment of the historic downtown and waterfront through the preparation and adoption of a Specific Plan for Old Town and waterfront areas. The 2035 General Plan update also provided specific direction for development, transportation, design, recreation, and resource conservation within the Specific Plan Area. In 2020, the City received grant funding through the State's SB 2 Planning Grant program to update the Specific Plan and conduct other technical and community outreach work with the goal of accelerating housing production.
386
City of Suisun Parking In-lieu Fee DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Suisun City
AECOM
6 Figure 1: City of Suisun City Waterfront Specific Plan Land Use Map
387
City of Suisun Parking In-lieu Fee DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Suisun City
AECOM
7 The Specific Plan describes the City's long-term vision to strategically develop vacant, underutilized, and infill properties in the downtown area; promote a vibrant downtown that provides both daytime and nighttime activities to attract visitors; and ensure safe and efficient walking, biking, driving, and parking in the downtown. The Specific Plan outlines the requirements for new development within the Specific Planning Area to provide parking based on the standards provided in Section 6.4.3 (Parking Standards).
For commercial and mixed-use development south of SR 12, the Specific Plan proposes on-site parking through a combination of surface parking lots, parking garages, and garages below podium- level decks.
However, to address parking requirements that cannot be met through on-site or shared parking, the Specific Plan allows for payment of a fee in-lieu of actual development of the required parking. This fee, to be determined by the resolution of the City Council, would be equivalent to the estimated cost of land acquisition and development of one off-street surface parking space. The in-lieu fee would be charged for each required parking space that cannot be otherwise provided for the proposed use. The evaluation of a parking in-lieu fee suitable for the Specific Plan considers options for structured parking and surface lots only, as well as necessary access improvements and improvements to encourage alternatives to vehicle use.
City Parking Goals
The City recognizes the significance of addressing parking challenges associated with new development, particularly residential development and affordable housing projects. The City's long-term vision of strategically developing vacant, underutilized, and infill land throughout the City, especially in the downtown area, aligns with the goal of promoting a vibrant downtown that attracts visitors with daytime and nighttime activities. However, this planned growth in housing, retail, and office spaces within the Specific Plan Area will increase the demand for parking options beyond the existing capacity. By leveraging the 2016 Parking Study findings and recommendations and considering the specific parking demands associated with different land uses and time periods, the City can develop a comprehensive parking in-lieu fee structure that offers viable alternatives for new development.
A parking in-lieu fee could serve many potential objectives for the City’s Specific Plan, including:
• Funding the construction of parking spaces to meet the demand of new development in the Specific Plan Area.
• Funding alternative modes of transportation.
• Providing flexibility to developers to meet City requirements, building standards, and financial goals. • Furthering economic development goals by encouraging visitors to park once in a central location and visit several destinations per trip in the Specific Plan Area.
3. Methodology
The methodology for this analysis includes a review of existing relevant parking strategies , an assessment of parking demand and supply in the Specific Plan Area, a cost estimation for new parking facilities, and the calculation of in-lieu fees for the land uses proposed in the Specific Plan Area.
To estimate the potential in-lieu fee for future development in the Specific Plan Area, AECOM developed a pro forma analysis to estimate the hard and soft costs required to build a multi-level parking structure and allocate costs per parking space. The parking in-lieu fee estimate builds off the analysis and recommendations provided in the Parking Study Memorandum drafted in 2016 by AECOM. The authors concluded that the planned housing, retail, and office growth in the Specific Plan Area will increase demand for parking options beyond the existing capacity. The parking study presented the results of a shared parking analysis that considers opportunities to reduce total parking requirements by leveraging the varying time-of-day and seasonal parking demand periods of different land uses. The study projected future demand by assessing the seasonal and temporal needs of the various land uses in the Specific Plan and calculating the total demand for the Specific Plan Area. 388
City of Suisun Parking In-lieu Fee DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Suisun City
AECOM
8 The analysis was conducted to determine the proportion of expenses that can be allocated to new development to achieve a fair distribution of parking improvement costs based on the parking demand each land use generates. This analysis considered existing land uses within the Specific Plan Area, resulting in the establishment of an equitable cost allocation model. To evaluate the potential impact of removing certain parking spaces during the buildout of the Specific Plan, an assessment of the current public parking supply was also conducted. This included a summary of on-site and adjacent on-street parking availability in the Specific Plan Area. The total existing parking supply provides a baseline for future planning and identifies any potential gaps that need to be addressed. This information is critical for evaluating the impact of removing certain public parking spaces during the buildout of the Specific Plan.
Moreover, the City's assumption regarding the proportion of new development utilizing the parking in-lieu option was examined. This analysis informed the development of an allocation model for the new development parking in-lieu proportional fee by land use.
To ensure the long-term viability of the parking in-lieu fee program, appropriate indices for annual fee rate escalation were identified. Consideration was given to factors such as inflation and market trends to establish an index that reflects the changing economic conditions and supports sustainable funding for future parking improvements.
4. Analysis
The relationship between land use, parking requirements, and parking in-lieu fees is shaped by local regulations and policies. Municipalities establish guidelines that anticipate parking needs by different land uses, establish minimum requirements to meet these needs, and outline when and how in-lieu fees can replace the physical provision of parkin on-site. The specific criteria for determining the fees, such as the size and location of the development, expected parking demand, or the availability of alternative parking nearby, can vary across jurisdictions. The collected fees are typically directed towards funding transportation infrastructure improvements including parking structures, public transit enhancements, or other mobility-related initiatives.
Parking in-lieu fees are beneficial in areas with higher development densities, where space is limited, and land-efficient development is crucial. In such areas, strict parking requirements may not align with the goals of promoting compact development or prioritizing pedestrian-friendly environments. The availability of alternative transportation options, such as public transit, cycling infrastructure, or ride-sharing services, can influence the application of parking in-lieu fees, as well. If a development is located in an area well- served by transit or with high walkability, developers may be more inclined to opt for reduced parking and pay the fees instead, recognizing that residents or visitors can rely on alternative modes of transportation.
Parking fees can also facilitate parking strategies that include the development of a shared public parking structure in a central location that will allow residents, employees, and visitors to park once and visit several businesses in a commercial district. The shared parking structure can increase the volume of pedestrians and decrease traffic of visitors circulating the district looking for parking.
Parking Demand
The City anticipates new residential, commercial, and mixed-use development under the revised Specific Plan and much of this new development could potentially benefit from shared parking within the Specific Plan Area. Table 1 shows the total new development assumptions under the updated Specific Plan based on a maximum development scenario. This maximum development scenario is intended to illustrate the high end of possible development and associated parking demand that could exist for the Specific Plan Area at buildout.
389
City of Suisun Parking In-lieu Fee DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Suisun City
AECOM
9 Table 1: New Land Use Assumptions for Specific Plan Area – Maximum Development Scenario Land Use
New Dwelling
Units
(sq ft)
New
Population
(person)
New Non-
Residential
(sq ft)
New
Employment
(person)
Commercial and Higher-Density
Residential Mixed Use 1,780 3,251 443,286 615
Commercial Recreation 0 0 12,000 15
Historic Commercial 0 0 20,264 25
Main Street Commercial 127 254 354,632 644
Residential Medium-Density and
Commercial Recreation 65 176 56,213 69
Mixed Use 91 183 228,545 415
Residential High Density 166 332 228,545 0
Residential Low Density 211 501 -25,294 -25
Residential Medium Density 107 267 0 0
Waterfront Commercial 100 199 207,446 376
Total 2,647 5,163 1,297,092 2,134
Notes: sq ft = square feet. The land use types presented above in this table describe the mix and amount of anticipated land use change under the revised Specific Plan – the names of the land use types are similar to, but district from the Zoning District names in the Specific Plan.
Source: City of Suisun City, AECOM
At build out, under this maximum development scenario, new development within the Specific Plan Area could result in up to 2,647 new dwelling units and up to 1.3 million square feet of additional non- residential space (retail, restaurant, and office) that would accommodate up to 5,200 new residents and up to 2,100 new employees within the Specific Plan Area.
The non-residential land uses were sorted into different non-residential development types (retail, restaurant, and office) for the purpose of analysis of maximum parking demand, including estimates of seasonal and time of day fluctuations to this demand. Table 2 shows the breakdown of non-residential development into retail, restaurant, and office space, estimated at build out under this maximum development scenario. Of the up to 1.3 million square feet of new non-residential space that could be added within the Specific Plan Area, approximately 635,000 is assumed to be retail space, 260,000 is assumed to be restaurant space, and 402,000 is assumed to be office space for the purpose of this analysis of maximum parking demand.
390
City of Suisun Parking In-lieu Fee DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Suisun City
AECOM
10 Table 2: Anticipated Non-Residential Development Converted to Non-Residential Land Use Types New Land Use Retail Sq
Ft
Restaurant Sq
Ft
Office Sq
Ft
Commercial and Higher-Density Residential Mixed
Use 314,733 128,553 0
Commercial Recreation 6,000 6,000 0
Historic Commercial 6,890 6,687 6,687
Main Street Commercial 124,121 53,195 177,316
Residential Medium-Density and Commercial
Recreation 56,213 0 0
Mixed-Use 79,991 34,282 114,273
Residential High Density 0 0 0
Residential Low Density -25,294 0 0
Residential Medium Density 0 0 0
Waterfront Commercial 72,606 31,117 103,723
Total 635,260 259,834 401,999
Note: sq ft = square feet
Source: City of Suisun City, AECOM
The Specific Plan establishes minimum parking requirements for various land uses. Existing structures are only required to maintain the off-street parking spaces that were originally mandated at the time of construction, addition, or substantial modification. Any new floor area added to existing structures or construction of new structures after the plan's effective date must comply with the off-street parking provisions outlined in the Specific Plan. For multi-family residential, developers are required to provide 1 space per unit for studio and one-bedroom units, 1.5 spaces for units of two or more bedrooms, and one additional guest space for every 5 units. Parking within the one-quarter mile radius of the Suisun City train depot will be waived. All commercial land uses are required to provide approximately 1 space for every 300 gross square feet.
The minimum number of off-street parking spaces varies for each land use, as summarized in Table 3, and for uses not listed, the Specific Plan refers to the City Zoning Code.
391
City of Suisun Parking In-lieu Fee DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Suisun City
AECOM
11 Table 3: Waterfront District Specific Plan Off-Street Parking Requirements Land Use Minimum Number of Parking Spaces Required
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Single-Family Residential 1 covered space and 1 uncovered space Multi-Family Residential
Studio 1 space per unit
One-Bedroom 1 space per unit
Two+ Bedrooms 1.5 space per unit
Guest Spaces
1 space per 5 unit, except that on-street parking may be substituted for visitor parking where sufficient on-street parking space is provided on the street adjacent to the development
NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Hotel/Motel 1 space per room
Commercial or Public Use
Refer to parking requirement in the City Zoning Code, except that the minimum off-street parking spaces shall not be greater than 1 space per 300 gross square feet. Proposed buildings of less than 5,000 square feet with adjacent on-street parking shall not be required to provide any off-street parking.
Notes:
(1) For developments containing five or more units, up to 35% of the required uncovered spaces may be compact car spaces
(2) On-street parking spaces adjacent to the property street frontage may be used to satisfy required off-street parking requirements
Source: City of Suisun City Waterfront District Specific Plan 2023.
While the Specific Plan details parking requirements for each land use, previous studies have adopted a more nuanced approach to estimate the parking need according to the time of day, day of the week, and season of the year. These temporal and seasonal demand estimates lay the foundation for shared parking strategies that would allow the City to match the demand generated by land uses in the Specific Plan Area without building unnecessary parking that would raise the cost of development and hinder other policy goals (such as the economic development goals of the Specific Plan and the City’s General Plan).
The AECOM Parking Study, produced in 2016, builds off previous work of Wilbur Smith Associates to produce the base demand estimates in Table 4.
Table 4: Parking Demand Rates for Weekday and Weekend by Land Use Land Use Weekday Demand Weekend Demand Unit
Retail 1 2.88 4.03 space/1,000 sq ft
Restaurant 1 6.38 6.38 space/1,000 sq ft
Office 1 2.97 0.3 space/1,000 sq ft
Hotel 2 1.25 1.08 space/room
Theater 1 0.25 0.25 space/seat
Higher-Density Residential 3 1.16 1.16 space/unit
1 Wilbur Smith Associates, Suisun City Downtown Parking Study – Final Report 2 Urban Land Institute, Shared Parking, Second Edition
3 AECOM 2016 (weighted average of 3 Districts studied in 2016 report)
392
City of Suisun Parking In-lieu Fee DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Suisun City
AECOM
12 AECOM refined these base demand estimates by factoring in the busiest months and times of day for each land use under consideration. Land uses also require parking at different times of the day, and it is the differences in these peak demand periods that allow parking supply to be shared among various uses within a parking district. Figure 2 illustrates the parking demand curves for the four land uses analyzed in this study. As shown, residential uses achieve peak demand from nighttime to early morning when residents are at home. Then, parking demand for these uses declines as people drive their cars to work, school, and other daily tasks. The opposite is shown for the non-residential uses where parking demand increases from morning through early evening. Office demand peaks while employees are at work; restaurant demand peaks during lunch and dinner mealtimes; retail demand is high from midday to evening when stores are open.
Figure 2: Parking Demand by Land Use by Time of Day
Based on considerations of demand during various seasons, days of the week, and time of day, AECOM developed a refined parking demand scenario that lowered the parking demand from the base scenario by approximately 20 to 25 percent per land use category. The final estimates of parking demand bay land use are shown in Table 5. The impact of the seasonal and temporal demand adjustments lowers the parking requirements to 1 space for every 527 sq ft of retail, 164 sq ft of restaurant, and 409 sq ft of office space.
Table 5: Seasonally and Temporally Adjusted Demand by Land Use Land Use Parking Space Demand
Retail 1 Space for every 527 sq ft
Restaurant 1 Space for every 164 sq ft
Office 1 Space for every 409 sq ft
Higher Density Residential 1 Space for every unit
Note: sq ft = square feet
Source: City of Suisun City, AECOM
Based on the parking demand estimated in Table 5, full buildout of the maximum development scenario evaluated in this study, new development would generate peak parking demand for approximately 5,511 new parking spaces within the Specific Plan Area. If growth were consistent from 2023 through 2035, this 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
1:00
2:00
3:00
4:00
5:00
6:00
7:00
8:00
9:00
10:00
11:00
12:00
Parking Demand
Time of Day
Retail
Restaurant
Office
Higher-Density Res. -
Residents
393
City of Suisun Parking In-lieu Fee DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Suisun City
AECOM
13 results in the average annual demand for 424 net new parking spaces. Table 6 shows the allocation of demand across the four land uses.
Table 6: Net New Parking Demand by Land Use at Specific Plan Buildout Land Use
Net New Sq
Ft (Units)
Sq Ft (Unit) /
Space
Average Annual
Spaces Total Spaces
Retail 635,260 527 93 1,206
Restaurant 259,834 164 122 1,583
Office 401,999 409 76 984
Higher Density Residential 2,647 1.5 134 1,738
Total 424 5,511
Note: sq ft = square feet
Source: City of Suisun City, AECOM
Additional Parking Demand Considering Historic Growth Rates As established in the 2035 General Plan, the 2016 Waterfront District Specific Plan, and the 2023 update to the Waterfront District Specific Plan, the City is seeking to facilitate and encourage mixed-use development, particularly within the Specific Plan Area. While the maximum buildout scenario could produce many fiscal, economic, environmental, and social benefits for the City, this scenario would also represent a departure from historic growth rates.
Assuming the Specific Plan Area captures all of citywide growth in retail and residential use, and that the Specific Plan builds out consistent with historic growth trends between present and 2035, rather than the 5,511 parking spaces under the maximum buildout scenario, there could be instead the need for 134 additional parking spaces for office development, 607 spaces for restaurant/retail development, and 112 additional spaces for residential development, for a total new parking demand of 853 additional parking spaces.
Cost of Parking Structure
To estimate the probable costs associated with the construction of a shared parking structure to be built (in part or in whole) through the collection of in-lieu fees, AECOM took two approaches. The first compiles data from recently constructed public parking structures from neighboring jurisdictions and cities with Bay Area Regional Transit (BART) transportation centers. The construction costs are normalized to 2023 $USD using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the San Francisco Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Table 7 shows the size (number of spaces) and cost (2023 $USD per parking space) for 16 parking structures built in the region. The average size for parking structures in the sample is 805 spaces, ranging from 178 spaces to 1,547. The average cost per space in the sample is $34,189, ranging from $26,740 to $53,778. The cost varies based on location and building type, with structures built below grade or on complicated terrains costing more to construct than those built above grade.
Table 7: Comparable Parking Structures
Parking Structure Spaces
Cost/ Space (2023
$USD)
San Leonardo Municipal 380 $28,565
Federal Facility SF 377 $30,615
East Bay Community College 900 $33,587
Jack London AMTRAK 1,086 $41,221
Fruitvale BRT 506 $32,585
394
City of Suisun Parking In-lieu Fee DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Suisun City
AECOM
14 Richmond BRT 678 $53,778
Hayward City Hall 178 $27,017
Hayward Cinema Place 244 $40,545
Fairfield Transportation Center 400 $28,340
Livermore Valley P&R 502 $27,979
Dublin/Pleasanton BART 1,513 $38,142
West Dublin/Pleasanton 1,180 $27,948
Pleasant Hill BART 1,547 $45,508
Fairfield Center Expansion 1,200 $34,351
Vallejo Station 1,300 $26,740
Solano County Center 1,050 $30,098
Average 815 $34,189
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, City of Vallejo, Clark Construction, BLS, AECOM
AECOM also estimated the costs to build a new parking structure in the City through a pro forma analysis that models the inputs typically associated with new construction. These inputs include direct costs (materials and labor), indirect costs (design, planning, legal), and financing costs. Table 8 shows the key inputs and assumptions used in the proforma analysis. Based on a representative sample of parking structures built in neighboring jurisdictions, the prototype parking structure contains 5 stories wi th 1,200 spaces on 2 acres of land. Cost estimates include space for ingress/egress, circulation, elevators, and stairwells. The complete structure would cost approximately $41 million or $34,173 per parking space.
This estimate is remarkably similar to the average costs associated with the sample structures in Table 7.
Table 8: Pro Forma Parking Structure Construction Costs Project Overview
Site Area
In AC 2
In Sq Ft 87,120
Building Area
Spaces 1,200
Sq Ft/Space 325
Gross Sq FT 390,000
Direct Costs
On-Site Improvements $1.0 per site sf $87,120
Building Hard Costs $69 per gross sf $26,795,843
Contractor Fees 18% of all hard costs $4,838,933
Hard Cost Contingency 5% of all other direct costs $241,947 Total Direct Costs $31,963,843
Indirect Costs
A&E 5% of all direct costs $1,438,373
Legal, Insurance, Warranty 3% of all direct costs $958,915 G&A 1% of all other indirect costs $23,973
Developer Fee 4.5% of all direct costs $1,438,373
Soft Cost Contingency 5% of all other indirect costs $192,982 Total Indirect Costs 10% of all total costs $4,052,616
395
City of Suisun Parking In-lieu Fee DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Suisun City
AECOM
15 Financing Costs1
Loan Amount $21,609,875
Loan Fees $432,198
Construction Period Interest $831,149
Total Financing Costs $1,263,347
Total Costs
Total Costs (excl. developer return and land) $37,279,805 Developer Return on Cost 10% of all total costs $3,727,981 Total Development Costs $41,007,786
Value per gross sq ft $105
Value per space $34,173
1 Financing Assumptions: 60% LTC, 2% Fee, 5% Interest, 18 months construction) Source: RS Means, AECOM
The estimated cost for a new parking space in a parking structure from both a representative sample and proforma analysis are both approximately $34,200. This figure should serve as the baseline costs from which the City derives its in-lieu fee in light of additional considerations and policy objectives.
Additional Considerations
Jurisdictions can adjust this amount up or down according to a tailored parking strategy designed to meet particular goals. Options for a parking in-lieu fee include:
A. Charge the equivalent to the costs of construction. This strategy requires that developments pay pro-rata fees that are directly related to the cost of off-street parking.
Developments that could more easily provide surface parking on-site (based on preference, design, or lower floor area ratio [FAR]) would opt out of the fee program.
B. Charge to cover construction, land acquisition, and maintenance. This strategy requires developers to pay above the equivalent costs of construction to also cover a portion or all of the costs of land acquisition and property maintenance. The fee would take into consideration the additional costs of collecting fees, administering funds, overseeing construction, and carrying out routine maintenance of parking structures.
C. Charge below the equivalent costs of construction. This strategy sets the fee below the equivalent costs of construction in order to encourage widespread participation in the program. The lowering of the fee would require the availability of additional sources of funding/revenues, such a public subsidy, land donation, partnership with another agency, or the ability to charge for parking for a portion of the total spaces or during certain times of the day or week. The fee could rise gradually as development reaches buildout or subsidies wane.
The fee should be tied to the appropriate construction cost index (discussed below) to rise or fall over time with the costs of construction.
Beyond the costs of the initial construction, a number of additional considerations could impact the assessment of a parking in-lieu fee, including the cost of maintenance, land for development, and cost escalations over time.
Over time, the City will need to cover the costs of maintenance of the shared parking structure. These costs vary contingent on the development type, building materials, location, and use. Routine maintenance costs and eventual replacement of building materials will be required. Some jurisdictions require an annual maintenance credit be paid to cover these costs, while others cover repairs through 396
City of Suisun Parking In-lieu Fee DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Suisun City
AECOM
16 public funds or district taxes. The City could also consider charging a fee for drivers wishing to use the shared parking structure to help offset construction, maintenance, and operational costs.
The most effective shared parking strategies would develop parking structures in a central location that best serves the businesses and residences that opted to pay the fee rather than develop on-site parking.
The 2016 AECOM Parking Study identifies several potential vacant and underutilized lots in the Specific Plan Area that could serve as the location for future shared parking developments. The City must acquire the land necessary to build the shared parking structures. If no public land is readily available and the City does not plan on funding land acquisition costs through other means, the in-lieu fee could include the costs of buying land. AECOM survey recent land sales transactions (2021-2023) both within the City and within a 5-mile radius of the center of the Specific Plan Area. The average sales price was approximately $16 per square foot of vacant land. If the cost of land were incorporate into the proforma table in Table 8, this would indicate an additional $1,161 per parking space.
Construction costs rose notably in the years impacted by pandemic-related economic downturn, rising by approximately 11.5 percent in 2021 and 12.8% in 2022, according to CBRE.1 While construction costs are expected to normalize in 2023, yearly escalations must still be accounted for in the design of an impactful in-lieu fee.
While the in-lieu fee could be scaled up over time to account for these escalations, the future costs of materials and labor are unknown, and recent historical events show that year over year costs can increase dramatically for a number of unpredictable reasons. There are a number of cost indices to which the City could peg the in-lieu fee to assure future fees can cover future costs of development. The fee should be revisited and updated annually to this end. There are a number of private and public resources to estimate construction cost escalations. Paid services such as RS Means and the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index are reliable sources of construction cost data.
5. Conclusion
The amount of potential new development envisioned in the Specific Plan suggests the potential need for structured parking options and viable alternatives to vehicle transportation in the long-term. However, developing structured parking is expensive, and can be especially problematic in a small downtown environment like Suisun City where many small users contribute to a cumulatively large parking demand.
It may be an option for some large future development projects to provide their own structured parking options within the planning area. For example, a new hotel, multi-story office, or residential project may be able to finance structured parking with designated spaces for project tenants and possible excess supply for public parking users. However, for the majority of future projects in the study area, independent construction of structured parking will not be an option. The City could establish some type of benefit district and collect fees with new development to fund the future construction of ce ntralized structured parking. The City could also allow collected in-lieu fees to fund alternatives to the construction of parking, such as pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements to encourage non-vehicle use in the Specific Plan Area.
The estimated cost for a new parking space in a parking structure from both a representative sample and proforma analysis are both approximately $34,200. While some parking strategies encourage lowering the in-lieu fee below the projected cost to encourage developers to participate in shared parking programs, others inflate the costs to cover administrative and maintenance costs that will be incurred through the collection of fees, financing of development, and administering the shared parking structure.
Parking in the City to date is entirely surface parking, for which costs are well below that of structured parking. Nonetheless, the compact, walkable urban core envisioned in the Specific Plan requires higher density development without sprawling parking lots. The City should evaluate options, including whether to scale the in-lieu fee up or down, consistent with goals of the General Plan and Specific Plan.
1 https://www.cbre.com/insights/books/us-real-estate-market-outlook-2023/construction-costs 397
City of Suisun Parking In-lieu Fee DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Suisun City
AECOM
17 Appendix A
A.1 Existing In-lieu Fees in Comparable Jurisdictions
The following table includes a summary of in-lieu fees from selected cities through California.
Jurisdiction In-lieu Fee
Beverly Hills $49,967
Healdsburg $47,834
Davis $10,630
Emeryville $99,655
Hermosa Beach $39,198
Huntington Beach $36,341
Millbrae $18,913
Mountain View $34,547
Palo Alto $89,158
Pismo Beach $47,834
San Luis Obispo $22,684
Ventura $32,481
Walnut Creek $35,261
398
City of Suisun Parking In-lieu Fee DRAFT
Prepared for: City of Suisun City
AECOM
18 aecom.com
399
City of Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and
Recommendations
Prepared for: Suisun City, California
July 2021
400
City of Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations
Prepared for:
Suisun City, California
Prepared by:
AECOM
2020 L Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
401
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 i
Contents
1. Introduction ...............................................................................................................................................1 -1
1.1 Key Findings ..........................................................................................................................................1 -1
1.2 Background ............................................................................................................................................1 -1
1.3 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................1 -2
1.4 Methodology ..........................................................................................................................................1 -2
2. Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................................................2 -1
2.1 Location and Access ..............................................................................................................................2 -1 Site Characteristics ..................................................................................................................... 2-1 Previous Development Capacity Estimates ................................................................................ 2-2
3. Socio-Economic Trends ............................................................................................................................3 -1
3.1 Population ..............................................................................................................................................3 -1 Historical Trends ......................................................................................................................... 3-1 Growth Forecasts ........................................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Employment and Income .......................................................................................................................3 -2 Suisun City Jobs in Place ............................................................................................................ 3-2 Jobs to Households Ratio ........................................................................................................... 3-3 Regional Employment Concentrations ........................................................................................ 3-4 Suisun City Commute Patterns ................................................................................................... 3-6 Incomes ...................................................................................................................................... 3-7
3.3 Socio-Economic Trends Summary .........................................................................................................3 -7
4. Residential Market Opportunity .................................................................................................................4 -1 Inventory and Historic Trends ..................................................................................................... 4-1 Home Ownership ........................................................................................................................ 4-3 Single-Family Market Indicators .................................................................................................. 4-4 Multifamily Market Indicators ....................................................................................................... 4-6 Recent Development Trends and Considerations ....................................................................... 4-8 Recommended Higher-Density Residential Prototypes ............................................................ 4-11
4.2 Residential Opportunities Summary .................................................................................................... 4-12
4.3 Example Multifamily Development Concept with Parcel Assembly ..................................................... 4-13
5. Limitations .................................................................................................................................................5 -1
402
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 ii
Tables
Table 1. Previous Development Capacity Estimates ............................................................................................ 2-2 Table 2. Population Trends and Household Growth 2010-2021 ........................................................................... 3-1 Table 3. Population and Housing Unit Forecast 2020-2050 ................................................................................. 3-2 Table 4. Suisun City Employment by NAICS Sector (201) ................................................................................... 3-3 Table 5. Historical Suisun City Employment Inflow/Outflow and Day Population .................................................. 3-6 Table 6. Where Workers Who Live in Suisun City Work, 2018 ............................................................................. 3-7 Table 7. Household Incomes (2019) ..................................................................................................................... 3-7 Table 8. Historical Housing Inventory – Total Housing Units ................................................................................ 4-1 Table 9. Historical Housing Inventory – Single Family Residential ....................................................................... 4-2 Table 10. Historical Housing Inventory – Multifamily (5-units or more) ................................................................. 4-2 Table 11. Historical Composition of Multifamily Housing ...................................................................................... 4-3 Table 12. Recent Multifamily Projects in Solano County ...................................................................................... 4-8 Table 13. Income Needed to Support Average Rents in Solano County ............................................................... 4-9 Table 14. Income Supporting Home Ownership in Suisun City .......................................................................... 4-10 Table 14. Homeownership Breakeven Horizon .................................................................................................. 4-10 Table 15. Proposed Solano County RHNA Allocations ....................................................................................... 4-11
Figures
Figure 1. Solano County and Suisun City ............................................................................................................ 1-3 Figure 2: Waterfront District Specific Plan Area ................................................................................................... 1-4 Figure 3. WDSP Planning Districts ....................................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 4. Jobs to Households Ratios .................................................................................................................. 3-5 Figure 5. Age of Housing Stock ............................................................................................................................ 4-3 Figure 6. Tenure of Occupied Units ...................................................................................................................... 4-4 Figure 7. Nominal Median Single-Family Home Value ......................................................................................... 4-5 Figure 8. Nominal Median Home Value (Condo and Co-Op Only) ....................................................................... 4-5 Figure 9. Multifamily Residential (MFR) Market-rate Rent Trends (Per Square Foot) .......................................... 4-6 Figure 10. Multifamily Rent Trends (Per Unit) ...................................................................................................... 4-7 Figure 11. Multifamily Vacancy Trends ................................................................................................................. 4-7 Figure 12. Multifamily Market Capitalization Rate ................................................................................................ 4-8 Figure 13. Recent Multifamily Projects in Solano County ................................................................................... 4-12
403
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 1
404
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 1-1
1. Introduction
1.1 Key Findings
There is opportunity for additional housing development, including multifamily housing development in Downtown Suisun City. This area has many of the amenities sought by multifamily developers and residents, including parks and open space, nearby retail and services, and public transit.
Plan Bay Area 2050 has identified critical manufacturing and light-industrial clusters as official Priority Production Areas that have significant operations or have potential to increase or add to their employment and production output.
There are three Priority Production Areas within immediate vicinity of Suisun City that could affect residential demand in Suisun City and create local career pathways for youth and current residents.
Significant increases in rents signal strong market support for additional multi-famiily development. Over the last 10 years, the average rent per square foot for multifamily units increased in Suisun City by 70 percent, compared to 49 percent for Fairfield and 44 percent for Solano County as a whole. On per-unit basis, multifamily rents increased by 63 percent since 2011. Capitalization rates have been on a downward trend, as well, further signaling market support for multifamily housing in Suisun City.
The size, shape, location, and ownership characteristics of certain properties, and the allowable densities may represent an impediment to housing development in some locations within the Waterfront District Specific Plan Area.
While there are many properties, including both vacant and underutilized properties, of sufficient size to accommodate multifamily developments, in other cases, property assembly and coordination among different property owners may be required to support feasible multifamily development. At the end of this report, we present a conceptual plan for multifamily development that could occur in the northwestern portion of the Specific Plan Area, if properties could be assembled.
Finally, regarding density, the existing Specific Plan allows densities of up to 45 dwelling units per gross acre or 54 dwelling units per net acre. This is sufficient for lower-scale multifamily residential development with surface parking, but for higher-density multifamily development with underground parking, 50-60 units per acre is likely the minimum range that could suppport relatively more expensive types of construction.
1.2 Background
The Waterfront District Specific Plan (WDSP) was adopted by Suisun City in 1983 (it was previously called the “Downtown Waterfront Specific Plan”). The actual Specific Plan document indicates that the “creation of a specific plan for this WDSP Area (Planning Area) was proposed as an implementation action in the 1979 Suisun City General Plan, which called for special treatment of the historic downtown and waterfront through preparation and adoption of a Specific Plan for Old Town and the waterfront.” The General Plan was comprehensively revised in 2015 and establishes an updated set of policies, guidelines, and standards that impact urban development and quality of life.
Throughout this memo “Planning Area”, “WDSP Area”, “Downtown Suisun City”, and “Downtown” are used interchangeably.
In 2008, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG, and other regional partners (regional agencies), launched the Priority Development Area (PDA) grant program. PDAs are nominated and adopted by cities or counties to facilitate growth and infill development near fixed transportation facilities. Suisun City harnessed the Suisun Train Depot as a Downtown asset and nominated the WDSP Planning Area as a PDA, officially becoming one in 2008. PDAs are opportunity areas in any of the nine ABAG counties that are designed to provide housing, community amenities, and services for residents in a pedestrian-friendly, transit-rich environment.
In 2014, the City received grant funding from the Solano Transportation Authority to prepare an update to the WDSP – that update was also an implementation program in the City’s 2035 General Plan. The update addressed the Planning Area, which expands on the previous Specific Plan boundaries to include the properties north of Highway 12 405
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 1-2
– at the northwest corner of Marina Boulevard and Highway 12 and the properties between Main Street and Highway 12, including the “Denverton Curve” property in the northwest of the Planning Area. The expanded WDSP boundary allowed the City to better leverage the assets of the Suisun Train Depot to encourage infill development and establish a gateway entrance into the Planning Area on both sides of Highway 12.
In 2020, the City received grant funding through the State’s SB 2 Planning Grant program to update the WDSP and conduct other technical and community outreach work to accelerate the production of housing.
1.3 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the state of the housing market in and the residential development potential of the Planning Area. The key findings from this memo will inform decisionmakers about what level and types of development are reasonable to expect in Downtown Suisun City. The 2035 General Plan and WDSP both include a Higher-Density Residential (HDR) land use zone designation along with several mixed-use and complementary land use designations that allow for residential development at higher densities and in proximity to public transit and high- quality pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Rising housing costs in urban centers and near major employment centers in the Bay Area have made these communities increasingly unaffordable. In previous decades, these market conditions pushed housing demand inland, where the availability of land was able to accommodate new single-family residential development and low- density multifamily development. Over the last two decades, there has been growing support for, and interest in higher-density residential projects across California as a solution to deal with the state’s housing crisis.
The momentum for higher-density residential development has extended to communities such as Suisun City, and the City has identified areas like Downtown Suisun City as appropriate for accommodating residential development at densities that are higher than those of its previous development patterns. At the same time, the Suisun Train Depot is recognized as an asset for both Suisun City and the city of Fairfield. The WDSP specifically aims to capture the potential of that asset by positioning the train station as the centerpiece of a vibrant mixed-use and intermodal neighborhood.
This study evaluates market fundamentals and other conditions that can have an influence on development, providing an understanding of the potential market support for residential development.
1.4 Methodology
AECOM prepared an assessment of existing conditions in the WDSP Area, socioeconomic trends and data, and market conditions underlying the residential market opportunity in Downtown Suisun City. Facilitating higher-density residential development is identified as a part of the WDSP’s Vision, and facilitating residential development in the Downtown area will promote the Specific Plan Vision and Goals for a vibrant Downtown; both daytime and nighttime activities; convenient and attractive shopping, services, and employment; additional dining, entertainment, hospitality, and tourism; a place that attracts businesses, diners, and shoppers; and strengthened economic viability.1 The assessment draws upon findings and underlying data presented in several prior documents, including the City of Suisun City’s 2035 General Plan and the Waterfront District Specific Plan (WDSP). Additional data was obtained from sources including the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), CoStar, Zillow, the California Department of Finance, and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).
The primary geographic unit of focus for potential infill development and reinvestment is the WDSP Area. Although the Specific Plan Area is distinct from the rest of Suisun City in both its issues and its assets, many data sources do not make available such granular detail of a relatively small geography. When and where data permits, information on Suisun City will be compared to other geographies, namely Solano County as a whole, and at times three jurisdictions that are important to the micro-regional economy of Suisun City. This includes neighboring city of Fairfield, nearby Vacaville, and Vallejo.
1 Please see the Waterfront District Specific Plan, Pages 1-5 through 1-12, for more details. 406
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 1-3
Figure 1. Solano County and Suisun City
Source: City of Suisun City Waterfront District Specific Plan
407
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 1-4
Figure 2: Waterfront District Specific Plan Area
Source: City of Suisun City Waterfront District Specific Plan
408
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 2-1
2. Existing Conditions
AECOM analyzed the neighborhood characteristics, access, and residential development capacity under current conditions and land use designations. These attributes frame the development context of Downtown Suisun City in relation to citywide and regional growth and mobility. Opportunity sites are also identified where higher-density residential development is allowed but has not yet occurred.
2.1 Location and Access
Suisun City is in central Solano County, midway between the cities of Sacramento and San Francisco (Figure 1). The City is bounded by the city of Fairfield to the north and west, Travis Air Force Base to the east, and Suisun Marsh to the south. The City is adjacent to and bisected by State Highway 12, a vital trucking route and is approximately two miles east of Interstate 80. Suisun Slough, a major tidal waterway, connects Suisun City to Suisun Bay and provides access to water sports, recreation, boating, fishing, and bird watching. The adjoining Suisun Marsh is the largest brackish estuary west of the Mississippi River and borders the south and east sides of the City’s Planning Area. The Planning Area straddles both sides of Highway 12 and is located southeast of the Union Pacific Railway tracks and west of the Suisun Channel and Marina Boulevard (Figure 2).
The WDSP Area is in the southeastern edge of the City’s Planning Area. State Highway 12 cuts through the northern portion of the Planning Area, providing direct access to Downtown Suisun City and connecting it with the western portions of the city of Fairfield and I-80 to the west.
The WDSP boasts two additional regional transportation facilities. The Suisun Train Depot serves as the Suisun- Fairfield stop on the Capitol Corridor regional passenger rail service. The Capitol Corridor has 17 stops on its run from the Sacramento region to San Jose and is the fourth busiest route in the Amtrak system in terms of ridership.
The Train Depot’s location in Downtown Suisun City is a true asset that represents a key potential driver for development within the WDSP Area due to its connections to several major cities and their services, employment opportunities, talent pools, and institutions across northern California. The other regional connector is the Suisun Slough, which offers access to estuaries, wildlife areas, and rivers on the way to the San Pablo and San Francisco Bays.
These regional connections provide high-quality access to employment centers, shopping, and recreational activities.
The WDSP Area—located at the conflux of these connections —is well positioned to take advantage of their benefits .
This is potentially a major draw for those seeking housing within commuting distance to employment and urban amenities.
Locally, Main Street, Civic Center Drive, and Marina Boulevard serve as the north-south spines that help to organize the WDSP’s circulation and connections to other parts of the city. Cordelia Street provides east-west access to the southern portion of the Planning Area and an alternative connection to the city of Fairfield’s western neighborhoods.
Site Characteristics
According to the Waterfront District Specific Plan Vision, “The WDSP Area draws on the area’s unique mix of characteristics–a recreational waterfront, a historic main street, well-preserved residential historic architecture, established neighborhoods, direct highway access, regional commuter rail service, a rich natural environment, and a location that is in the path of regional growth.”
The Specific Plan Area encompasses eight districts, each with their own character, history, and types and levels of development.
The Downtown Core (District 3) and Historic Suisun (District 4) are comprised of older diverse building stock, an intimately-scaled street grid, and small lot sizes that together preserve their historic charm. These two districts are peppered with small vacant properties, parking lots, and properties with low utilization that represent promising 409
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 2-2
opportunity sites for infill development. Much larger potential opportunity sites can be found around the Train Depot (District 2) and Western Marina Boulevard and Highway 12 (District 1), where large swaths of unimproved land, parking lots, and larger contiguous properties of underutilized land seem ripe for development.
The WDSP identifies waterfront development opportunities on the Southern Waterfront (District 7) on the site of a parking lot and underutilized boating-related uses as well as a development opportunity area to the east of Suisun Slough in Civic Center/Whispering Bay Waterfront. Cordelia Gateway (District 6) and the Harbor Village/Victorian Harbor Neighborhood (District 5) are mostly composed of single-family residential blocks that were designated in the Specific Plan as areas of stability that are unlikely to see high levels of redevelopment.
Previous Development Capacity Estimates
Based on existing land use designations from the Suisun City 2035 General Plan and the Waterfront District Specific Plan adopted in 1983 and updated in 2016, AECOM previously estimated the additional residential development capacity within the WDSP Planning Area to be approximately 1,215 units, as shown in Table 1. These additional units would be spread across the eight districts according to estimated site capacity, previously identified market trends, and density guidelines per individual zone and district.
Figure 3 illustrates the existing Specific Plan’s development capacity estimates, including areas that are likely to have sites that can support higher-density residential development. Potential site issues that may prevent, slow, or otherwise complicate the development of higher-density residential units on these opportunity sites include:
• small or irregularly configured lots that may make it difficult to efficiently build the types of residential units demanded by the market, while achieving desired higher densities; • sites that may require some sort of remediation;
• site availability, site acquisition, and site assembly that can be expensive, unpredictable, and time- consuming; and
• environmental impacts or permitting requirements for development opportunities on the City’s edges and waterfronts.
Table 1. Previous Development Capacity Estimates
LAND SUE CHANGE BY DISTRICT
District Number and Name
New Development
# Units Population Jobs Sq. Ft.
1 Western Marina and Highway 197 345 938 763,039
2 Suisun-Fairfield Train Station 286 572 294 217,429 3 Downtown Core 257 515 1,239 686,312
4 Historic Suisun 83 209 11 9,360
5 Harbor Village/Victorian Harbor Neighborhood 50 136 0 0 6 Cordelia Gateway 82 183 0 0
7 Southern Waterfront 94 188 366 206,052
8 Civic Center/Whispering Bay Waterfront 166 451 43 30,918 Total Specific Plan Area 1,215 2,599 2,891 1,913,110 Source: City of Suisun City, AECOM
410
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 2-3
Figure 3. Waterfront District Specific Plan Planning Districts
Source: AECOM
411
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 3-1
3. Socio-Economic Trends
AECOM analyzed the demographic and socio-economic trends and forecasts. These estimates and projections are key inputs of the current and future demand for residential development and employment.
3.1 Population
Historical Trends
Suisun City is a small contributor to both the populations of Solano County and the Bay Area Region, as shown in Table 2. On a population basis, Suisun’s 28,838 residents (as of 2021) made up 6.7 percent of Solano County.
Suisun City shows a positive annual percentage population growth rate of 0.25 percent in for the 10-year period between 2010-2021, which is less than half the growth rate for Solano County as a whole. For the same time period, the cities of Fairfield and Vacaville grew three to four times as much as Suisun City.
The rate of growth for Suisun City has also slowed over the last ten years, with its five-year growth rate dips just below zero and the three-year growth rate measured a loss of 0.22 percent. This deceleration into negative population growth in Suisun City is a trend that also appears in data for Vallejo. All jurisdictions in Table 2 experienced slowing in population growth rates. However, only Suisun City and Vallejo recorded negative 3-year average annual growth rates.
Table 2. Population Trends and Household Growth 2010-2021
HISTORICAL POPULATION GROWTH
2010 2016 2018 2021
Overall Growth Annual Percentage Grown Rate
10 year
2010-
2021
5 year
2016-
2021
3 year
2018-
2021
10 year
2010-
2021
5 year
2016-
2021
3 year
2018-
2021
Suisun
City
28,067 28,860 29,033 28,838 771 -22 -195 0.25% (0.02%) (0.22%) Fairfield 102,832 110,521 113,423 115,748 12,916 5,227 2,325 1.14% 0.95% 0.68% Vacaville 84,406 88,810 90,869 92,647 8,241 3,837 1,778 0.89% 0.86% 0.65% Vallejo 114,279 116,536 116,753 116,148 1,869 -388 -605 0.15% (0.07%) (0.17%) Solano
County
400,892 419,071 425,499 428,962 28,070 9,891 3,463 0.64% 0.47% 0.27% Source: California Department of Finance
Growth Forecasts
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) forecast indicates that the Suisun City will add 2,675 residents over the next 20 years. Table 3 shows that annual growth rate for Suisun City to be 0.63 percent, a slower rate than the 0.96 percent for Solano County as a whole.
The development capacity estimate for the existing WDSP is 1,215 units and 2,599 new residents. While this is not expected to happen, theoretically, all of the forecast population for Suisun City identified by ABAG could be accommodated within the Specific Plan Area based on the previous Specific Plan’s development capacity estimate. 412
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 3-2
Table 3. Population and Housing Unit Forecast 2020-2050 TOTAL POPULATION AND TOTAL HOUSING UNIT PROJECTIONS TO 2040 Projection Year Avg. Annual% Growth Rate
Jurisdiction 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2020-30 2030-40 2020-40 Suisun City
Population 28,130 28,995 29,745 30,845 31,670 0.57% 0.65% 0.63% Single-Family Units 8,148 8,145 8,145 8,190 8,190 0.00% 0.06% 0.03% Multifamily Units 972 990 1,000 1,290 1,685 0.26% 6.85% 3.64% Total Units 9,120 9,135 9,145 9,480 9,875 0.03% 0.80% 0.41%
Fairfield
Population 106,815 111,485 119,980 122,010 126,900 1.23% 0.58% 0.94% Single-Family Units 26,900 27,215 28,745 29,510 30,680 0.69% 0.67% 0.70% Multifamily Units 7,755 7,985 8,170 8,210 8,500 0.54% 0.40% 0.48% Total Units 34,655 35,200 36,915 37,720 39,180 0.65% 0.61% 0.65%
Vacaville
Population 92,735 96,050 101,160 101,950 105,065 0,91% 0.39% 0.66% Single-Family Units 23,840 23,840 23,885 23,920 24,315 0.02% 0.18% 0.10% Multifamily Units 6,425 6,450 7,095 7,100 7,625 1.04% 0.75% 0.93% Total Units 30,265 30,290 30,980 31,020 31,940 0.24% 0.31% 0.28%
Vallejo
Population 122,225 125,140 128,625 132,215 139,160 0.52% 0.82% 0.69% Single-Family Units 28,870 28,870 29,015 29,930 31,360 0.05% 0.81% 0.43% Multifamily Units 13,165 13,410 13,635 13,755 14,335 0.36% 0.51% 0.44% Total Units 42,035 42,280 42,650 43,685 45,695 0.15% 0.71% 0.44%
Solano County Total
Population 428,305 449,890 470,495 486,840 510,660 0.99% 0.85% 0.96% Single-Family Units 111,500 114,575 116,335 121,325 126,885 0.43% 0.91% 0.69% Multifamily Units 33,450 31,160 35,385 35,905 38,190 0.58% 0.79% 0.71% Total Units 144,950 148,735 151,720 157,230 165,075 0.47% 0.88% 0.69% Source: ABAG Projections 2040, AECOM
3.2 Employment and Income
Suisun City Jobs in Place
The total number of jobs in place (primary jobs) in Suisun City had been decreasing annually since a few years before the Great Recession. The number of jobs continued on this downward trajectory until it bottomed out around 2013 and has grown slowly since then to 2,903 jobs in 2018, as shown in Table 4. 413
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 3-3
A small number of industries account for most of the jobs in Suisun City. The top four industries for jobs in Suisun City in 2018 were construction, retail, education, and accommodation/food services, which collectively accounted for over 62 percent of all primary jobs in the city. The employment profile of Suisun City residents is much more diverse than the jobs available in the City, indicating a gap between jobs of residents and jobs available locally. Only 3.5 percent of residents held primary jobs in Suisun City in 2018, with the vast majority of Suisun City residents commuting to other locations in the region for work. The top four industries for primary jobs of Suisun City residents in 2018 were healthcare and social assistance, retail, manufacturing, and accommodation/food service, and collectively accounted for approximately 45 percent of the residents’ jobs.
Table 4. Suisun City Employment by NAICS Sector (201)
SUISUN CITY HISTORICAL PRIMARY EMPLOYMENT (2008-2018)
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
Total Primary Jobs in Suisun City 2,758 2,464 2,256 2,275 2,547 2,903
Share of Total Primary Jobs by NAICS Industry Sector 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Utilities 0.0% 0.9% 0.5% 0.1% 0.0% 0.7%
Construction 13.4% 8.3% 10.9% 10.8% 10.7% 22.2%
Manufacturing 0.9% 1.7% 2.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.3%
Wholesale Trade 0.2% 2.2% 1.8% 0.7% 0.0% 1.3%
Retail Trade 23.3% 17.1% 18.0% 17.3% 25.4% 16.4%
Transportation and Warehousing 2.4% 3.4% 1.7% 1.2% 1.9% 2.2% Information 0.1% 0.2% 0.5% 0.7% 0.2% 0.1%
Finance and Insurance 1.0% 4.8% 2.3% 1.8% 1.2% 0.6%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 0.6% 0.9% 0.8% 1.0% 0.6% 1.3% Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 3.6% 4.1% 4.6% 5.1% 3.7% 3.6% Management of Companies and Enterprises 0.3% 1.4% 1.1% 0.6% 0.0% 1.5% Administration & Support, Waste Management and
Remediation
3.9% 5.1% 4.9% 5.7% 4.0% 4.3%
Educational Services 11.2% 11.6% 10.7% 10.8% 12.4% 11.6% Health Care and Social Assistance 12.6% 7.4% 6.6% 12.0% 11.7% 6.7% Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1.3% 0.2% 1.8% 2.1% 1.6% 0.2% Accommodation and Food Services 14.8% 16.5% 15.7% 17.7% 14.5% 12.0% Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 3.6% 8.7% 9.5% 2.8% 3.5% 8.4% Public Administration 6.5% 5.4% 6.2% 8.3% 7.4% 5.8%
Total Primary Jobs 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Source: LEHD
Jobs to Households Ratio
The ratio of jobs to households in an area can indicate the degree to which it functions as a commuter community or as an employment center. Plan Bay Area 2050 has identified jobs-to-households ratios of incorporated cities throughout the nine-county Bay Area region, as illustrated in a map from that planning document provided in Figure 4.
Suisun City had a ratio of less than 0.5 jobs for every household, which is the lowest of six tiers of jobs-to-housing 414
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 3-4
ratios identified. This indicates that Suisun City, relative to the Region, exports workers and functions primarily as a commuter community. Neighboring Fairfield and nearby Vacaville have higher ratios – between 1.0-1.5 jobs per household.
Regional Employment Concentrations
Commuting patterns to and from Suisun City can also be explained by the City’s relationship to other regional job concentrations. These regional concentrations are somewhat related to the jobs-to-households ratios. Generally speaking, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties have more jobs than households, so it is not surprising that the major regional employment concentrations are located in these counties. The higher jobs-to- households ratios depicted by the deeper colors in Figure 4 help to illustrate where some of these regional job clusters are located.
The Suisun City workforce mainly migrates out of the City for work, with the mega-regional employment concentrations in San Francisco and Oakland being among the top job destinations. However, job concentrations within Solano County play an important role for Suisun City workers, as well. The cities of Fairfield and Vacaville account for more than 25 percent of the jobs held by Suisun City resident-commuters. The Sacramento area represents another regional employment concentration to which some Suisun residents commute. Commute patterns from Suisun City to these regional employment centers are discussed in further detail in a later section. 415
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 3-5
Figure 4. Jobs to Households Ratios
Source: Plan Bay Area 2050, May 26, 2021 DRAFT
416
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 3-6
3.2.3.1 Priority Production Areas
Plan Bay Area 2050 has identified critical manufacturing and light-industrial clusters as official Priority Production Areas (PPA). Similar to Plan Bay Area 2050’s Priority Development Areas, PPAs either already have significant operations or have potential to increase or add to their employment and production output. There are Priority Production Areas just west of Downtown within the City’s Planning Area, just west of the City’s Planning area in Fairfield, and in the eastern portion of the City’s Planning Area. Additionally, a cluster of PPAs in Vacaville as well as PPAs in the East Bay will be within easy access of Downtown Suisun.
Proximity to well-paid manufacturing and light industrial jobs can have an impact on residential demand in Suisun City, as well as create local career pathways for youth and current residents.
3.2.3.2 Employment Inflows and Outflows
Employment inflows and outflows further illustrate the dynamic of worker commutes to and from Suisun City. As shown in Table 5, in 2018, just 3.5 percent of Suisun’s workforce, totaling 447, stayed in Suisun City to work, while the remaining 96.5 percent, totaling 12,438, commuted out.
People who live outside Suisun City and work in Suisun (in-commuters), totaling 2,044, occupied 83 percent of Suisun’s jobs. In 2018, this resulted in a net outflow of 9,982 and a day population at 19,051 that falls by 34 percent from the residential population of 29,033. This decline further illustrates Suisun City’s commuter suburb orientation.
Table 5. Historical Suisun City Employment Inflow/Outflow and Day Population 2010 2014 2018
Residential Population 28,532 28,532 29,033
Suisun City Jobs in Place 2,464 2,275 2,903
Labor Force 10,905 11,181 12,885
Labor Force who work outside Suisun City 10,485 10,834 12,438 Share of Labor Force 96.1% 96.9% 96.5%
Labor Force who work inside Suisun City 420 347 447
Share of Labor Force 3.9% 3.1% 3.5%
Jobs in Place Filled by In-commuters 2,044 1,928 2,456
Share of Jobs in Place 83% 85% 85%
Net Inflow/Outflow -8,441 -8,906 -9,982
Day Population 20,091 19,626 19,051
Day Population increase/decrease as Share of Res. Pop. -30% -31% -34% Source: LEHD, California Department of Finance Population Estimates, US Census Bureau, AECOM Suisun City Commute Patterns
Job locations of the Suisun City workforce are distributed throughout Solano County and beyond, with significant portions of the workforce commuting to major employment centers throughout the Bay Area, as well as the Central Valley. The largest portion works in the neighboring city of Fairfield which accounts for nearly 20 percent of the Suisun City workers, followed by Vacaville, San Francisco, and Vallejo. Only 3.5 percent of the Suisun City workforce have their primary jobs located in Suisun City. The remainder of residents’ jobs are generally distributed in small numbers throughout the region, as shown in Table 6.
Many of the other larger communities (i.e., incorporated cities) in Solano County are located along Interstates 80 and 680, which provides residents with better access to major employment, services, and shopping centers to the southwest towards San Francisco and the East Bay, or northeast towards Sacramento. However, Suisun City, is uniquely positioned in its connection to these same regional centers by Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor service, which stops 417
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 3-7
at the Suisun Train Depot in Downtown Suisun City. Additionally, California Route 12 runs through Suisun City, connecting its residents to I-5 far to the east, I-80 to the west, and Napa Valley further west.
Table 6. Where Workers Who Live in Suisun City Work, 2018 Geography Workers % of Total
Fairfield 2,504 19.4%
Vacaville 891 6.9%
San Francisco 740 5.7%
Vallejo 544 4.2%
Napa 448 3.5%
Suisun City 447 3.5%
Oakland 431 3.3%
Concord 375 2.9%
Benicia 334 2.6%
Sacramento 316 2.5%
All Other Locations 5,855 45.4%
Total 12,885 100%
Source: LEHD, AECOM
Incomes
The median household income for Suisun City was $83,320, which was similar to the median income for Fairfield.
Solano County as a whole had a lower median income, whereas Vacaville’s was slightly higher than Suisun City’s, as shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Household Incomes (2019)
Geography
Household Incomes
Median Mean
Suisun City $83,320 $93,529
Fairfield $84,557 $104,505
Vacaville $87,823 $103,428
Vallejo $69,405 $84,480
Solano County $81,472 $98,406
Source: US Census Bureau, ACS
3.3 Socio-Economic Trends Summary
Population growth and housing production lag far behind the growth of regional, County, and other local jurisdictions.
Part of that can be explained by the small size of the community and the lack of large vacant properties to accommodate housing production. Suisun is a commuter community, with the vast majority of its employed residents traveling out of the City for work and one of the lowest job-to-housing ratios of incorporated cities in the ABAG region.
However, top destinations for workers include Fairfield and Vacaville. Robust jobs and specific industry-sector growth in these locations can have a significant impact on the future opportunities for current Suisun residents, as well as the demographics of new residents associated with proposed development. For example, Vacaville has shown its commitment to advanced manufacturing and biotechnology sectors, expanding its California Biomanufacturing Center zone by approximately 300 acres. Proximity to Travis Air Force Base provides plenty of job and business 418
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 3-8
opportunities in Fairfield, as well as Suisun City. Fairfield also plans to expand logistics facilities, as well as grow its specialized manufacturing sector, such as its emerging food and beverage manufacturing cluster.
419
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 4-1
4. Residential Market Opportunity
AECOM analyzed recent trends in the residential market including age, ownership, and tenure. The characteristics of the residential market demonstrate the prevalence of mostly single-family residential development over the past decades and offer insight to the potential demand for higher-density residential development, particularly near the Train Depot. Recently completed multifamily projects in Solano County representing a range of types, styles, and densities of have been identified as potential prototypes that can be used as a reference tool to help the public, decisionmakers, and the planning and development communities gain basic understanding of what future higher- density multifamily residential might look like in Suisun City. This process allows for residential development prototypes that the market is currently and will likely continue to deliver in the near future.
Inventory and Historic Trends
As of 2021, Suisun’s housing inventory totaled 9,563 total units, according to the California Department of Finance estimates. Historical housing inventory information for Suisun City, Solano County, and select jurisdictions in Solano County are compiled in the following series of three tables. Table 8 shows figures for all units, Table 9 includes counts for single-family residential units, and Table 10 gathers the same information as the others but for multifamily residential units that are part of properties with five or more units.
In the eleven-year period from 2010 to 2021, Suisun City added 109 total units for an annual growth rate of 0.10 percent, which was much slower than the 0.52 percent annual growth rate recorded for Solano County as a whole.
Over that period, neighboring Fairfield and nearby Vacaville grew even faster at 0.81 percent and 0.90 percent per year, respectively.
Table 8. Historical Housing Inventory – Total Housing Units
HISTORICAL RESIDENTIAL INVENTORY - TOTAL UNITS
Geography 2010 2016 2018 2021
# of Units Growth
Annual Percentage
Growth Rate
10 Year
2010-
2021
5 Year
2016-
2021
3 Year
2018-
2021
10 Year
2010-
2021
5 Year
2016-
2021
3 Year
2018-
2021
Suisun City 9,454 9,493 9,549 9,563 109 70 14 0.10% 0.15% 0.05% Fairfield 37,184 38,682 39,599 40,477 3,293 1,795 878 0.81% 0.93% 0.74% Vacaville 32,814 34,006 34,884 36,053 3,239 2,047 1,169 0.90% 1.20% 1.12% Vallejo 44,433 44,656 44,725 44,832 399 176 107 0.08% 0.08% 0.08% Solano County
Total
152,698 156,375 158,786 161,371 8,673 4,996 2,585 0.52% 0.64% 0.54% Source: California Department of Finance
420
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 4-2
Table 9. Historical Housing Inventory – Single Family Residential
HISTORICAL RESIDENTIAL INVENTORY - SINGLE FAMILY
2010 2016 2018 2021
# of Units Growth
Annual Percentage
Growth Rate
10 Year
2010-
2021
5 Year
2016-
2021
3 Year
2018-
2021
10 Year
2010-
2021
5 Year
2016-
2021
3 Year
2018-
2021
Suisun City 8,110 8,149 8,205 8,209 99 60 4 0.11% 0.15% 0.02% Fairfield 28,084 29,582 30,182 31,060 2,976 1,478 878 0.96% 1.00% 0.97% Vacaville 24,542 25,417 26,067 26,911 2,369 1,494 844 0.88% 1.18% 1.08% Vallejo 31,181 31,304 31,367 31,470 289 166 103 0.08% 0.11% 0.11% Solano County
Total
115,651 118,785 120,580 122,770 7,119 3,985 2,190 0.56% 0.67% 0.61% Source: California Department of Finance
Table 10. Historical Housing Inventory – Multifamily (5-units or more)
HISTORICAL RESIDENTIAL INVENTORY - MULTIFAMILY
2010 2016 2018 2021
# of Units Growth
Annual Percentage
Growth Rate
10 Year
2010-
2021
5 Year
2016-
2021
3 Year
2018-
2021
10 Year
2010-
2021
5 Year
2016-
2021
3 Year
2018-
2021
Suisun City 778 778 778 788 10 10 10 0.12% 0.26% 0.43%
Fairfield 6,086 6,086 6,403 6,403 317 317 0 0.47% 1.04% 0.00% Vacaville 4,879 5,196 5,424 5,747 868 551 323 1.62% 2.12% 1.99% Vallejo 7,045 7,141 7,141 7,141 96 0 0 0.12% 0.00% 0.00% Solano County
Total
21,252 21,737 22,336 22,669 1,417 932 333 0.61% 0.86% 0.50% Source: California Department of Finance
In addition to the recently completed projects, the City has several approved multifamily and compact single-family residential projects that have not yet been constructed, and several other potential applications for multifamily development where the City has held pre-application meetings and expects an application.
Suisun City’s mix of housing is predominantly single-family residential units, which made up 83 percent of the City’s total housing units. Table 11 shows that Suisun City’s housing stock is even more heavily weighted towards single- family residential products than nearby cities, as well as the County as a whole.
While multifamily development in the Downtown area might be expected to primarily attract individuals and smaller households, the City also recognizes in the Housing Element the need to provide for larger households by, for example, encouraging multifamily rental developments to include three- and four-bedroom dwelling units.2 However, most large housholds in the City were homeowners rather than renters, but this may partly be because there were no multifamily units with four or more bedrooms as of the writing of the City’s Housing Element.
2 Please see the City’s Housing Element, including Program 3.A.5 and a discussion of large household needs starting on page 54, for more detail: https://www.suisun.com/departments/development-services/planning/general-plan/housing-element/. 421
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 4-3
Table 11. Historical Composition of Multifamily Housing
HISTORICAL HOUSING INVENTORY COMPOSITION
2010 2015 2020
% SFR 1 % MFR 2 % SFR 1 % MFR 2 % SFR 1 % MFR 2
Suisun City 86% 14% 83% 17% 83% 17%
Fairfield 76% 24% 70% 30% 70% 30%
Vacaville 75% 25% 72% 28% 72% 28%
Vallejo 70% 30% 67% 33% 67% 33%
Solano County 76% 24% 72% 28% 72% 28%
Source: California Department of Finance, AECOM
1 Single-Family Residential includes both attached and detached garage homes. 2 Multifamily residential includes all other housing tot included in single-family.
Suisun City’s existing housing stock was primarily built in the 1970s, 1908s and 1990s. More than half of the City’s current residential inventory was built in just two decades, 1970s and 1980s. As seen in Figure 5, Suisun City’s housing stock is generally older than that of the city of Fairfield and the whole of Solano County. Both Fairfield and Solano County show a more even distribution across the last 70 years. Both have higher proportions of their housing stock that date back to the initial post-WWII residential development boom during the 1950s and 1960s. Interestingly enough, both Solano County and Fairfield also have higher percentages of their housing stock built after 2010 than Suisun City’s. This indicates that these two places were more effective at attracting or accommodating new housing development after 2010 and the relative lack of developable land for residential development. As with most communities, the Great Recession had a dramatic downward effect on new housing.
Figure 5. Age of Housing Stock
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Home Ownership
Owner-occupied units make up a larger share of all residential units in Suisun City than the comparison communities in Figure 6. Solano County and the city of Vacaville held the same percentage of owner-occupied units, with 62 percent in Suisun City compared to 51 percent in the region. 422
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 4-4
Figure 6. Tenure of Occupied Units
*To be classified as owner-occupied the owner must be living in the unit. Renter-occupied units consist of both single-family and multifamily units.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Single-Family Market Indicators
Suisun City’s housing stock primarily features single-family, owner-occupied homes. As shown in Figure 7, these home values have shown positive growth since the Great Recession. These rates of growth are similar to those for the neighboring City of Fairfield and Solano County. Based on recent sales transactions recorded by Zillow Research, median home values in Suisun City are $486,000, which is roughly 12 percent and 14 percent lower than estimated median home prices for Solano County as a whole and the City of Fairfield, respectively.
423
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 4-5
Figure 7. Nominal Median Single-Family Home Value
Source: Zillow Research, AECOM
Zillow Research also collects market data from residential sales transactions for condominium and coop-ownership models. Although Suisun City’s median single-family price estimate trailed behind Solano County and Fairfield, the estimated median home value for condos and coops in Suisun City are significantly higher than the median values for Fairfield and Solano County. The values for these homes also appreciated since the Great Recession at similar rates.
Figure 8. Nominal Median Home Value (Condo and Co-Op Only)
Source: Zillow Research, AECOM
424
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 4-6
Multifamily Market Indicators
According to the California Department of Finance, in 2021 Suisun City had 1,170 multifamily residential units, which is 3.4 percent of the total multifamily supply of Solano County. Approximately one third of the Suisun multifamily inventory range in size from 2-4 units. The remainder of the multifamily stock are categorized as projects containing having 5 or more units. Inventory has practically remained static since 2010, with only 10 multifamily units added in Suisun City between 2010 and 2021.
According to Costar, multifamily rents on a square foot basis in the region have grown steadily and quickly over the last 10 years, as shown in Figure 9. Based on year to date data for 2021, Suisun City rents average $1.89 per square foot, a 70-percent increase over average rents compared to 10 years ago. Fairfield and Solano County experienced high rent growth over the same period, but at much lower rates of 48.6 percent and 44.1 percent, respectively.
Fairfield average rents are 2.6 percent higher than Suisun City’s, whereas the average for all of Solano County is close to 7 percent higher than Suisun City’s. Although the greater Bay Area has become notorious for skyrocketing housing costs, the small multifamily inventory and limited lease signings may be skewing the data for Suisun City.
Figure 10 shows that a similar pattern holds for multifamily rents on a per-unit basis, with Suisun City monthly rents averaging $1,574, an increase of nearly 63 percent since 2011. Rent growth on a per unit basis for multifamily units in Fairfield and Solano County were similar to how rents have grown in these comparison communities on a per-square footage basis during this time period.
Figure 9. Multifamily Residential (MFR) Market-rate Rent Trends (Per Square Foot)
Source: CoStar, AECOM
$1.00
$1.25
$1.50
$1.75
$2.00
$2.25
$2.50
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
YTD
2021
EST
Suisun City Fairfield Solano County
425
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 4-7
Figure 10. Multifamily Rent Trends (Per Unit)
Source: CoStar, AECOM
Multifamily vacancy rates have generally trended downward after the Great Recession, as seen in Figure 11.
California’s housing shortage has had a major role in pushing vacancy rates even below that which a healthy market could typically bear. As a result of the global pandemic, multifamily rental properties experienced rises in vacancy rates during and after the pandemic and economic closures. While high overall demand for housing, along with projected housing production numbers that unfortunately fall short of total housing needs, will keep vacancy rates at manageable (albeit abnormal for California markets) rates, the longevity of COVID-19’s impact on vacancy rates for multifamily products is uncertain.
Market capitalization rates (cap rates) are in indication of the relative risk associated with income-generating properties. A higher cap rate indicates a riskier investment and results in a lower valuation for a property, whereas a lower cap rate is recognized as being a more stable investment.The market cap rates for the last 10 years for Suisun City, Fairfield, and Solano County are shown in Figure 12. All three cap rates follow a general downward trend, which is called cap rate compression. Cap rate compression is a signal of an improving market, which appears to be the case for the Solano County region as all three cap rates shown are below 5 percent for year-to-date 2021.
Figure 11. Multifamily Vacancy Trends
Source: CoStar, AECOM
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
YTD
2021
EST
Suisun City Fairfield Solano County
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
7.00%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
YTD
2021
EST
Suisun City Fairfield Solano County
426
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 4-8
Figure 12. Multifamily Market Capitalization Rate
Source: CoStar
Recent Development Trends and Considerations
Compared to other communities in the region, Suisun City has had relatively little development activity over the last 20 years. However, there are several trends that point to increasing market support for multifamily residential development.
4.1.5.1 Recent Multifamily Development
Recent multifamily development projects across Solano County are further indications of what can be achieved in Suisun City. These are projects built in the last 5 years and have 5 or more units, with densities that span 11 to 50 dwelling units per acre. These projects represent market-proven feasible development types likely to resemble near- term future development. Recently completed and proposed multifamily projects in Solano County are summarized in Table 12.
Table 12. Recent Multifamily Projects in Solano County
RECENT OR PIPELINE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN SOLANO COUNTY Project and Address City
Year
Built Affordability
#
Units
Land
(ac.) DU/AC
Verdant at Green Valley, 3900 Business Center
Drive
Fairfield 2017 Market-rate 286 12.23 23
Vines On 80, 3950 Business Center Drive Fairfield 2017 Affordable Units
63 5.67 11
Sunrise Residences, 2750 North Texas Street Fairfield 2017 - 78 3.76 21 Fair Haven Commons, 1700 Santa Monica Street Fairfield 2020 Rent-restricted 76 3.51 22 Villas at North Village, 300 Crescent Drive Vacaville 2016 - 228 9.99 23 Rocky Hill Veterans Housing, 582 Rocky Hill Road Vacaville 2019 Rent-restricted 39 1.42 27 Strada 1200, 1200 Allison Drive Vacaville 2020 - 245 12.64 19 Pony Express Senior Apartments, 220 Aegean Way Vacaville 2022 Rent-restricted 59 1.82 32 1700 Fairgrounds Drive Vallejo 2022 - 47 0.94 50
1225 McCoy Creek Way Suisun
City
2018 - 10 0.3 33
Source: CoStar
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
5.50%
6.00%
6.50%
7.00%
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
YTD
2021
EST
Suisun City Fairfield Solano County
427
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 4-9
4.1.5.2 Construction Costs and Feasibility
Over the last decade, it has been difficult for market-rate, multifamily projects on the fringes of the Bay Area and in some areas of the Central Valley to reach financial feasibility thresholds without public subsidy. A large part of this reason is because the cost of materials and labor are similar in these areas as they are in more expensive submarkets in the Bay Area and have increased recently. At the same time, projects in places such as Suisun City are not able to achieve the premium rents found in the more expensive submarkets. This has created a development environment where the cost of construction is relatively similar across the vast region, yet large rent disparities across the submarkets makes financial feasibility more difficult in less expensive submarkets. This environment may have made full market-rate, multifamily development difficult at desired higher densities in Downtown Suisun City.
4.1.5.3 Comparing Renting vs. Home Ownership
Another important consideration are the housing options available to certain household incomes. It is helpful to understand the cost of homeownership relative to the pricing of rental units. In general, the rental market is capped at asking rents that are less than the cost of owning a home. The closer asking rents are to mortgage payments, the more attractive owning a home looks to potential buyers. Table 13 shows the average asking rents for recent multifamily projects in Vacaville and Fairfield. The average of all five properties amounts to $2.51/per square foot, which is $2,201 per month for an 878-square foot unit. An annual income of approximately $88,000 is needed to afford this rent.
Table 13. Income Needed to Support Average Rents in Solano County Project and Address City Year Built
Avg. Asking Rent/Sq.
Ft
Avg. Unit
Size
Verdant at Green Valley, 3900 Business Center
Drive
Fairfield 2017 $2.24 958
Vines On 80, 3950 Business Center Drive Fairfield 2017 $2.25 998 Sunrise Residences, 2750 N Texas Street Fairfield 2017 $2.82 582 Villas at North Village, 300 Crescent Drive Vacaville 2016 $2.18 1034 Strada 1200, 1200 Allison Drive Vacaville 2020 $3.04 819 Average $2.51 878
Asking Rent/Unit $2,201
Income Needed to Afford
Rent1
$88,031
Source: CoStar, AECOM
(1) Assumes 30% of gross annual income allocated for housing.
The median home price in Suisun City is $486,000. Purchasing a home of this price with a 5-percent down payment and a 3 percent mortgage interest rate results in a monthly mortgage payment of $1,947. Property taxes and homeowner’s insurance bring the total monthly housing cost to $2,475. An income of $98,990 is needed to be able to afford a home at this, as demonstrated in Table 14. The estimated monthly cost of owning a home in Suisun is $358 more per month than the $2,201 average rent for new development in Solano County. This estimated monthly cost of homeownership is only 16.2 percent more than the average rent price. However, purchasing a home at the median home value of $486,000 with a traditional 20-percent down payment results in a total housing cost (mortage, taxes, insurance) of about $2,250, which is only slightly more than the current $2,201 average rent for new development.
According to Zillow’s Rent vs. Buy Calculator, the cost of buying an average priced home in Suisun City will become cheaper than renting after 2 years and 7 months. This represents the breakeven horizon—the point at which the cost of buying equals the cost of renting. Table 15 shows that Suisun City’s breakeven horizon to be slightly lower than its Solano County neighbors, suggesting a lower barrier to entry for homeownership in Suisun City. The difference in breakeven horizons is more stark in more expensive housing markets outside of Solano County, such as Berkeley and Oakland. Rental units will be more attractive housing options in markets with higher breakeven horizons, as a longer-term investment is required to realize the cost-savings and value gains of home ownership. 428
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 4-10
Multifamily rental developers will be sensitive to pricing units so they are competitive with nearby homebuying options. This may influence the types of multifamily housing developers consider since achievable rents must be able to support total development costs. Achieving higher residential densities (50 units per acre and higher) are likely to require building taller or providing structured or underground parking, solutions which drive total development costs up considerably more than the cost of constructing garden-style or similar moderately higher-density types of multifamily units, and which may not in the short term be supported by achieveable market rents.
Table 14. Income Supporting Home Ownership in Suisun City Median Home Price in Suisun City1 $486,000
Down Payment 5% $24,300
Mortgage Needed $461,700
Interest Rate 3.00%
Estimated Monthly Mortgage Payment $1,947
Property Tax2 1.10% $5,346
Homeowners Insurance3 $987
Annual Housing Cost $29,697
Monthly Housing Cost $2,475
Income Needed to Support Housing Cost $98,990
Source: Zillow, AECOM
1 Zillow Home Value Index
2 Based on Sale Price
3 California Department of Insurance, https://interactive.web.insurance.ca.gov/apex_extprd/f?p=111:20.
Table 15. Homeownership Breakeven Horizon
Jurisdiction Breakeven Horizon Total Months
Suisun City 2 years, 7 months 31
Fairfield 2 years, 9 months 33
Vacaville 2 years, 10 months 34
Solano County 2 years, 9 months 33
Berkeley 6 years, 4 months 76
Oakland 3 years, 7 months 43
Martinez 2 years, 11 months 35
Pittsburg 3 years, 4 months 40
Source: Zillow Rent vs. Buy Calculator; AECOM.
429
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 4-11
4.1.5.4 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
In compliance with State Housing Law, Solano County has proposed its allocations for the 6th Cycle of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) which covers the next 8-year planning period from 2023-2031. Table 15 summarizes these allocations by jurisdiction and by income tier. Suisun City’s housing need is 629 total units, with 359 units (57 percent) designated for households with very low, low, or moderate incomes. The Specific Plan Area is a suitable place to accommodate these future housing needs, given its availability and diversity of sites and the zoning allowed under WDSP. Development that triggers density bonus incentives might make higher-density residential development more feasible if projects were allowed at densities higher than the current maximums of 45 dwelling units per gross acre and 54 units per net acre.
Table 16. Proposed Solano County RHNA Allocations
SOLANO COUNTY SUBREGION PROPOSED RHNA ALLOCATION BY INCOME TIER
Very Low
(<50% of AMI)
Low
(50-80% of AMI)
Moderate
(80-120% of AMI)
Above Moderate
(>120%0% of AMI)
Total Housing
Units
Jurisdiction
Housing
Units % Housing
Units % Housing
Units % Housing
Units % Total
% of
County
Benicia 200 28.1% 121 17.0% 117 16.5% 273 38.4% 711 6.5% Dixon 116 27.0% 64 14.9% 65 15.2% 184 42.9% 429 3.9%
Fairfield 774 25.9% 453 15.1% 525 17.6% 1,239 41.4% 2,991 27.2% Rio Vista 90 24.4% 46 12.5% 56 15.2% 177 48.0% 369 3.4% Suisun City 162 25.8% 97 15.4% 100 15.9% 270 42.9% 629 5.7% Vacaville 685 26.1% 410 15.6% 413 15.7% 1,118 42.6% 2,626 23.9% Vallejo 695 23.8% 371 12.7% 501 17.2% 1,354 46.4% 2,921 26.6% Unincorporated Solano 81 25.8% 49 15.6% 55 17.5% 129 41.1% 314 2.9% Solano County
Requirement
2,803 25.9% 1,612 14.9% 1,832 16.5% 4,745 42.6% 10,992 100.0% Source: Solano County SubRegion 6th Cycle RHNA Proposed Methodology Recommended Higher-Density Residential Prototypes
The density of multifamily development affects the feasibility of multifamily develeoment projects. While this is a dynamic environment where the most favored densities and housing types for the development industry can change based on prevailing rents, labor costs, land costs, and chagnes to the building code, there can be a coalescing around certain housing types and density based on relative returns. For example, projects at a density of 40 dwelling units/acre are difficult to find because achieving such a density would likely not yield enough of a financial return to justify more expensive construction methods for such a project over the less expensive construction that are generally required for projects at 30 dwelling units/acre.
Figure 11 explains recommended density prototypes based on the developments found in the multifamily market research process. These prototypes are not recommendations for actual projects but rather serve as a tool for visualizing, understanding, and discussing density. These prototypes can serve as a basis for more in-depth financial feasibility and physical yield analyses of these multifamily development prototypes, as well as others. 430
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 4-12
Figure 13. Recent Multifamily Projects in Solano County
4.2 Residential Opportunities Summary
Suisun City’s residential housing stock, although older with little new activity, has seen significant rent growth for multifamily products as well as steady increases in single family-home values. The current housing stock is heavily weighted towards single-family development. Access to well-paid jobs in the Bay Area’s regional employment centers, as well as local manufacturing and light industrial jobs within and around Solano County present career opportunities for current younger households and residents, but can also allow the City to better position itself as a home offering more affordable access to housing, as well as connections with open space and recreational opportunties.
Based on recently completed and proposed multifamily projects found throughout Solano County, AECOM identified four higher-density residential prototypes to help understand and visualize density and serve as the basis for more in- depth financial feasibility and physical yield analyses of these multifamily development prototypes as well as others.
Prototype 1.
20-25 DU/AC
A “flexible townhome style” product that can be owner or renter-occupied; provides new home ownership
opportunities at higher densities than single-family homes.
Prototype 2.
25-30 DU/AC
A mixed-use project that provides residential units at high densities as well as commercial space and/or community
space.
Prototype 3.
30-35 DU/AC
This represents the highest density likely to be pursued before having to use more expensive construction types and design solutions (e.g. underground parking) to achieve on- site density.
Prototype 4.
50-60 DU/AC
This represents the lowest density that is feasible while using more expensive construction types or design
solutions, such as building higher or creating underground parking.
431
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 4-13
4.3 Example Multifamily Development Concept with
Parcel Assembly
The City identified an area with the potential for land use transition during buildout of the Specific Plan Area west of Main Street and south of the Suisun Train Depot.
This almost eight-acre potential development site is currently in 15 separate parcels, some vacant, and some with low- scale buildings. The Specific Plan Land Use Zone for this area is Downtown Mixed Use, which allows a mix of retail, commercial service, civic, office, and other complementary non-residential uses, as well as higher-density residential development. This Land Use Zone would allow residential development of up to 45 dwelling units per gross acre or 54 dwelling units per net acre and non-residential development with a floor area ratio up to 3.0.
The example concept shown below in Figures 14 through 17 could occur with all or only some portion of the properties – in general, in order to efficiently manage new multifamily construction, a current rule of thumb is a minimum of 120 to 150 units in a single development. These development
concepts depict 387 to 417 total dwelling units in four-story buildings with an average dwelling unit size of 1,000 square feet. The gross density of these examples would be between 49 and 53 units per acre, which would exceed that currently allowed by the Specific Plan in this Land Use Zone.
The images incorporated here illustrate different design approaches with four stories and similar densities.
432
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 4-14
Figure 14. Example Multifamily Development Concept 1
433
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 4-15
Figure 15. Example Multifamily Development Concept 1 (with Exisitng Property Lines)
434
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 4-16
Figure 16. Example Multifamily Development Concept 2
435
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 4-17
Figure 17. Example Multifamily Development Concept 2 (with Exisitng Property Lines) 436
Downtown Suisun City
Housing Yield and Feasibility Analysis and Recommendations Prepared for: City of Suisun City, California
July 2021 5-1
5. Limitations
AECOM devoted effort consistent with (i) the level of diligence ordinarily exercised by competent professionals practicing in the area under the same or similar circumstances, and (ii) the time and budget available for its work to ensure that the data contained in this report is accurate as of the date of its preparation. This study is based on estimates, assumptions, and other information developed by AECOM from its independent research effort, general knowledge of the industry, and information provided by and consultations with the Client and the Client’s representatives. No responsibility is assumed for inaccuracies in reporting by the Client, the Client’s agents and representatives, or any third-party data source used in preparing or presenting this study. AECOM assumes no duty to update the information contained herein unless it is separately retained to do so pursuant to a written agreement signed by AECOM and the Client.
AECOM’s findings represent its professional judgment. Neither AECOM nor its parent corporation, nor their respective affiliates, makes any warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to any information or methods disclosed in this document. Any recipient of this document other than the Client, by their acceptance or use of this document, releases AECOM, its parent corporation, and their affiliates from any liability for direct, indirect, consequential, or special loss or damage, whether arising in contract, warranty (express or implied), tort, or otherwise, and irrespective of fault, negligence, and strict liability.
This report may not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities, debt, equity, or other similar purpose where it may be relied upon to any degree by any person other than the Client. This study may not be used for purposes other than those for which it was prepared or for which prior written consent has been obtained from AECOM.
Possession of this study does not carry with it the right of publication or the right to use the name of “AECOM” in any manner without the prior written consent of AECOM. No party may abstract, excerpt, or summarize this report without the prior written consent of AECOM. AECOM has served solely in the capacity of consultant and has not rendered any expert opinions in connection with the subject matter hereof. Any changes made to the study, or any use of the study not specifically identified in the agreement between the Client and AECOM or otherwise expressly approved in writing by AECOM, shall be at the sole risk of the party making such changes or adopting such use.
This document was prepared solely for the use by the Client. No party may rely on this report except the Client or a party so authorized by AECOM in writing (including, without limitation, in the form of a reliance letter). Any party who is entitled to rely on this document may do so only on the document in its entirety and not on any excerpt or summary.
Entitlement to rely upon this document is conditioned upon the entitled party accepting full responsibility and not holding AECOM liable in any way for any impacts on the forecasts or the earnings from the project resulting from changes in “external” factors such as changes in government policy, pricing of commodities and materials, price levels generally, competitive alternatives to the project, the behavior of consumers or competitors, and changes in the owners’ policies affecting the operation of their projects.
This document may include “forward-looking statements.” These statements relate to AECOM’s expectations, beliefs, intentions, or strategies regarding the future. These statements may be identified by the use of words like “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “plan,” “project,” “will,” “should,” “seek,” and similar expressions. The forward-looking statements reflect AECOM’s views and assumptions with respect to future events as of the date of this study and are subject to future economic conditions and other risks and uncertainties. Actual and future results and trends could differ materially from those set forth in such statements due to various factors, including, without limitation, those discussed in this study. These factors are beyond AECOM’s ability to control or predict. Accordingly, AECOM makes no warranty or representation that any of the projected values or results contained in this study will actually be achieved.
This study is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations, conditions, and considerations.
437
Waterfront
District Specific
Plan Updates
Revisiting the
Waterfront
District Specific
Plan
The city received a grant from
California's SB 2 planning grant
program, administered by the
California Department of Housing
and Community Development
(HCD)
The City's Specific Plan update
revises the policies and
development standards of the
November 2016 Specific Plan
The grant provides funding to
encourage housing development,
particularly around the train
station and within walking
distance of employment, services,
and entertainment
1 2
438
Planning
Commission
Highlight parts of the Specific Plan
driven by State law (two minor
sections on lot splits and
objective standards)
Need for strong design guidance;
prohibit large, blank walls; ground
development of 30-acre property
in market realities
Planning Commission: high
demand for housing and also
jobs, increased housing densities
will help, great need for infill
housing, including to promote
employment development
Proposed Changes
3 4
439
Chapter 1
Introduction
Key Changes
Revisions to explain the nature of this Specific Plan update.
Addition of new goal to facilitate housing
development in Downtown to .
Chapter 1
Introduction
Facilitate housing development Downtown.
Expand housing opportunities for existing and future residents Infill housing that is close to jobs, services, parks, and other destinations can allow more residents to meet their daily needs without the need for a car, freeing up disposable income that can be spent at local businesses
Expand the range of housing options, making the City more competitive for attracting employers, many of whom are interested in a diverse and affordable local housing stock
More housing Downtown means more customers for businesses Allow more residents to build physical activity into daily routines 5 6
440
Chapter 2
Existing Uses +
Regulating
Plans
Revisions
Updates to context discussion to reflect current Planning Districts and existing land uses (new hotel for example) Chapter 3
Land Use
Regulations
Changed Commercial-Office-Residential (C/O/R) to Downtown Mixed Use (DMU) and converting the area north of SR 12 to DMU
Removed Public Facilities zone + replaced with a new Civic zone + expanded to include the City Plaza (a permitted use in the new zone).
Updated references to City Zoning Code
Revisions to DMU permitted uses to allow single-family and multi-family residential dwellings, including ADUs
Permit MF dwellings in RMD zone (rather than administrative review)
Removed Section 3.2 District and Opportunity Area Concepts and Figure 3.2 District and Opportunity Area Land Use
Concept
Removed Section 3.3 Proposed Land Use Changes and Figure 3-3 Illustrative Site Concept Plan.
Revised Land Use Zones
Key Changes
7 8
441
Chapter 3
Land Use
Regulations
Revised Land Use Zones
Existing Land Use Zones
Chapter 4
Traffic +
Circulation
Key Changes
Vehicular Circulation Diagram -
removed proposed extensions in the
northwest and southeast
Updates to context discussion to
reflect current transportation
network and circulation
Replacement of subjective language
with objective language to enhance
certainty with clear requirements
Revised Vehicular Circulation Diagram
9 10
442
Chapter 4
Traffic +
Circulation
Revised Vehicular Circulation Diagram with
Parcel Lines
Existing Vehicular Circulation Diagram
Chapter 5
Open Space +
Civic Services
Key Changes
Updates to context discussion to reflect current open space facilities and civic services
Revisions to planned park and open space network, such as new open space/pedestrian/bike trail feature (and not a planned roadway) between Civic Center Boulevard and Marina Boulevard
Revisions to the stormwater discussion to reflect updates to allowable incentive low impact development (LID) Treatment Reduction Credit
Select new development or redevelopment projects are
required to incorporate LID measures to treat runoff
Specific Plan includes updates to different categories to clarify applicable projects and applied credit reduction 11 12
443
Chapter 6
Development
and Design
Standards
Key Changes
Replacement of subjective language with objective
language to enhance certainty
Consistent with Senate Bill 330, where housing
development projects must be reviewed against objective design standards.
Removal of Illustrative Site Concept Plan
Removal of Commercial-Office-Residential (C/O/R)
discussion
Very slight increase in allowable density – RMD max is now 24.9 instead of 24; RHD minimum is 25 now instead
of 24.1
Chapter 6
Development
and Design
Standards
Historic
Residential
Residential
High Density
Residential
Medium
Density
Residential
Low Density
Standard
70%80%80%70%Lot coverage
5‐15
6‐18
20.1‐45
25‐54
10.1‐20
10‐24.9
4‐10
5‐12
Density (gross)
(net) (units/ac)
2,500 square
feet
N/A1,500 square
feet
3,000 square
feet
Lot area
35’55’35’35’Height Limit
Waterfront
Commercial
Historic
Commercial
Main Street
Mixed Use
Downtown
Mixed Use
Downtown
Commercial
Standard
50%70%100%80%80%Lot coverage
0.25‐1.00.25‐1.00.75‐2.00.30‐3.00.25‐2.0Floor area
ratio
35’35’16’ min, 50’
max
60’60’Height limit
13 14
444
Chapter 7
Specific Plan
Administration
Key Changes
Updates to procedures based on recent State legislation including Senate Bill 9, Senate Bill 330, and Density Bonus Law
Ensuring it is clear that applicable projects, like qualifying lot splits, two-unit developments, affordable housing developments, or projects where at least two-thirds of the square footage of the development is designated for residential use, are not bound by subjective review.
Revisions to Site Plan and Architectural Review process and Administrative Review and Conditional Use Permits discussion Clarifying text to allow select projects such as affordable housing, multi-family housing, mixed-use, and smaller projects to bypass conditional use permit review process.
Updates to discussion referencing existing City Zoning Code for consistency.
California
Environmental
Quality Act
Updated
Section 15183 (allowing for a streamlined
environmental review process) demonstrates
this Specific Plan update is consistent with and
covered by the General Plan EIR.
15 16
445
Waterfront
District Specific
Plan Updates
17 446
AGENDA ITEM NO. 13
AGENDA TRANSMITTAL
MEETING DATE:
November
7, 2023
CITY AGENDA ITEM:
Council Adoption of Resolution No. 2023-___: Approving the Tractor Supply Public Art Installation to Meet the Requirements of the 1.5 Percent Art Fee .
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the general fund.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Provide Good Governance.
BACKGROUND:
At the March 19, 2019, City Council meeting, the City Council held a public hearing on an amendment to section 2.16 of the Suisun City Code to update the Parks and Recreation Commission to add three more members and change the title of the commission to the Recreation, Parks, Marina, and Arts Commission. This item was approved at the April 2, 2019, meeting of the City Council. This change was adopted due to the desire by the City Council and the community to have an emphasis placed on the arts in Suisun City. The City Council adopted the Suisun City’s first Public Art Policy on October 19, 2019, creating a path forward for Public Art. During the September 7, 2021, City Council Meeting, the final approval of the Percent for Arts Ordinance was adopted. This created a 1.5% developer impact fee for development projects within Suisun City.
STAFF REPORT:
Tractor Supply is currently under construction on the north side of Highway 12.
The total value of the construction project is reported as $6,221,235. With the adopted percentage rate of 1.5, they are required to provide $93,319 in public art value to the community or pay that amount in lieu fee. They have selected to provide an art piece to be placed on the Tractor Supply property. Tractor Supply will be responsible for maintaining the art structure. The stated value of the proposed art structure is $98,532 which exceeds the developer’s responsibility.
The art is comprised of steel and will be anchored directly into the concrete. Please see attachment 1 for images the proposed art and the elevation in relation to Highway 12 and the Tractor Supply development.
This item was reviewed during the September 6, 2023, Recreation, Parks, Marina, and Arts Commission meeting and unanimously recommended.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council Adopt Resolution No. 2023- ___: Approving the Tractor Supply Public Art Installation to Meet the Requirements of the 1.5 Percent Art Fee.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
1 .
Resolution No. 2023-___: Approving the Tractor Supply Public Art Installation to Meet the Requirements of the 1.5 Percent Art Fee
2 .
Proposed Tractor Supply Art Installation
3 .
Tractor Supply Art Site Plan
4 .
Tractor Supply Elevations
447
5 .
Power Point Presentation
PREPARED BY:
Kris Lofthus, Deputy City Manager
REVIEWED BY:
Kris Lofthus, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY:
Aaron Roth, Acting City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving the Tractor Supply Public Art Installation.pdf
2. Proposed Tractor Supply Art Installation.pdf
3. Tractor Supply Art Site Plan.pdf
4. Tractor Supply Elevations.pdf
5. PowerPoint Presentation.pdf
1 Blank Page - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.pdf
448
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUISUN CITY
APPROVING THE TRACTOR SUPPLY PUBLIC ART INSTALLATION TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 1.5 PERCENT ART FEE
WHEREAS, in October 2019, the City Council established the first Public Art Policy; and
WHEREAS, on September 7, 2021, the City Council adopted the Percent for the Arts program which created a funding mechanism bot public art by placing a developer impact fee of
1.5% on all commercial development projects in excess of $250,000; and WHEREAS, the new Tractor Supply project requires the Public Art Fee with a total stated construction cost of $6,221,235; and
WHEREAS, the estimated value of the Tractor Supply at installation is $98,532 which exceeds the required Public Art Fee of $15,000; and
WHEREAS, the art installation will be located on the Tractor Supply property and they will maintain ownership and maintenance; and
WHEREAS, the Recreation , Parks, Marina, and Arts Commission unanimously supported this art installation during their September 6, 2023, meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Suisun City does hereby approve the Tractor Supply Art installation, meeting the requirements of the 1.5 percent Art Fee.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at the Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Suisun City duly held on November 7, 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
WITNESS my hand and the seal of said City this 7th day of November 2023.
Anita Skinner
City Clerk
449
Attachment 2
Tractor Supply Art Installation Graphic Design
450
Attachment 2
451
--~~------T-------~ Ill ~
----
0 1
~
=·~~· •~+ ~· :=::5!!:::::::: -t . ® ~
J---
ART MONUME/NT ~ LOCATION
+++++++++++++++ // r'- -;
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + .,,, ---L...,_./' / --- -- . _· _._ ... _ :.__: ""' ... ... . - - . / • ~ -----o ~·--·--·~rz ·-(_-/--.
- • - - • - ---- • - -- '<t:::E - ~-- ·w ss -ss -ss -ss -ss -ss ss - • - - • - - . - ::: ~ - -ss-ss- ----. ss-ss-ss- !,.Ct- - • - - • -ss -ss -ss -ss w S87" 54' OO"E ~ ss - f ssf-ss - -S I
358.38' io O D IJ g
--------
II
--------
--
-
+ + +
+ ■· + + + +
-·-
...........
x-x-x~-~-- ·_· • -~=-~=-~=· ·=· • • • • • • ••......................... X X-X-x X ................................... 0 If - -x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x~-~=-~=· ••••••••••••••••••.............................. x-x-x-x-x ••••••••••••·· -x-x-x ••••••••••• -x-x-x-x-x
HIGHWAY 12
20 0 20
ART MONUMENT LOCATION SCALE: 1" =20'
I-
z w
:2 D.
0 ..J w
> w~ C"-
C w u,
0 D.
0 a: D.
I
I~
0 z => Cl)
5 Cl)
c-i .,....
>-
;l ~
Ii!~
r
I
::>
0 iE
3:
i
>z
<C
~
Cl w z
C,
~
Cl w a::
~
ci w
(.)
::>
Cl
0 a:: a.. w a::
8 1[
0 (.)
w
CD
l
o z
~ :::;;
I(.)
w
~
0 a:: a..
1-,E"""NG"""'INE ..... ER .... S S- T A-MP--lfn
~
DATE: C,
~sc"""ALE,....: _____ 10=-3().=20-1~
1"=20' -;1
DRAWN
~Jo=a: __ ...,:J::..iL ~
FILE: 22014 (23025) TRACTOR SUPPLY SUISUN CllY\civil\22-517 Tractor Civil Base.dwg SCALE: 1" = 20, SHEET 1 23025
~ ..____ __________________ -=------______________ ____1~e1w~ OF 2 SHEETS F Attachment 3
452
453
APPROVAL OF
TRACTOR SUPPLY ART
INSTALLATION
• PUBLIC ART PLAYS AN IMPORTANT ROLE IN
INCREASING A
WARENESS AND ENJOYMENT OF
AR
T BY THE COMMUNITY.
• PUBLIC ART IS MORE ACCESSIBLE AND
VISIBLE
• IT INTEGRATES ART INTO THE URBAN FABRIC
OF THE
CITY.
• PUBLIC ART TRANSFORMS SPACES AND
MAKES
A VALUABLE CONTRIBUTION TO OUR
APPRECIA
TION OF THE CITY AND THE
QUALITY
OF PUBLIC PLACES.
1 2
454
OCTOBER 19, 2019 – PUBLIC ART POLICY APPROVED
SEPTEMBER 7, 2021 – PERCENT FOR THE ARTS
APPROVED CREATING A 1.5% DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE
SEPTEMBER 6, 2023 – RPMA COMMISSION
UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMEND THIS ART
INSTALLATION
3 4
455
5 6
456
QUESTIONS?
7 8
457
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
458
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14
AGENDA TRANSMITTAL
MEETING DATE:
November
7, 2023
CITY AGENDA ITEM:
Discussion and Direction on Youth Advisory or Youth Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact to the city.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Provide Good Governance.
BACKGROUND:
There is currently an organization that does not fall under the jurisdiction of the City of Suisun City. The Suisun City Youth Commission is grassroots 501(c)3 determination-exempt public benefit organization created on May 4, 2007, for the benefit of Suisun City Youth and Youth who attend Suisun City Schools and friends. Today, the Suisun City Youth Commission has grown its collaboration within a consortium of youth-oriented public benefit organizations. Together with the consortium, the Suisun City Youth Commission directly contributes to our community's healthy and sustainable development. The Suisun City Youth Commission fosters peer-to-peer self-development and positive peer and adult relationships through the many opportunities we gain working within a consortium of youth public benefit organizations. Among these organizations are Scouts, Civil Air Patrol, 4-H, Red Cross Clubs, Solano Land Trust, and many more. The Suisun City Youth Commission owns the domain rites to Suisuncityyouthcommission.org.
STAFF REPORT:
There are numerous models to provide youth/teens with civic leadership opportunities and below are some models for the council to discuss or develop their own model if they wish to pursue this endeavor:
1 .
The new Suisun City Police Activities League in conjunction with the California Police Activities League provide a leadership development program that provides an opportunity for PAL members to teach, inspire, and motivate California’s future community leaders. The program brings together PAL youth and officers where officers play a vital role in encouraging youth to become positive role models, enabling them to realize their full potential to lead and influence positive change. Along with the Youth Summit program through National PAL, members have the opportunity to be involved with gaining valuable leadership skills. 2 .
Create a Youth/Teen Advisory that would make recommendations to the Recreation, Parks, Marina, and Arts Commission or to the City Council.
3 .
Create 2-3 youth/teen seats on the Recreation, Parks, Marina, and Arts Commission as voting members.
4 .
Youth/Teen Roundtable allow for community youth and teens to participate in the future of development for their age groups. Topics discussed can vary from recreation programming, park development, or what businesses they would like to see here in Suisun City. 5 .
Other ideas formulated by members of the City Council or public.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss the proposed options and give direction to staff on options determined by Council.
459
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
NONE.
PREPARED BY:
Kris Lofthus, Deputy City Manager
REVIEWED BY:
Kris Lofthus, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY:
Aaron Roth, Acting City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
NONE
460
AGENDA ITEM NO. 15
AGENDA TRANSMITTAL
MEETING DATE:
November
7, 2023
CITY AGENDA ITEM:
Discussion of Legal and Practical Constraints on Addressing Homelessness, and Possible Direction for Further Analysis.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Addressing homelessness is potentially prohibitively expensive and is not likely to be successfully solved at the city level. Enforcement and cleanup may have significant fiscal impacts.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Provide Good Governance.
BACKGROUND:
At a previous meeting, the City Council requested an informational presentation on the constraints on addressing homelessness faced by the City, including legal constraints, staffing, and operational needs.
At the broadest level, addressing homelessness means addressing at least three separate but related issues: (1) addressing the impacts of homelessness on unhoused individuals, (2) addressing the causes of homelessness to prevent people from becoming unhoused, and (3) addressing the impacts of homelessness on a community in which unhoused people live. Each of these issues is complicated and none afford easy solutions. However, one way to move toward solutions is to clarify the constraints that are currently placed on the City in order to ensure that any proposed solutions will be both legal and practically feasible. That is the goal of this staff report.
The reality is that homelessness is a complex and entrenched problem statewide, and local solutions are unlikely to make a real dent in the issue. Homelessness has been made worse by the Great Recession, the COVID pandemic, and the rising cost of housing. The impacts on local communities are also difficult to address because, in addition to these challenges, public agencies are under a number of legal constraints that protect the rights of unhoused individuals – finding the balance between mitigating impacts of encampments and ensuring that the unhoused population is protected is a challenge we have not been able to meet yet.
STAFF REPORT:
A.
Mitigating the Causes and Impacts of Homelessness
There are very few, if any, legal constraints on ways in which cities can provide supportive services to address the impacts of homelessness on unhoused individuals or address the causes of being unhoused.
Cities may pass laws to provide for the welfare of the public and use public money and resources to support programs that benefit the public.
This would include funding and supporting programs aimed at helping unhoused people to find and obtain temporary shelter and/or affordable/transitional housing, jobs and job training, food, supporting services, transportation, mental health and/or substance abuse services, etc.
Most of these programs, services, and funding are traditionally the responsibility of the County and State rather than cities, and also are provided by nonprofit and faith-based organizations. The more serious constraints on providing supportive services are usually practical or financial, not legal. 461
There are, however, serious legal constraints on actions that cities can take to address the impacts of homelessness on the community in which unhoused people live.
B.
Cities May Not Punish Homelessness or the Unavoidable Consequences of Being Homeless Being unhoused is not a crime and cities cannot punish people merely for being so, including the incidents of being unhoused, such as living/sleeping on public property, storing possessions on public property, etc.
1 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose rulings have the force of law in California, held in Martin v.
Boise that cities “may not criminalize conduct that is an unavoidable consequence of being homeless— namely sitting, lying, or sleeping on the streets or other property open to the public when no sleeping space is practically available in any shelter.”
2 A more recent case, Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, amplified the Martin ruling by holding that cities cannot, consistent with the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment, enforce anti-camping ordinances against homeless persons for the mere act of sleeping outside with “rudimentary protection” from the elements, or for sleeping in their car at night, when there is no other place in the city for them to go.
3 Notably, the Johnson case clarified that sleeping includes using items that are necessary to facilitate sleeping outdoors and to stay warm and dry, including blankets and sleeping bags. The implications and scope of Martin and Johnson read together suggest that there may be a federal right to live on public property. However, a number of issues remain to be resolved. Some of the open questions are as follows:
Do Martin and Johnson apply to actions other than sleeping or camping? Likely, yes. The Johnson court has found that a city cannot punish people for sleeping in their car at night when there is nowhere else in the city from them to go.
4 Furthermore, at least one court has opined that cities cannot punish unhoused people for relieving themselves in public when there is no alternative to doing so. 5 _____________________
1 Jones v. City of Los Angeles,
444 F.3d 1118, 1132 (9th Cir. 2006),
vacated,
505 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2007) (“The
City could not expressly criminalize the status of homelessness by making it a crime to be homeless without violating the Eighth Amendment”).
2 Martin v. Boise
, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019).
3 Johnson v. City of Grants Pass, 72
F.4th 868, 891 (9th Cir. 2023).
4 Johnson v. City of Grants Pass,
72 F.4th at 896 (“We affirm the district court’s ruling that the City of Grants Pass cannot, consistent with the Eighth Amendment, enforce its anti-camping ordinances against homeless persons for the mere act of sleeping outside with rudimentary protection from the elements, or for sleeping in their car at night, when there is no other place in the City for them to go.”). 5 Mahoney v. City of Sacramento,
No. 220CV00258KJMCKD, 2020 WL 616302 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2020).
Do Martin and Johnson only apply to criminal enforcement? Likely, yes, with one caveat. Several
courts have held that Martin only applies when there is a criminal penalty or prosecution. 6 This means
that
Martin
would not apply if the only penalty was an administrative fine. At least one court has held that the “clean and clear” of a public park (i.e., removal of a homeless encampment) was not subject to Martin v. Boise
because it did not require any arrests.
7 However, the
Johnson
court held that
Martin
also applies if there is a sequence of punishments that eventually results in criminal punishment, even if 462
the first punishments are non-criminal.
8 Regardless, administrative citations are unlikely to provide any kind of resolution to the problems faced by the unhoused and the community.
Does this mean an unhoused person can sleep wherever they want whenever they want? No.
Martin
holds that “Even where shelter is unavailable, an ordinance prohibiting sitting, lying, or sleeping outside at particular times or in particular locations might well be constitutionally permissible.” 9 The Boise
ordinance that was struck down banned “camping” on
all
public property at
all
times. By way of
example, certain public property can be restricted: areas that are environmentally sensitive, property that is reserved as open space for habitat and wildlife conservation, and public parks.
Several courts have held that the government may evict or punish people sleeping in public in some locations, provided there are other lawful places within the jurisdiction for involuntarily homeless individuals to sleep.
10 Cities can also limit the times during which people can sleep or camp on public property. However, at least one court has found that Martin does not allow a city to ban overnight camping on public property citywide, even though camping would still be allowed during the day, because most people sleep at night.
11 ____________________
6 Hous. is a Hum. Right Orange Cnty. v. Cnty. of Orange, No. SACV19388PAJDEX, 2019 WL 8012374 (C.D.
Cal. Oct. 28, 2019);
Quintero v. City of Santa Cruz,
No. 5:19-CV-01898-EJD, 2019 WL 1924990 (N.D. Cal. Apr.
30, 2019);
Young v. City of Los Angeles,
No. CV2000709JFWRAO, 2020 WL 616363 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2020); Yeager v. City of Seattle,
No. 2:20-CV-01813-RAJ, 2020 WL 7398748 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 17, 2020); O’Callaghan
v. City of Portland,
No. 3:21-CV-812-AC, 2021 WL 2292344 (D. Or. June 4, 2021). 7 Le Van Hung v. Schaaf,
No. 19-CV-01436-CRB, 2019 WL 1779584 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2019). 8 Johnson v. City of Grants Pass,
at 896. (“We are careful to note that, as in
Martin,
our decision is narrow. As in
Martin
, we hold simply that it is “unconstitutional to [punish] simply sleeping somewhere in public if one has nowhere else to do so.”
Martin,
920 F.3d at 590 (Berzon, J., concurring in denial of rehearing en banc). Our decision reaches beyond
Martin
slightly. We hold, where
Martin
did not, that class certification is not categorically
impermissible in cases such as this, that “sleeping” in the context of Martin
includes sleeping with rudimentary
forms of protection from the elements, and that
Martin
applies to civil citations where, as here, the civil and criminal punishments are closely intertwined. Our decision does not address a regime of purely civil infractions, nor does it prohibit the City from attempting other solutions to the homelessness issue.”) 9 Martin v. City of Boise,
920 F.3d 584, 617 (9th Cir. 2019).
10 See, e.g., Bilodeau v. City of Medford,
2022 WL 17853323 (D. Or. 2022) (distinguishing City of Medford anticamping ordinance from Martin because it does not impose a city-wide ban); Sausalito/Marin Cnty.
Chapter of
California Homeless Union v. City of Sausalito,
No. 21-cv-01143-EMC, 2021 WL 5889370, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2021) (“Martin prohibits a ban on all camping, not the proper designation of permissible areas.”); Shipp v.
Schaaf,
379 F.Supp.3d 1033, 1037 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“However, even assuming … that [eviction from a homeless encampment by citation or arrest] might occur, remaining at a particular encampment on public property is not conduct protected by
Martin
, especially where the closure is temporary in nature.”); Aitken v. City of Aberdeen,
393
F.Supp.3d 1075, 1082 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (“
Martin
does not limit the City’s ability to evict homeless individuals from particular public places.”);
Gomes v. Cty. of Kauai
, 481 F.Supp.3d 1104, 1109 (D. Haw. 2020) (holding the
County of Kauai could prohibit sleeping in a public park because it had not prohibited sleeping on other public lands);
Miralle v. City of Oakland,
2018 WL 6199929, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2018) (holding the City could clear out a specific homeless encampment because “
Martin
does not establish a constitutional right to occupy public property indefinitely at Plaintiffs’ option”);
Le Van Hung v. Schaaf
, 2019 WL 1779584, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23,
2019) (holding
Martin
does not “create a right for homeless residents to occupy indefinitely any public space of their choosing”).
11 Wills v. City of Monterey,
617 F. Supp. 3d 1107, 1120–21 (N.D. Cal. 2022) (“The vast majority of individuals sleep during the evenings, not during daylight hours. The Court will not countenance that a city may constitutionally criminalize sleeping outside during the evenings so long as it provides some public space that is available during daytime hours. Martin cannot and does not stand for such a proposition.”). 463
1. Cities Must Respect the Property Rights of Unhoused People Cities must respect the personal property of unhoused people and cannot dispose of it without following legally required procedures. Specifically, cities generally cannot seize and dispose of a unhoused person’s personal property without (a) giving prior notice and (b) providing a reasonable opportunity for the person to be heard and to re-obtain their property. 12 This does not apply to abandoned property,
but determining whether something is abandoned is often not clear-cut. When in doubt, consider the property not abandoned.
The City does issue a 72-hour notice before clearing homeless encampments, with a view to providing people with enough time to remove personal property that they wish to keep. For some property left behind, the City will also have to store the property until it is claimed or the time for claiming it expires.
13 The determination of whether certain personal property is abandoned/trash is on a case-by- case basis. If the unhoused individual is present at the time of clean-up, City staff can ask if certain property is being abandoned, and can dispose of it in the affirmative. Cities may reasonably refuse to store any property due to countervailing governmental interests at stake, including the safety of City workers during the clear-out and at its storage sites, as well as the health and safety of local neighbors.
14 State law requires that found property be kept for 90 days. 15 This applies regardless of the
size of the object and it applies to animals that belong to a homeless person. 16 There is an exception to this general rule when the person’s property is creating an imminent threat to the health and safety of the public. In this circumstance, the property could be seized or moved without prior notice.
17 The City can also dispose of trash and abandoned property immediately, without notice.
However, the City cannot “treat property as abandoned and trash just because the owner has not removed it in the time the [City] has allotted.”
18 The practicality of this is that even after a noticed encampment cleanup, the City may be obligated to hold found property for 90 days.
_______________
12 Lavan v. City of Los Angeles,
693 F.3d 1022, 1032 (9th Cir. 2012);
Kincaid v. City of Fresno,
No. 106CV-1445
OWW SMS, 2006 WL 3542732, at *37 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2006) (“The City’s seizure of homeless people’s personal property without probable cause and the immediate and permanent destruction of such property without a method to reclaim or to assert the owner’s right, title, and interest to recover such personal property violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 13 of the California Constitution.”). Guidance about an effective notice, storage, and hearing process is given in Kincaid at *38 (paragraph 22). See also Sullivan v. City of
Berkeley
, 383 F. Supp. 3d 976 (N.D. Cal. 2019), in which the court found that Berkeley’s policy regarding practices of collection, storage, and disposal of unattended property at homeless encampments was reasonable and not constitutionally deficient.
13 For example, in
Janosko v. City of Oakland,
No. 3:23-CV-00035-WHO, 2023 WL 3029256, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
Apr. 19, 2023), the court found that it was reasonable for the city to refuse to store ““tiny homes” and other makeshift structures due to the unsafe and decaying nature of the materials,” and to refuse to move and store “a 20 to 40 foot long shipping container given the City’s inability to search and sort through the contents to assess whether any are hazardous or unsafe.”
14 San Jose Charter of Hells Angels Motorcycle Club v. City of San Jose , 402 F.3d 962, 975 (9th Cir. 2005).
15 Civil Code § 2080.2.
16 Garcia v. City of Los Angeles
, 11 F.4th 1113, 1119 (9th Cir. 2021) (striking down provision in Los Angeles ordinance that provided for destruction without notice or hearing of items that were too large to fit into a 60-gallon trash can);
Recchia v. City of Los Angeles Dep’t of Animal Servs
., 889 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. 2018) (applying Fourth
Amendment analysis where city seized and euthanized birds in possession of homeless person). 464
17 Kash Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles
, 19 Cal. 3d 294, 308, 562 P.2d 1302, 1311 (1977).
18 Kincaid v. City of Fresno,
No. 106CV-1445 OWW SMS, 2006 WL 3542732, at *37 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2006), citing
A & W Smelter and Refiners, Inc. v. Clinton,
146 F.3d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir.1998).
2. Cities Must Follow State Law Requirements When Closing or Limiting Access to Public Property.
Private property owners can simply ask a person to leave their property, and if the uninvited individual does not leave, then they are trespassing and can be arrested, regardless of whether there is any sign or fence around the property.
19 However, since public property is, by its nature, open to the public, cities must follow special procedures to close or limit access to public property.
In order to exclude people from camping and living on certain property, the city must take action, through an ordinance or resolution, to close that property to the public at large. Examples include establishing hours for public parks and buildings or completely closing off certain areas of public property to the public or closing it during certain hours. A city may not, however, close access to all public property after a certain hour.
Finally, enforcement can become complicated when other public agencies own or control property within the City. For example, it is likely that the City lacks authority to clear homeless encampments within the right-of-way of a state highway,
20 although the City can partner with Caltrans and the
County sheriff to address this issue.
3. City Ordinances Must Be Clear and Cannot Be Enforced in a Way That Targets Unhoused People.
An ordinance must be sufficiently clear in its standards that it does not leave the public uncertain about what conduct it prohibits.
21 It does not have to be perfectly clear, but there must be at least a “reasonable degree of certainty.”
22 In the 2014 case of
Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles
, the court
struck down an ordinance that prohibited using a vehicle “as living quarters” because it was unclear what actions would violate the ordinance – sleeping in the vehicle? During the day or only at night? Eating in the vehicle? Storing personal belongings in the vehicle? Using a vehicle to get out of the rain?
23 However, in 2018, in the case of
People v. Diaz
, the court found that a similar ordinance in San
Diego was not unconstitutionally vague, even though it did not define what it meant to use a vehicle as a “living quarters” or “place of habitation.”
24 One takeaway here is that courts may differ on what
exactly counts as too vague, but it is best to err on the side of clarity. A second takeaway is that it is often very challenging to define something as seemingly obvious as “living quarters” or “place of habitation.”
Furthermore, regardless of whether the ordinance leaves room for interpretation, cities cannot enforce otherwise neutral laws in a way that intentionally singles out homeless people for enforcement. 25 _______________
19 See
Penal Code § 602(o) (Trespassing includes “[r]efusing or failing to leave land, real property, or structures belonging to or lawfully occupied by another and not open to the general public…”). 20 Where Do We Go Berkeley v. California Dep’t of Transportation , 32 F.4th 852, 855 (9th Cir. 2022) (“California
law provides Caltrans with “full possession and control” of state highways and property acquired for state highway purposes.”); see Streets and Highways Code § 90.
21 Desertrain v. City of Los Angeles,
754 F.3d 1147, 1155 (9th Cir. 2014).
465
22 Allen v. City of Sacramento,
234 Cal. App. 4th 41, 54 (2015).
23 Desertrain,
at 1155-56.
24 People v. Diaz,
24 Cal. App. 5th Supp. 1, 7 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 2018) (“The reasonable and practical construction of the ordinance here is clear—it is intended to prevent people from living in their vehicles on city streets. The language of the ordinance is sufficiently clear to inform persons that they may not use their vehicles as homes on any street, as well as to inform law enforcement that a person utilizing his or her vehicle for a purpose that does not turn the vehicle into a place of residence does not violate this ordinance. While there may be circumstances where the facts are open to conflicting interpretations, that does not render the ordinance unconstitutional—it simply creates a factual issue for the court.”).
25 Ashbaucher v. City of Arcata
(N.D.Cal., Aug. 19, 2010, No. CV 08-2840 MHP (NJV)) 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 126627, pp. *47–48 (complaint alleging selective enforcement of ordinances against the homeless states an equal protection claim), cited in
Allen v. City of Sacramento,
234 Cal. App. 4th 41, 64 (2015). “Selective enforcement of laws that are neutral on their face is not a denial of equal protection “unless there is shown to be present in it an element of intentional or purposeful discrimination.” Ashbaucher v. City of Arcata, at *12, citing Snowden v.
Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 8 (1944).
4. City can exclude people from environmentally sensitive areas.
Another option the City has to prevent access to certain areas of City property is to designate such property as an environmentally sensitive area, and post no trespassing signs. Before taking such actions, it is recommended that the City obtain a report from a biologist determining that the area is environmentally sensitive. Moreover, as the City is the owner of the property, the City’s police department may enforce this.
For example, if a third party biologist studies the City’s canals and determines that they are environmentally sensitive, that would provide grounds for the City to post no trespassing signs stating that the area is environmentally sensitive. The City can use this as a method to prohibit unhoused persons from camping in the canal areas. It should be noted, however, that not all canals belong to the City, and the City may not have enforcement authority over canals owned by other governmental agencies.
Although not entirely on point, the Ninth Circuit decision in Where Do We Go Berkeley et. al v.
California Department of Transportation,
No. 21-16790 (9th Cir. 2022) (“CalTrans”) provides insight into how courts may adjudicate claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against public entities attempting to clear homeless encampments and suggests that homeless advocates may have a more difficult time making a case for ADA protection for homeless persons in environmentally sensitive areas.
In this case, it was alleged that Caltrans violated the ADA through evictions associated with clearing outdoor encampments situated along a freeway exit ramp. The district court granted an injunction that required Caltrans to give homeless individuals six months to relocate and find housing before clearing the encampments, reasoning that the ADA required the program to give “reasonable accommodation” to disabled homeless persons, who need more time before being evicted.
However, the Ninth Circuit vacated the injunction delaying the eviction of homeless persons following Caltrans’ attempt to clear its property. In particular, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court erred in its merits analysis in finding that a serious question existed as to whether Caltrans violated the ADA merely because it found the Plaintiffs’ claim to be plausible. Here, Caltrans categorizes the most dangerous encampments as level 1 camps that pose a critical safety concern requiring urgent relocation.
As a general rule, Caltrans provides 72 hours’ notice to vacate level 1 encampments, but notice is not 466
required. Therefore, the Ninth Circuit found a six-month delay to be a fundamental alteration of Caltrans’s programs. In addition, the Ninth Circuit founds that the district court erred when balancing the equities by inappropriately mitigating the harm to Caltrans on the basis of availability of a separate Caltrans property for relocation.
It is clear that the opinion was influenced by Caltrans’ need to protect public safety, including that of the homeless persons. Caltrans’ tiered program focuses on clearing areas where it is most dangerous to allow homeless encampments to remain, while taking a more hands-off approach to less dangerous Caltrans properties.
Relying on the reasoning of the Caltrans case, the City can argue that allowing individuals to live in environmentally sensitive areas, including providing a 6 month lead time for disabled individuals, is counter to the purpose of the open space and constitutes a fundamental alteration of the City’s open space and habitat conservation programs.
5. City can adopt an ordinance for the protection of critical infrastructure, wildfire, and flood- risk areas.
The City can also protect certain areas of City property by adopting an ordinance similar to one recently adopted by the City of Fairfield.
On July 18, 2023, the City of Fairfield adopted an urgency ordinance relating to the protection of critical infrastructure, wildfire, flood risk areas, and youth-serving facilities. In the ordinance, the Fairfield City Council found that destruction of, damage to, or interference with, critical infrastructure is often caused by persons whose activities are not permitted or authorized in, on , or near critical infrastructure and that allow debris or personal items to accumulate in storm channels, dry creeks or other water outlets causes the potential to block outlets to such channels, dry creeks or other water outlets during periods of heavy rains that created dangerous flooding conditions that pose a danger to the life and safety of those who accumulate such debris, and also pose a danger to the health and safety of the property and community in the surrounding area.
Accordingly, the ordinance prohibits and declares it a public nuisance for any person to camp, occupy an encampment, or store any personal property at or near any critical infrastructure. Critical infrastructure, as defined in the ordinance, may include:
1)
Flood protection facilities, meaning those physical structural works which have been constructed specifically to modify flooding in order to reduce the extent of the areas within a community subject to flooding and the extent of the depths of associated flooding, such as levees, pumps, drainage ditches, access and patrol roads, and related facilities; or
2)
Real property or a facility, whether privately or publicly owned, designated by resolution of the City Council as being so vital and integral to the operation or functioning of the City that its damage, incapacity, disruption, or destruction would have a debilitating impact on the public health, safety, or welfare.
3)
Government buildings, such as fire stations, police stations, jails, or courthouses; hospitals; structures, such as antennas, bridges, roads, train tracks, or drainage systems; or systems, such as computer networks, public utilities, electrical wires, natural gas pipes, telecommunication centers, or water sources; parks; and youth-serving facilities.
The City can adopt a similar ordinance to protect its critical infrastructure, including the City-owned 467
canals. Moreover, in such ordinance, the City can set forth procedures for abatement and the removal of property. For example, the City can set forth procedures for issuing 72-hour notices to vacate illegal camp sites and for removal of debris. Many other California cities, such as Vallejo, have been utilizing such notices. The notice indicates that any personal property left at the site after 72-hours will be impounded by the City and that any personal property not be disposed of will be stored for 90 days. The 72-hour notices in other cities typically provide information regarding available shelter beds, free bus passes to the listed shelter and vaccine sites, and information regarding the retrieval of items removed during the planned clean-up.
6. City can implement a safe parking program.
Nearby public agencies, including the City of Fairfield, have started programs where unhoused individuals living in their vehicles are provided with a safe place to park at night and a place to park during the day that is not in residential neighborhoods and with opportunities to engage with resources and services.
For example, the City of Fairfield has partnered with City Church to provide unhoused individuals nightly parking, showers, dinner, breakfast, and security from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. Cities can partner with faith-based organizations, provided the services are in no way linked to participation in religious purposes.
26 Such a program can create opportunities for safe and secure places for automobile and RV dwellers to park and sleep, reduce the number of people living in their vehicles on City streets, decrease enforcement actions and resulting legal costs to homeless individuals and the City, and provide resources to secure permanent housing and economic stability. The scattered safe parking sites pilot program would allow a variety of community-based organizations, such as non-profits and educational institutions, to become host sites for vehicle households. These organizations have a compatible parking demand profile and may be able to fill certain niches of safe parking demand.
Moreover, such a program can permit safe parking sites as an accessory use to an assembly use, quasi- public facility, or public facility regardless of underlying zoning district. Such uses include community assembly, cultural facility, government building, public use, public safety facility, quasi-public and social service center. The ordinance can establish a ministerial permitting process subject to objective standards. The standards included in such ordinances primarily address fire and life safety considerations and ensure quality-of-life for vehicle dwellers and minimizing off-site impacts.
7. City can help transport unhoused individuals to the future Vallejo Navigation Center which provides available shelter.
The City of Vallejo is constructing the Vallejo Navigation Center, which will be a “one-stop-shop” that will provide services and shelter critical to helping address homelessness. The center will offer 125 shelter beds for six months (with potential extensions if a housing plan is made) and provide individual case management, connecting people to social, and medical services. Participants will also have access to job training and be assisted in becoming prepared to secure and sustain permanent housing. The center will serve approximately 200 people annually. The project is projected to be completed in June 2024.
The City can potentially coordinate with the City of Vallejo to transport unhoused individuals to the Navigation Center to utilize its services. State or federal law do not provide much guidance on how far is too far to transport unhoused individuals to obtain shelter. This is also relevant with respect to enforcement of camping ordinances – the issue the court will look at is not just how far the shelter is, 468
but also the ability to reach it. So a shelter that is a couple of miles away may be close enough if transportation is readily available, but may otherwise be too far.
Additionally, forcibly relocating homeless individuals, even within the same county, can raise legal issues related to civil rights, due process, and the right to travel. These legal protections must be considered when formulating and implementing policies or practices related to such relocation to the Navigation Center.
8. Converting the Plaza to a park that can be closed at night.
City staff is drafting proposed amendments to the Waterfront District Specific Plan and made a proposed adjustment to include the City Plaza as a Civic designation which could potentially allow for the area to be a park. These changes are part of the SB 2 LEAP funding; staff already had a workshop with Planning Commission, and the workshop before Council is included on tonight’s agenda. The amendments should come before you for adoption in December or January. This issue is discussed in more detail in the relevant agenda item.
_______________
26 Community House, Inc. v. City of Boise
(9th Cir. 2007) 490 F.3d 1041.
Summary
In summary, a city may not punish someone merely for being homeless and may not punish the actions of a homeless person that are the unavoidable consequence of being homeless. Furthermore, cities must respect the personal property rights of homeless people and can only prohibit homeless people from entering onto and staying on public property based on regulations that apply to the public at large.
Finally, city regulations aiming to address homelessness must clearly describe any prohibited conduct and city regulations cannot be selectively enforced in ways that intentionally target homeless people.
C.
Staffing and Operational Needs, and Other Constraints on Addressing the Impacts of Homelessness on Public Property
The City Attorney’s Office requested feedback from City’s departments to obtain an overall understanding of the challenges faced. Here are some of the issues:
Fencing along the City’s canals:
Installing and maintaining fencing may be costly. The cost would be increased by each required gate, and surveys and legal descriptions need to be completed to ensure the fences are installed along the City’s property line.
Fencing can limit access points for emergency services like Fire, and thus slow their response times. Although Fire has the necessary equipment to overcome such barriers, it can still pose a challenge during critical situations.
Most drainage agencies have provisions for placing barriers within their hydraulic system, especially during peak water flow. As a result, we may encounter pushback from these agencies when requiring the installation of a fence.
Maintenance access to address overgrowth and other issues becomes a challenge when ingress/egress can be taken from one access point. This makes for a long haul if the agency is removing trash, overgrowth, etc.
Finally, the City has some areas where it maintains a ditch or drainage system, which could be protected by installing fencing.
Traditional Policing Limits: Standard policing methods of encouragement, education, and 469
enforcement are not effective in addressing homelessness. Ideally, the Police Department would staff a specially trained officer to bridge the gap between law enforcement and social services. However staffing and budgetary limitations prevent that role currently.
SCPD is budgeted for 24 officers, and in order to meet operational guidelines, should be staffed at 28. It is therefore unlikely that an additional officer at this time could be dedicated to this work.
Solano county has no single point of access for the unhoused. The county and city lack nighttime resources or options. CARE Court may be helpful in connect those unhoused populations with mental illness to be connected with healthcare resources.
Potential Physical Interventions:
The City can require property owners to install fences around vacant and undeveloped lots.
The City can fence City park facilities or create and enforce park curfews for public safety.
Fencing is not required for enforcement, but signage will be.
Enforcement might be challenging based on staffing.
Long-Term Issues related to Displacing Homeless Individuals:
Enforcement at times results in moving homeless populations without solving underlying issues. Accordingly, there should be an emphasis on identifying comprehensive solutions beyond displacement. The City can utilize a holistic approach with integrated efforts:
Strengthening connections between our unhoused community with law enforcement, mental health, addiction, and housing services.
Focusing on comprehensive long-term solutions to avoid fatigue in moving unhoused populations from one place to the next.
Illegal Dumping & Homeless Encampment Cleanup Cost Last Calendar Year
Staff & Equipment Costs were approximately $60,000.
Staff Recommendation for clean up crew: Add one full-time public works maintenance staff to solely address up illegal dumping and homeless encampments throughout the city in ROWs and city properties (~$125,000 annual cost).
Staff member would receive support from current Public Works maintenance staff as needed (for larger cleanups that require more than one person) and from Police Department and Code Enforcement.
D.
Addressing impacts of homelessness on private property
Addressing the impacts of homeless encampments on private property can be just as challenging. This report does not fully analyze the issues, but by way of summary:
Property owners are responsible for maintaining their properties in compliance with the City’s property maintenance provisions. Unfenced vacant properties, whether improved or not, are difficult to maintain.
Private property owners may remove individuals who are living on their property as trespassers, and depending on circumstances may need to initiate unlawful detainer proceedings. This can be time consuming.
City may use enforcement tools, these are expensive and time consuming. In some instances, the City can seek cost recovery after the fact – receivership and public nuisance abatement are two mechanisms that allow for cost recovery. Here, the private property rights of owners are implicated, in addition to due process and civil rights of the unhoused.
470
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council receive the report from City staff and provide direction to staff if desired.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
1 .
PowerPoint Presentation
PREPARED BY:
Elena Gerli, City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
Aaron Roth, Acting City Manager
APPROVED BY:
Aaron Roth, Acting City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. PowerPoint Presentation - Legal update homelessness.pdf 1 Blank Page - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.pdf
471
Homelessness
and
the Law
November 7, 2023
Elena Gerli, City Attorney
Addressing homelessness
• Report addresses primarily public property
• Complex issue
• Difficult to tackle at the local level
• Resource intensive (= $$)
1 2
472
Supportive services
• The biggest stumbling block are limitations to resources (programs, housing, outreach, mental health services, job training, etc.) • Unhoused persons cannot be compelled to accept assistance Cannot Punish
Homelessness
or the
Incidents of
Homelessness
• Laws cannot criminalize being unhoused. This
includes incidents of homelessness, such as
tents, sleeping bags, shopping carts
• Camping ordinances cannot be enforced on
public property (especially at night) if no
beds/shelter are available
• Cruel and unusual punishment (Johnson v.
City of Grants Pass)
• Camping ordinances can be enforced on public
property that is closed to the public, permanently
or during specific times
• Laws must be clear, and facially neutral laws
should not be enforced to impact the unhoused
3 4
473
Access to
Public
Property
• City cannot restrict access to public property
except:
• Limiting hours to certain public facilities, e.g.,
closing parks at night
• Prohibiting access to environmentally sensitive
areas
• May be able to designate certain areas as
parks and limit access to daytime
hours/special events
• Newport Beach, Irvine, Long Beach, and Berkeley
have designated their civic centers as parks, with
hours of operation and times they are closed to
the public
• Cannot preclude access to all public property
• When close off or limit hours to certain
property, must apply to all
Property
Rights of the
Unhoused
• Found personal property must be stored for up to 90 days, per state and federal law
• Generally cannot seize and dispose of a unhoused person’s personal property without (a) giving prior notice and (b) providing a reasonable opportunity for the person to be heard and to re‐obtain their property
• “The City’s seizure of homeless people’s personal property without probable cause and the immediate and permanent
destruction of such property without a method to reclaim or to assert the owner’s right, title, and interest to recover such personal property violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 13 of the
California Constitution.” Lavan v. City of Los Angeles
5 6
474
Protection of
Critical
Infrastructure
• City can adopt an ordinance for the protection of critical infrastructure, wildfire, and flood‐risk areas (e.g., Fairfield) • Flood protection facilities (levees, pumps, drainage ditches etc); • Any property or facility designated by Council as critical to to the operation or functioning of the City that its damage, or destruction would have a debilitating impact on the public health, safety, or welfare;
• City buildings such as fire stations, police stations, jails, or courthouses; hospitals; structures, such as antennas, bridges, roads, train tracks, or drainage systems; or systems, such as computer networks, public utilities, elec trical wires, natural gas pipes, telecommunication centers, or water sources; parks; and youth‐ serving facilities.
Safe Parking
Program
Vallejo
Navigation
Center
• Safe Parking Program:
• Unhoused individuals living in their vehicles are
provided with a safe place to park at night and a place to park during the day that is not in residential
neighborhoods and with opportunities to engage with
resources and services
• Partner with other cities and/or service providers?
• Vallejo Navigation Center:
• Can this be considered a shelter for our purposes?
• Distance and availability of transportation may be
determinative
• A shelter that is too far from an unhoused person’s
“home” or too difficult to reach may not be sufficient
to meet constitutional muster
7 8
475
Enforcement
on Private
Property
• Property owners are responsible for maintaining their properties in compliance with the City’s property
maintenance provisions. Unfenced vacant properties,
whether improved or not, are difficult to maintain.
• Private property owners may remove individuals who are living on their property as trespassers, and depending on circumstances may need to initiate unlawful detainer
proceedings. This can be time consuming.
• City may use enforcement tools, these are expensive and time consuming. In some instances, the City can seek cost recovery after the fact – receivership and public nuisance abatement are two mechanisms that allow for cost
recovery. Here, the private property rights of owners are implicated, in addition to due process and civil rights of the unhoused.
Operational
issues
• Enforcement challenges:
• Fencing: cost of fencing; cost of surveying property to make sure fencing is correctly placed; potential emergency crew access limitations
• Staffing: ideally a PD liaison or someone designated to working with the unhoused, but not likely based on shortfall and budget limitations
• Interference with drainage facilities
• Removal of weed and trash more cumbersome
• Multi‐departmental effort: Public Works, PD, Code Enforcement • For Council consideration:
• Require private property owners to secure vacant lots/abandoned properties
• Additional PW staff solely to address clean ups (~$125,000/yr). Clean up costs last FY ~ $60,000.
9 10
476
QUESTIONS?QUESTIONS?
11 477
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
478
AGENDA ITEM NO. 16
AGENDA TRANSMITTAL
MEETING DATE:
November
7, 2023
CITY AGENDA ITEM:
Council Adoption of Resolution No. 2023-____: Authorizing the Interim City Manager Employment Agreement between the City of Suisun City and Acting City Manager Aaron Roth.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Agreement provides the Interim City Manager with an additional two (2) months of severance pay, totaling $46,000, which becomes payable only in the event the City acts to severe its employment relationship with Aaron Roth in either his role as Interim City Manager or as Chief of Police. This additional two months of severance pay will only be due if the City acts to sever Aaron Roth’s employment before May 7, 2026, unless the Agreement is extended.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
The City of Suisun City seeks to provide for active, effective, and efficient City operations, including managing the recruitment and hiring process for a permanent City Manager. The recruitment and hiring process is expected to take the better part of six months. In the meantime, the City needs an engaged and effective Interim City Manager. Chief of Police Aaron Roth was appointed as Acting City Manager by a unanimous Council on September 30, 2023. He has the experience, temperament, and deep knowledge of City operations, personnel, and history needed to achieve those goals as Suisun City’s Interim City Manager.
BACKGROUND:
On September 20, 2023, the City Council appointed Chief of Police Aaron Roth to the position of Acting City Manager to fill the vacancy created when City Manager Greg Folsom resigned. To ensure the active, effective, and efficient continuation of City operations, the City Council is now considering entering into an Interim City Manager Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Acting City Manager Aaron Roth.
STAFF REPORT:
The main deal points of the Agreement are as follows:
1 .
TERM: The initial term of the Agreement is six months, or the date a permanent City Manager is hired, whichever occurs first. The Interim City Manager further agrees that the term may be extended by three months, if a permanent City Manager has not been hired within the initial term. 2 .
RETURN TO CHIEF OF POLICE: The Agreement provides that the Interim City Manager will return to his position as Chief of Police, when his position as Interim City Manager is completed.
He will return to the compensation and all benefits he enjoyed as Chief of Police before he stepped in as Acting City Manager, except for the increased severance described in Section 4 below.
3 .
COMPENSATION: The annual compensation for the Interim City Manager is $275,000, or $22,916 per month. This is substantially equivalent to the $22,890 per month currently earned by Mr. Roth as Acting City Manager. The Acting City Manager compensation was determined pursuant to the Amended and Restated Schedule of Benefits for Unrepresented Employees adopted by Resolution No. 2022-55 (Article III, Section 01), which indicates that 10% is to be added to an unrepresented employee’s compensation when they are asked to step into the acting city manager role.
4 .
SEVERANCE: The Agreement provides the Interim City Manager with an additional two months 479
of severance pay, bringing the Interim City Manager’s severance pay to six months. The Interim City Manager Agreement extends the extra two months of severance pay for an additional two years after the Interim City Manager returns to his role as Chief of Police. 5 .
BENEFITS: The Interim City Manager shall retain all the same benefits he held as Chief of Police during his time as Interim City Manager.
6 .
AT-WILL STATUS: The Interim City Manager is an “at-will” employee, serving at the pleasure of the City Council, and may be terminated without any right to notice or hearing, subject to the terms of the Agreement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council:
Adopt Resolution No. 2023-___: Authorizing the Execution of the Interim City Manager Employment Agreement between the City of Suisun City and Aaron Roth, Acting City Manager.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
1 .
Resolution No. 2023-___: Authorizing the Execution of the Interim City Manager Employment Agreement between the City of Suisun City and Aaron Roth, Acting City Manager.
PREPARED BY:
Floy Andrews, Assistant City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
Elena Gerli, City Attorney
APPROVED BY:
Elena Gerli, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Approving the Interim City Manager Employment Agreement.pdf 480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
AGENDA ITEM NO. 17
AGENDA TRANSMITTAL
MEETING DATE:
November
7, 2023
CITY AGENDA ITEM:
Suisun City Municipal Code Update:
a
.
Council Introduction and Waive First Reading of Ordinance No. ___: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Suisun City, California, Repealing Chapter 1.16 (Administrative Compliance Orders) and Amending Chapter 1.20 (Administrative Citations) to Title 1 (General Provisions); and Amending Sections 1.08.030, 5.04.460, 5.16.240, 6.07.040(B), 8.040.050(U),
8.10.150(E), 9.16.010(F), 9.21.040, 9.28.080(B), 12.12.090, 121.24.050, 12.32.120, 15.04.090, and 21.08.020(A) of the Suisun City Municipal Code; and b
.
Discussion and possible action on a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Suisun City, California, Establishing the Administrative Penalty Schedule for Violations of the Suisun City Municipal Code.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Unknown at this time; increased costs related to enforcement will depend on policy direction.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
Provide Good Governance.
BACKGROUND:
Early in 2023, the Mayor appointed Councilmember Dawson and then- Councilmember Hudson to the Illegal Dumping and Trash Ad Hoc Committee. The committee met with department heads and the City Attorney to address ways in which the City could strengthen its Municipal Code to minimize the impact of illegal dumping and accumulation of trash throughout the City.
Recently, the Council considered and adopted updates to Chapters 8.08 (Solid Wastes) and 8.12 (Public Nuisances). In order to more efficiently enforce the updated ordinances, as well as any other code provision, the City Attorney’s Office proposes to update the civil fines provisions in the municipal code, removing references to specific civil fine amounts from the municipal code, and adoption of a civil fine schedule by city council resolution.
STAFF REPORT:
Proposed Ordinance
The proposed ordinance would repeal Chapter 1.16, update Chapter 1.08, revise and clarify the entirety of Chapter 1.20, and update and remove provisions throughout the code imposing civil fines for violations, so that such civil fines can be adopted by resolution of the City Council.
The ordinance would make the following changes:
(i)
Amend Section 1.08.030 such that the fines for infractions will track the fine Government Code Section 36900. These are not civil fines, but the language cleanup is included as it will be beneficial for enforcement. The reason for this update to the language is that Section 36900 is amended periodically – 497
to wit, since we adopted the fines in our code, the statute has added infraction fine amounts for building code violations and for violations of short term rentals ordinances. These added fines are higher, so we don’t want our code to inadvertently limit the amount of fines that can be charged. (ii)
Repeal Chapter 1.16 (Administrative Compliance Orders) of the SCMC as it is duplicative of other provisions in the SCMC and is currently not being utilized. (iii)
Amend Chapter 1.20 (Administrative Citations) to clarify the process for the issuance of administrative citations and imposition of civil fines for violations of SCMC provisions.
Some examples include added definitions and language clean-ups, a section that expressly authorizes the City to contract for administrative citation processing, which would include processing appeals and recovery of fines, and a change from a hearing board to hear appeals to a hearing officer. (iv)
In order to make civil fines more consistent and easier to determine, the City Attorney also proposes to amend code sections that include specific fine amounts. (Note that Section 18.86.070 also should be amended, but will need to be reviewed by Planning Commission before it can be amended.
That process has been started,)
Some examples include added definitions and language clean-ups, a section that expressly authorizes the City to contract for administrative citation processing, which would include processing appeals and recovery of fines, and a change from a hearing board to hear appeals to a hearing officer.
(iv)
In order to make civil fines more consistent and easier to determine, the City Attorney also proposes to amend code sections that include specific fine amounts. (Note that Section 18.86.070 also should be amended, but will need to be reviewed by Planning Commission before it can be amended.
That process has been started,)
Proposed Resolution
Additionally, this agenda item proposes a resolution which would establish the administrative penalty schedule by setting forth the fines for violations of the municipal code.
The resolution proposes three tiers of penalty fines for violations of the SCMC. It should be noted that the Council can provide direction on amounts and how many tiers, the resolution is a template and can be easily amended.
Tier 1 fines would be $100 for the first violation; $200 for the second violation; and $500 for the third and subsequent violations within a 12-month period. These fines apply to all violations unless indicated in the resolution. These fine amount are in line with what most cities have adopted, and match the fines provided in the Government Code for infractions.
Tier 2 Fines would be $500 for the first violation; $750 for the second violation; and $1,000 for the third and subsequent violations within a 12-month period. Tier 2 fines are suggested for violations of Chapter
8.04 (Fireworks), Chapter 8.08 (Solid Wastes), Chapter 8.12 (Public Nuisances), Chapter 13.10 (Stormwater Management and Discharge Control), and Title 15 (Buildings and Construction).
Tier 3 Fines would be $1,000 for the first violation; $2,500 for the second violation; and $5,000 for the third and subsequent violations within a 12-month period. Right now we have no suggestions for specific codes at this level of fines, and are open to direction from the Council – the Council may decide to leave this tier blank for now, and only move certain code violations here if additional enforcement 498
power is desired at some point, or decide to remove this tier altogether.
The resolution also establishes that any penalty amount imposed pursuant to Chapter 1.20 of the SCMC and the resolution will be deemed delinquent if is not timely paid. The delinquency penalty will be equal to 3% of the amount of the penalty remaining unpaid to the City. The delinquent penalty is also a suggestion and can be removed or changed at council’s direction.
The City Attorney requests direction from Council on the fines resolution, and recommends adoption on the same day as ordinance adoption so that the fines are not adopted before the code changes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council:
a
.
Introduce and Conduct First Reading of Ordinance No. ___: An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Suisun City, California, Repealing Chapter 1.16 (Administrative Compliance Orders) and Amending Chapter 1.20 (Administrative Citations) to Title 1 (General Provisions); and Amending Sections 1.08.030, 5.04.460, 5.16.240, 6.07.040(B), 8.040.050(U), 8.10.150(E),
9.16.010(F), 9.21.040, 9.28.080(B), 12.12.090, 121.24.050, 12.32.120, 15.04.090, and
21.08.020(A) of the Suisun City Municipal Code; and
b
.
Discussion and possible action on a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Suisun City, California, Establishing the Administrative Penalty Schedule for Violations of the Suisun City Municipal Code.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
1 .
Ordinance Amendment Civil Fines (Redline Version)
2 .
Ordinance Amendment Civil Fines (Clean Version)
3 .
Resolution Establishing the Administrative Penalty Schedule for Violations of the Suisun City Municipal Code
4 .
PowerPoint Presentation
PREPARED BY:
Elena Gerli, City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
Aaron Roth, Acting City Manager
APPROVED BY:
Aaron Roth, Acting City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Ordinance Amendment Civil Fines Changes Redline Version.pdf
2. Ordinance Amendment Civil Fines Changes Clean Version.pdf
3. Resolution Establishing the Administrative Penalty Schedule for Violations of the Suisun City Municipal Code.pdf
4. PowerPoint Presentation Proposed Updates to Administrative Penalties.pdf 1 Blank Page - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.pdf
499
01107.0028/925657.5
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUISUN
CITY, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING CHAPTER 1.16
(ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE ORDERS ) AND AMENDING
CHAPTER 1.20 (ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS) TO TITLE 1
(GENERAL PROVISIONS); AND AMENDING SECTIONS 1.08.030,
5.16.240, 6.07.040(B), 8.040.050(U), 8.10.150(E), 9.16.010(F), 9.21.040,
9.28.080(B), 12.12.090, 121.24.050, 12.32.120, 15.04.090, AND 21.08.020(A)
OF THE SUISUN CITY MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, the City of Suisun City is a general law city in the County of Solano, State of California.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Suisun City Municipal Code (SCMC), fines are levied as an incident of a voluntary act of an individual or business and not the result of property ownership.
WHEREAS, the City is responsible for enforcement of the SCMC in its entirety.
WHEREAS, the SCMC includes Chapter 1.16 (Administrative Compliance Orders), which is duplicative of other provisions in the SCMC, and which is not being utilized.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the amount of civil fines imposed for violations of municipal code provisions should be removed from the SCMC and adopted by resolution for consistency and ease of use.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend and update the provisions throughout the SCMC to provide clarity and consistency.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SUISUN CITY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The above recitals are correct and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2: Chapter 1.16 (Administrative Compliance Orders ) of Title 1 (General Provisions) of the Suisun Municipal Code is repealed and deleted in its entirety.
SECTION 3: Section 1.08.030 (Infraction penalty) of Chapter 1.08 (General Penalty) of Title 1 (General Provisions) is amended to read:
Any person convicted of an infraction for violation of an ordinance of the city is punishable by:
A. A fine not exceeding $100.00 for a first violation;
500
Ordinance No. ____
Adopted November ___, 2023
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
B. A fine not exceeding $200.00 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year;
C. A fine not exceeding $500.00 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year. a fine as provided for in Section 36900 of the Government Code, including any amendments or successor statutes thereto.
SECTION 4: Chapter 1.20 (Administrative Citations) of Title 1 (General Provisions) of the Suisun Municipal Code is repealed and replaced with the following:
1.20.010 - Applicability.
A. This chapter provides for administrative citations which are in addition to all other legal and equitable remedies and provides an alternative to any criminal prosecutions which may be pursued by the city to address any violation of Title 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21 of this code or of any regulations adopted under the authority of this code.
B. Use of the remedies and procedures of this chapter shall be at the city’s sole discretion, of the enforcement officers and enforcement officials authorized to proceed under this chapter and shall not limit or preclude the use of criminal or civil injunctive code enforcement proceedings in addition or in conjunction with this chapter.
1.20.020 - Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this section:
“City” means the City of Suisun City.
“City manager” means the city’s City Manager, and shall include their designee. “Enforcement officer” means any city employee or agent of the city with the authority to enforce any provision of this code to which this chapter is applicable. “Enforcement official” means the principal supervisor of a department or a division of a department to which an enforcement officer is empowered to issue administrative citations under this chapter.
“Finance director” means the city’s Director of Finance and shall include their designee. “Person” means an individual or entity of any kind.
1.20.030 - Description of citationAdministrative citations. 501
Ordinance No. ____
Adopted November ___, 2023
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
A. Whenever an enforcement officer determines that a violation of any provision of this code to which this chapter is applicable has occurred, the enforcement officer shall have the authority to issue an administrative citation to any person responsible for the violation.
B. Prior to the issuance of an administrative citation for a violation which pertains to building, plumbing, electrical, or similar structural or zoning matters that does not create an immediate danger to health or safety, the enforcement officer shall provide a reasonable period of time not less that five business days to correct or otherwise remedy the violation .For violations that are not
CB. Each administrative citation shall contain the following information:
1. The date of the violation;
2. The address or a definite description of the location where the violation occurred or is occurring;
3. The code section or sections of this code violated and a description of the acts or omissions constituting the violation;
4. The amount of the penalty for the code violation , which amount shall be set by city council resolution;
5. A description of the penalty payment process, including a description of the time within which and the place to which the penalty shall be paid;
6. An order prohibiting the continuation or repeated occurrence of the code violation described in the administrative citation;
67. A description of the administrative citation review process, including the time within which the administrative citation may be contested and the place from which a request for hearing form to contest the administrative citation may be obtained; and
78. The name and signature of the enforcement officer.
C. Prior to the issuance of an administrative citation for a violation which pertains to building, plumbing, electrical, or similar structural or zoning matters that do not create an immediate danger to health or safety, the enforcement officer shall provide a reasonable period of time not less that five business days to correct or otherwise remedy the violation .D.
Each day a violation continues is a new violation and may be cited as such.
1.20.040 - NoticeService.
502
Ordinance No. ____
Adopted November ___, 2023
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
A. An administrative citation may be served by personal delivery on any person determined to be responsible for the violation, or by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to a location reasonably calculated likely to give notice to the responsible party of the administrative citation, or posted in a conspicuous location on or in the vicinity of the property.
B. All notices required by this chapter to be served subsequent to service of a citation may be served either by personal delivery or by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, and shall be deemed effective on the date of personal delivery or when the certified mail is either delivered or delivery attempted. If the certified mail receipt is returned unsigned, then service may instead be effected by regular first class mail, postage prepaid, provided that the notice sent by regular mail is not returned by the postal service as undeliverable, and shall be deemed effective three calendar days following deposit of the notice in the mail.
C. Where a violation of code provisions concerning the condition of real property is involved, an administrative citation orf subsequent written notices authorized by this chapter may be served by personal delivery or by certified mail at the property owner address shown on the last equalized county assessment roll. Where such D. Where a violation of code provisions concerning the condition of real property is involved and personal delivery or service by certified mail upon the property owner is unsuccessful, service may be effected alternately or additionally by posting a copy of the order citation or notice at a conspicuous location on the property which is the subject of the ordercitation or notice . Where service of any citation or notice required under this chapter is effected in compliance with the requirements of this section and with due process, the asserted failure of any person to receive the notice shall not affect the validity of the citation, notice, or any proceedings taken under this chapterrelated thereto.
1.20.050 Amount of administrative penalties.
The amounts of administrative penalties for code violations imposed pursuant to this chapter are set , and may be amended from time to time, forth in Chapter 1.08, “General penalty,” of the Suisun City Code, except where otherwise specifiedby city council resolution.
Late payment shall be subject to late payment penalties as established by city council resolution.
1.20.054 Authority to outsource collection and administrative hearing procedures. 503
Ordinance No. ____
Adopted November ___, 2023
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
The city may, at its discretion, hire a service provider to process administrative citations and appeals in accordance with Section 1.20.050 et seq. Any such vendor shall be deemed the city’s designee.
1.20.060 - Payment of administrative penalties.
A. The administrative penalty for an administrative citation shall be paid to the city through its finance director or designee within thirty 30 calendar days from the date the administrative citation is served. If a hearing is requested pursuant to Section 1.20.070, the administrative penalty shall be deposited with the finance director or designee or a notice shall be filed with the finance director or designee that an advance hardship waiver has been requested as required in Section 1.20.080.
B. Any administrative citation penalty shall be refunded in accordance with Section
1.20.110(F) if it is determined, after a hearing, that the person charged in the administrative citation was not responsible for the violation or that there was no violation by the person charged in the administrative citationoccurred.
C. Payment of an administrative penalty under this chapter shall not bar enforcement proceedings for any continuation or repeated occurrence of any code violation that is the subject of an administrative citation.
1.20.070 - Hearing request.
A. Any recipient of an administrative citation may contest appeal the citation on the grounds that he or she had not committed a no violation of the code occurred, or that contestant they is are not responsible for the violation, by filing a request for hearing form with the finance director or designee within thirty calendar30 days from the date of service of the administrative citation, together with either an advance deposit of the administrative penalty or a request for advance deposit hardship waiver form.
B. A request for hearing form may be obtained from the finance director or designee.
BC. The person requesting the hearing shall be notified by first class mail, postage prepaid, of the time and place set for the hearings by mailing a notice of hearing at least ten calendar10 days prior to the date of the hearing.
CD. If the enforcement officer submits an additional written report concerning the administrative citation to the hearing board officer for consideration at the hearing, a copy of 504
Ordinance No. ____
Adopted November ___, 2023
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
this report also shall be mailed to the person requesting the hearing at least five calendar days prior to the hearing date.
1.20.080 - Advance deposit hardship waiver.
A. Any person who claims to be financially unable to make the advance deposit of the fine as required in Section 1.20.070(A) may file a request for an advance deposit hardship waiver.
B. The request shall be filed with the finance director or designee on or before the filing of a hearing request, and may only be made by the person who was issued the citation.
C. Upon receipt and review of satisfactory evidence, the finance director or designee may waive the requirement of an advance deposit. ItA hardship waiver request shall must be accompanied by a sworn declaration by the requestor , together with any supporting evidence demonstrating the person’s requestor’s actual financial inability to deposit the full amount of the fine in advance of the hearing.
D.If the finance director or designee determines not to waive the advance deposit, the person shall remit the deposit to the city within ten calendar days of the date of the notice of that decision in order to secure the hearing.
DE. The finance director or designee shall issue a written determination listing the reasons for determining to issue or not issue the advance deposit hardship waiver. The written determination of the finance director or designee shall be final, subject only to judicial review as provided by law.
1. Upon receipt and review of satisfactory evidence, the finance director shall waive the requirement of an advance deposit.
2. If the finance director determines not to waive the advance deposit, the requestor shall remit the deposit to the city within 10 days of the date of the notice of that decision in order to secure the hearing.
EF. The finance director’s written determination of the finance director or designee shall be served upon the person who applied for the advance deposit hardship waiver.
1.20.090 - Hearing boardofficer.
The city manager shall designate an impartial three person hearing boardhearing officer to hear an appeal pursuant to Section 1.20.070. The enforcement officer shall not be a member of the hearing board.’
505
Ordinance No. ____
Adopted November ___, 2023
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
1.20.100 - Hearing procedures.
A. No appeal hearing to contest an administrative citation before a hearing board shall be noticed unless the administrative penalty has been deposited in advance in accordance with Section 1.20.070(A), or an advance deposit hardship waiver has been issued in accordance with Section 1.20.080.
B. A hearing before the hearing board shall be set for a date that is not less than fifteen calendar15 days and not more than sixty calendar60 days from the date of the filing of the request for hearing. The party contesting the administrative citation may request one continuance for any reason, in writing, no less than twenty -four hours in advance of the scheduled hearing, the deferred hearing shall not be deferred more than ninety calendar days after the request for hearing was made. A request for continu ance made less than twenty -four hours before the scheduled hearing may be granted, by the hearing board, based upon urgency only.The hearing may be continued for good cause.
C. At the hearing, the party contesting the administrative citationappellant shall be given the opportunity to testify and present evidence and cross -examine witnesses concerning the administrative citationviolation. That contestant appellant may appear personally or through an attorney. Prehearing discovery is not authorized, but subpoena of witnesses and documents shall be permitted as authorized by law. The hearing board may conduct the hearing shall be conducted informally, both as to rules of procedure and admission of evidence, in any manner which will provide a fair hearing.
D. The failure of any recipient of an administrative citation an appellant to appear at the administrative citation hearing may be deemed an admission of the violation by the recipient and an admission that the amount of the administrative penalty is appropriate and may constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies barring judicial review.
E. The administrative citation and any additional report submitted by the enforcement officer shall constitute presumptive evidence of the respective facts contained in those documents.
F. The hearing board officer may continue the hearing and to request additional information from the enforcement officer or the recipient of the administrative citationappellant prior to issuing a written decision.
1.20.110 - Hearing board’s officer’s decision.
506
Ordinance No. ____
Adopted November ___, 2023