Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fairfield planning staff present rezoning package to meet RHNA; commissioners defer action for legal review
Summary
Staff presented a rezoning and zoning‑text package to implement Fairfield’s 2023–2031 housing element, citing a three‑year statutory rezoning deadline. Commissioners raised concerns about ministerial review limits for supportive housing and public‑input loss; the commission directed staff to return Dec. 10 with clarifications.
City staff and consultants presented a package of general plan amendments, rezones and zoning‑ordinance changes intended to implement Fairfield’s 2023–2031 housing element and to bring the city into compliance with state housing law. Allison Moore, associate principal and the packet presenter, told the commission Fairfield must plan for a little over 3,000 additional housing units and that the housing element identified seven sites that should be rezoned to meet lower‑income RHNA requirements.
Moore warned of statutory timing: “State law requires that this rezoning be completed within 3 years of housing element adoption, and missing that deadline has a lot of serious consequences,” she said, describing potential loss of local control, loss of eligibility for key state funding and risk of legal action if the city falls out of compliance. Her presentation described multiple actions in the housing action plan: incentives for merging small lots (minimum 7,500 sq. ft.), ministerial (objective) review pathways for qualifying affordable projects (Action 2.4), updates to citywide densities and AB 803‑related small‑lot rules, minimum density requirements for rezoned sites (example: 20 dwelling units per acre in certain zones), and definitions and standards for efficiency units, residential care, farmworker housing and supportive housing.
Multiple commissioners pressed staff on whether certain project types must be approved ministerially or if the city retains discretion to require conditional review. One commissioner said the draft language, if applied broadly, removes opportunities for public comment and local review for sometimes large projects: “...we are taking all public comments of the citizens of the city away from them by saying the city council has no authority to do this,” the commissioner stated, urging tighter language for projects such as permanent supportive housing. Staff replied the packet takes a conservative interpretation of the law and that some projects with affordability conditions specified by statute must be approved by right; staff offered to research legal nuances and return with clarifications.
Because of the legal questions and the three‑year statutory timeline, the commission took a short recess for staff to research options. After the break staff confirmed the matter could be continued. The commission then voted to continue action on the package to the December 10 meeting so staff can return with additional legal analysis and any modified language or piecemeal options for the commission to consider.
Next steps: staff will research whether specific supportive‑housing and ministerial provisions are mandatory or offer room for conditional review, and will return to the commission on Dec. 10 with recommended motion language and updated packet materials.
