obstruction thereon, or any other act affecting the Easement Area which would cause a material hindrance or material interference with the use of the Easement Area by the other party.
6. Subject to the terms of Paragraph 7, Grantor shall have the sole obligation, at its sole cost, to construct, repair, maintain in good repair and replace, as necessary, the Easement Area. Grantor shall have the sole obligation, at its sole cost, to initially construct and install the New Utility Facilities within the Easement Area, Subject to the terms of Paragraph 7, if such New Utility Facilities are solely for the use and benefit of the Benefitted Parcel, Grantee shall have the sole obligation, at its sole cost, to repair, maintain in good repair and replace, as necessary, such New Utility Facilities. If, and to the extent that, such New Utility Facilities are shared with any portion of the Burdened Parcel or any property other than the Benefitted Parcel, subject to the terms of Paragraph 7, Grantor shall have the sole obligation, at its sole cost, to repair, maintain in good repair and replace, as necessary, such shared portions of such New Utility Facilities.
7. The reasonable cost to repair, maintain and replace, if necessary, any damage caused to the Easement Area, or to the Utility Facilities, as applicable, outside of normal wear and tear, shall be born entirely by the fee owner of the Parcel whose Permittees caused such damage, and such fee owner shall provide prompt written notice of such damage to the other owner,
8. Grantor shall carry (or cause to be carried) commercial general liability insurance covering the Easement Area (which shall be primary and non-contributing as to any lability insurance which Grantee may carry), naming the Grantee and such other parties as reasonably requested by Grantee as an additional insured. Such insurance shall provide combined single limit coverage of at least $1,000,000 (which limit may be satisfied by primary coverage and/or excess or umbrella coverage), shall be issued by a carrier admitted within the State of California and having an “A” rating from Best’s Insurance Guide and shall otherwise be in form, substance and amount reasonably satisfactory to Grantee. Upon written request, but not more than once a calendar year, unless in connection with a proposed sale or refinancing of the Benefitted Parcel, Grantor shall promptly provide to Grantee a copy of such owner’s insurance certificate demonstrating the required coverage is in place.
9. The fee title owner of the Benefitted Parcel shall bear the risk of loss or damage on the Easement Area by the use thereof by the fee title owner of Benefitted Parcel and its Permittees pursuant to the terms of this Easement.
10. Grantee hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Grantor, its successors, transferees, assigns and Permittees from and against any and all claims, actions, damages, liability and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) in connection with damage to property or bodily injury arising out of the use of the Easement Area by Grantee or its Permittees, except to the extent such damage arises from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Grantor or its Permittees. Grantor hereby agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Grantee, its successors, transferees, assigns and Permittees from and against any and all claims, actions, damages, liability and expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees) in connection with damage to property or bodily injury arising out of the use of the Easement Area by Grantor or its Permittees, except to the extent such damage arises from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Grantee or its 3 #4817-0849-6618.4
Permittees,
11. The Easement Area and each and all of the rights, obligations, covenants, and provisions contained in this Easement are made for the direct benefit of the Parcels, and constitute covenants running with the land and shall bind every person or entity having any fee, leasehold, or other interest in all or any portion of the Parcels at any time from and after the date of this Easement.
12. Inthe event of any violation by any party to this Easement or by any Permittee of either Parcel, the parties to this Easement, or their respective successors or assigns, as the case may be, shall have all rights available under the law including, but not limited to, the right to enjoin such violation or threatened violation in a court of competent jurisdiction in the State of California, and the right to specific performance of any restriction, covenant, condition or obligation provided for in this Easement. Prior to the commencement of any such action, written notice of such violation or threatened violation shall be given to the other party in the manner required in Paragraph 13, below. A party shall not be in default under any of the terms, restrictions, covenants or conditions of this Easement, unless and until such party shall have been served with written notice specifying the nature of such default and shall thereafter fail to cure such default within thirty (30) days after receipt of such written notice, or, if such default cannot reasonably be cured within that thirty (30)-day period, said party shall be given such additional time as is reasonably necessary to cure such default so long as such party has commenced to cure such default and is proceeding diligently to complete the curing of such default,
13. Any notices sent hereunder shall be sent to the owners of the fee title of the Benefitted Parcel and the Burdened Parcel, at the addresses provided below. As of the date hereof, the respective notice addresses of the parties are as follows:
Burdened Parcel:
DPML Cordelia Road, LLC
c/o Dermody Properties
5500 Equity Avenue
Reno, Nevada 89502
Attention: Doug Lanning
with a copy to:
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP
One America Plaza
600 West Broadway, 27th Floor
San Diego, California 92101-0903
Attention: Martin I. Togni, Esq.
#4817-0845-6618.4
Benefitted Parcel:
Sheldon Investment Company
P.O. Box 430
Suisun City, CA 94585
Attention: Jill Hopkins
with a copy to:
Donahue Fitzgerald LLP
1646 North California Boulevard, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Attention; Douglas A. Crosby, Esq.
Any notice request, demand or approval given, made or delivered under the provisions of this Easement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given, made or delivered when delivered personally or on the date of receipt or refusal of receipt (as shown on the return receipt) if the notice, request, demand or approval is deposited in the United States mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid or sent by nationally recognized overnight courier. Notice of change of address shall be given by written notice in the manner detailed in this Paragraph 13.
14. This Easement may not be amended, terminated, rescinded, or otherwise modified, in whole or in part, except by a written instrument executed by all of the parties owning the fee simple title to the Parcels and recorded in the Records.
15. This Easement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the parties to this Easement and their respective representatives, successors, assigns, and Permittees.
16. Inthe event of any conveyance or other disposition of title to either Parcel or portion thereof, the party who is divested of title shall be entirely freed and relieved of all covenants and obligations accruing under this Easement from and after such conveyance or other disposition (except that no such conveyance or other disposition shall relieve a party for liability for any existing breach of this Easement or obligations which accrued prior to such conveyance or other disposition). In the event of any conveyance or other disposition of title to either Parcel, the transferee succeeding to title shall be deemed to have assumed all of the covenants and obligations of the owner of such Parcel or portion thereof, as the case may be, thereafter accruing under this Easement until such transferee or successor is freed and relieved therefrom pursuant to the first sentence of this Paragraph 16.
17. In any action or proceeding between the parties to this Easement arising from or relating to this Easement or the enforcement or interpretation hereof, the non-prevailing party shall pay to the prevailing party the prevailing party’s reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with such suit, the underlying dispute and/or enforcing any judgment granted therein, all of which shall be deemed to have accrued upon the commencement of such action and shall be paid whether 5 #4817-0849-6618.4
or not such action is prosecuted to judgment. Any judgment or order entered in such action shall contain a specific provision providing for the recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in enforcing such judgment as provided herein.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
#4817-0849-6618.4
IN WITNESS WHEREOQF, the parties hereto have executed this Easement as of the date first written above.
GRANTOR:
DPML CORDELIA ROAD, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: : —y
Name: ~
Title: . Uotglas Lanning
GRANTEE:
SHELDON INVESTMENT COMPANY,
a California corporation
By:
Name: Joan Towner
Title; President
#4817-0849-6618.4
IN WITNESS WHEREOQF, the parties hereto have executed this Easement as of the date first written above.
#4817-0849-6618.4
GRANTOR:
DPML CORDELIA ROAD, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By:
Name:
Title:
GRANTEE:
SHELDON INVESTMENT COMPANY,
a California corporation
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document,
State of VEIN )
County of WASHOE )
on JULY I 207], vefore me, HAY 7 LF :
Notary Public, personally appeared LIES [ ANNI
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) fare subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of WEY 4 JY that the foregoing paragraph is trae and correct.
MCKAY KLONICKE
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF NEVADA
4 APPT. NO. 20-9601-02
MY APPT. EXPIRES APRIL 01, 2024
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
#4817-0849-6618.4
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the | individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and pot the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of Cotdor 14 Cor }
County of Cove. Cotte )
On Jone 30 +, 2021, before me, Nunes [i Bre doy (ce ,
Notary Public, personally appeared Joon Touoned i i
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ics), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of (a fifornaen | that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature ane. A ESPN (Seal)
NANCY. A, BELGARDE ]
Notary Public - California
Alameda County
y Commission & 2291 281
2 Jy Comm, Expires Jun 30,2023 §
#4817-0849-6618.4
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of Burdened Parcel
ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD, COUNTY OF SOLANO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
NEW PARCEL 1
Parcel “1” as shown on Notice of Minor Lot Line Adjustment recorded on July 12, 2021 as Instrument No. 202100073484, of Official Records, County of Solano, State of California. Also described in the document as follows:
All that certain real property situate in the City of Fairfield, State of California, being a portion of the 39.32+ acre Remainder Parcel shown on that certain map filed for record June 19, 2006 in Book 47 of Parcel Maps at Page 99 in the office of the Solano County Recorder, being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at an angle point in the northerly line of said Remainder parcel, said point being further described as the westerly terminus of the arc defined on said map as having a radius of 2,814.79 feet and an arc length of [34.21 feet, from which point the radius bears South 02° 23° 39” East; thence easterly along said arc and said northerly line 134.21 feet through a central angle of 2° 43” 557; thence continuing along said northerly line South 89° 39" 44” East, 300.22 feet to the true point of beginning; thence along the general northerly, easterly, southerly, and westerly lines of said Remainder parcel the following courses and distances: South 89°39°44” East, 242.65 feet; thence South 13° 28° 18” East, 62.50 feet to the beginning of a curve concave westerly having a radius of 500.00 feet; thence southerly along the arc of said curve 316.50 feet through a central angle of 36° 16° 057; thence South 22° 47° 47” West, 209.13 feet to the beginning of a curve concave easterly having a radius of 780.00 feet; thence southerly along the arc of said curve 279.23 feet through a central angle 20° 30" 40”; thence, South 12° 41° 45” West, 227.83 feet, thence South 61°30” 15” West, 1,602.79 feet; thence South 73° 12° 50” West, 16.50 feet; thence North 00° 00° 55” West, 678.47 feet to the beginning of a curve concave easterly having a radius of 475.00 feet; thence northerly along the arc of said curve 229.96 feet through a central angle of 27° 44° 207; thence North 27° 43° 25” East, 492.33 feet to the beginning of a curve concave southeasterly having a radius of 183.15 feet; thence northeasterly along the arc of said curve 108.60 feet through a central angle of 33° 58° 29”; thence North 82° 33’ 14” East, 237.80 feet; thence leaving said general northerly line South 07° 26” 46” East, 8.00 feet; thence North 82° 33° 14” East, 30.50 feet; thence North 07° 26° 46” West 8.00 feet to a point on said general northerly line; thence continuing along last line North 82° 33” 14” East, 210.26 feet; thence South 45°00” 00” East, 131.45 feet; and thence South 90° 00° 00” East, 23.48 feet to an angle point therein; said point alse being the southeast corner of Parcel 1 as said parcel is shown on that certain map filed for record December 18, 2003 in Book 45 of Parcel Maps at Page 12 in said Recorder’s office, thence leaving said general northerly line, continuing South 90° 00” 00” East, 227.50 feet; thence North 00° 60° 00” East, 284.54 feet; thence North 51° 45° 08” East, 263.29 feet to the point of beginning.
Containing 36.58 acres, more or less.
#4817-0849-6618.4
Bearings used in this description are based upon Book 47 of parcel Maps, Pages 99-101, Solano County Records.
"PARCEL 2":
PARCEL 2, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PARCEL MAP, FILED JUNE 19, 2006 IN BOOK 47 OF PARCEL MAPS, AT PAGE 99, SOLANO COUNTY RECORDS.
APN/Parcel ID: 0032-190-240, 0032-190-330, 0032-190-300, and 0032-190-320 #4817-0849-6618.4
EXHIBIT B
Legal Description of Benefitted Parcel
ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD, COUNTY OF SOLANO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
NEW PARCEL 2
Parcel “2” as shown on Notice of Minor Lot Line Adjustment recorded on July 12, 2021 as Instrument No. 202100073484, of Official Records, County of Solano, State of California. Also described in the document as follows:
All that certain real property situate in the City of Fairfield, State of California, being all of Parcel 1 as shown on that certain map filed for record December 18, 2003 in Book 45 of Parcel Maps at
Remainder Parcel shown on that certain map filed for record June 19, 2006 in Book 47 of Parcel Maps at Page 99 in said Recorder’s office, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at an angle point in the northerly line of said Remainder Parcel, said point being further described as the westerly terminus of the arc defined on said 47 PM 99 as having a radius of 2,814.79 feet and an arc length of 134.21 feet, from which point the radius bears South 02° 23 39” East; thence easterly along said arc and said northerly line 134.21 feet through a central angle of 2° 43° 55”; thence continuing along said northerly line South 89° 39’ 44” East, 300.22 feet; thence leaving said northerly line South 51° 45° 08” West, 263.29 feet; thence South 00° 00° 00” East, 284.54 feet; thence South 90° 00° 00” West, 227.50 feet to the southeast corner of said Parcel 1; thence along the general southerly line of said Parcel 1 South 90° 00° 00” West, 23.48 feet, thence North 45° 00° 00” West, 131.45 feet; thence South 82° 33° 14” West, 210.26 feet; thence leaving said general southerly line South 07° 26° 46” East, 8.00 feet; thence South 82° 33° 14” West, 30.50 feet; thence North 07° 26° 46” West, 8.00 feet to a point on said general southerly line; thence continuing along last said line, and the general westerly, and northerly lines of said parcel | the following courses and distances: thence South 82° 33” 14” West, 341.98 feet; thence North 29° 26° 28” West, 206.55 feet; thence South 78° 00° 53” West, 446.54 feet; thence North 61° 49° 32” East, 23.85 feet to the beginning of a curve concave southerly having a radius of 2,814.79 feet, said curve being the westerly extension of the 2,814.79 foot radius curve described hereinabove; thence easterly along the arc of said curve 1,266.51 feet through a central angle of 25° 46° 49” to the point of beginning.
Containing 9.39 acres, more or less.
Bearings used in this description are based upon Book 47 of parcel Maps, Pages 99-101, Solano County Records,
#4817-0849-6618.4
EXHIBIT C
Easement Area
LAUGENOUR ip MEIKLE April 5 2031
EXHIBIT “A”
LAND DESCRIPTION
Access Easement
THAT portion of real property situate in the County of Solano, State of California, and being a portion of Section 34, Township 5 North, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, and also being a portion of Parcel 2 as shown in Book 47 of Parcel Maps at Page 99, said County Records, and also being a portion of Parcel B as described in Document No. 2019-00025451, said County Records, being more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at point on the West line of said Parcel 2; said point being distant from a 2.5-inch brass disk in a monument well at the intersecting centerlines of Beck Avenue and Cordelia Road the following two (2) courses and distances: (1) along said centerline of said Beck Avenue, North 00°02'45" West 1,120.18; and (2) leaving sald centerline, North 89°57'15” East
38.01 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence, from said POINT OF BEGINNING, and | leaving said West line, South 88°26'12" East 586.15 feet; thence North 27°37°39" East 577.31 feet to the Northerly line of said Parcel B; thence, along said Northerly line, South 82°33'17” West
50.68 feet; thence, leaving said Northerly line, South 31°05'36” West 111.66 feet; thence South 25928701” West 247.90 feet; thence South 39°58'16” West 187.22 feet; thence North 88°26°12” West 519.09 feet to the West line of said Parcel 2; thence, along said West line, South 00°02'47 East 40.18 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Containing 1.139 acres of land, more or less.
‘The basis of bearings for this description is the centerline of Beck Avenue, shown as N 0°02'45" W in Book 47 of Parcel Maps at Page 99,
End of description.
Bryan P. Bonino, LS.
#4817-0849-6618.4
#4817-0849-6618.4
LANDS
OF
SHELDON
INVESTMENT
COMPANY
LEGEND
DOC—201900025449
@
INDICATES
2.5"
BRASS
DISK
IN
MONUMENT
WELL
S823X17°W
50.68"
SITUS IE"W 111.66"
LANDS OF SHELDON
INVESTMENT COMPANY
PARCEL B
DOC-201900025451
REMAINDER
PARCEL
2 47
PM
99 47 Pid 99
LANDS
OF
SHELDON
INVESTMENT
COMPANY
_
PARCEL:A..
DOC=201900025451
NB9SI
1S
E
38.01 |
NOV2'45"W
BASIS OF BEARINGS
i
1.139
ACRES+
EXISTING
- 50.00"
PRIVATE.
ACCESS
‘AND
UTIITY
EASEMENT
DOC.
2003=21470%
Cg
Doc.
200700119078
SH26'12E
586,15"
_
7 7
TO
BE
QUITCLAIMED
=
NEB26'12"W
519.09'
or ———SOVR'47E
40.18"
|
Trt
start.
man
NOC2'45"W 1120.18
LANDS
‘OF
FAIRFIELD
PARCEL
1 HOUSING
AUTHORITY
47 FM
99 DOC-201900026216
EXHIBIT
B
APN:
0032~190~300
AND
-0032—190—320
ACCESS
EASEMENT
BEING
‘A
PORTION
‘OF
‘SECTION
34 TOWNSHIP
5 NORTH
RANGE.2
WEST,
MOUNT
DIABLO
BASE
AND
MERIDIAN
SOLANO
COUNTY,
CA
[4]
50 100
200
—]
| Ly
= SCALE:
1"=100
Li
JJ
LAUGENOUR
anp
MEIKLE CIVIL ENGINEERING - EAND SURVEYING - PLANNING
503 COURT STREET, WOODLAND, CALIFORNIA G5ERS PHONE: (530) GE2-1T35 P.0. BOX B28, .WODDLAND, ‘CALIFORNIA 9S77E + FAX: (830) 8625802 SHEET 1 OF 1. Wo .. -APRIL:5, 2021 9-9/ZHF
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
DPML CORDELIA ROAD, LLC
c/o Dermody Properties
5500 Equity Avenue
Reno, Nevada 89502
Attention: Doug Lanning
Cross Reference:
Instrument No. 202100079758
Instrument No. 200300214 709
(Space above line for Recorder's Use)
Fffi STAMENDMENTTOEASEMENTAGREEMENT
This FIRST AMENDMENT TO EASEMENT AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is made and entered into as of the _ day of , 2026, by and between DPML CORDELIA ROAD, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("Grantor"), and SHELDON INVESTMENT COMP ANY, a California corporation ("Grantee").
RE C I T A L S :
A. Grantor and Grantee are parties to that certain Easement Agreement dated July 28, 2021 and recorded July 29, 2021 in the Official Records of Solano County (the "Official Records") as Instrument No. 202100079758 (the "Agreement"). All capitalized terms when used herein shall have the same meanings given such terms in the Agreement unless expressly superseded by the terms of this Amendment.
B. Grantor is the owner of the Burdened Parcel (as defined in the Agreement) described on Exhibit A attached to this Amendment. Grantee is the owner of the Benefitted Parcel (as defined in the Agreement) described on Exhibit B attached to this Amendment. Since the date of the Agreement, the legal description for the Burdened Property has changed, and thus, Exhibit A attached to the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with Exhibit A attached hereto.
C. The Agreement among other things, grants to Grantee a non-exclusive easement for private access and utility purposes over portions of the Burdened Parcel. 4900-9528-1481. l 0
377540.00008
53605736.2
D. The parties hereto desire for Grantor to grant to Grantee an additional utility easement for a sanitary sewer line to be located within the Easement Area (as defined in the Agreement).
E. Grantee, as successor to Sheldon Oil Company, a California corporation, as the owner of "Parcel 1" (as defined in the Existing Easement), reserved an easement for private access and utility purposes as further described in that certain Declaration of Easement recorded on December 18, 2003, as Instrument No. 200300214 709 in the Official Records, which is defined in the Agreement as the "Existing Easement". Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Grantor has completed (i) construction of the New Access Driveway and (ii) Grantor's relocation of the Existing Utility Facilities to the Easement Area as the New Utility Facilities, and thus, Grantee is obligated to cause a termination of the Existing Easement to be recorded in the Official Records in order to terminate the Existing Easement and have it removed from title to the Burdened Parcel.
In accordance with the terms of the Existing Easement, the City of Fairfield has consented to the termination of the Existing Easement.
F. Grantor and Grantee now desire to amend the Agreement as more particularly described herein, and terminate the Existing Easement.
AGR E E M EN T:
1. Incorporation of Recitals. The foregoing Recitals are hereby incorporated in this Amendment by reference.
2. Grant of Sewer Easement. Grantor hereby grants to Grantee a perpetual, non- exclusive easement ("Sewer Easement") upon, over, across and through the Easement Area (in an exact location reasonably acceptable to Grantor), for the purpose of installing and utilizing a sanitary sewer line (the "Sewer Line"). In the event Grantee elects to construct the Sewer Line, Grantee shall, at its sole cost, construct and install the Sewer Line within the Easement Area; provided, however, that Grantee shall provide Grantor thirty (30) days prior written notice of Grantee's date of the commencement of construction and installation of the Sewer Line. Grantee shall have the sole obligation, at its sole cost, to repair, maintain in good repair and replace, as necessary, the Sewer Line. During the construction and subsequent maintenance and repair of the Sewer Line, Grantee shall use commercially reasonable efforts to prevent its use or use by its Permittees (as defined in Section 2 of the Agreement) from materially interfering with or materially disrupting Grantor's use (or its Permittees' use) of the Burdened parcel. The reasonable cost to repair, maintain and replace, if necessary, any damage caused to the Sewer Line, outside of normal wear and tear, shall be born entirely by the fee owner of the Parcel whose Permittees caused such damage, and such fee owner shall provide prompt written notice of such damage to the other owner. After entering upon the Easement Area to exercise the Sewer Easement rights granted hereunder, Grantee shall (at its sole cost and expense) restore the Easement Area to the condition that existed immediately prior to such entry (including the replacement of any sod, landscaping, paving or other improvements that existed prior to such work). In no event shall Grantee allow a mechanic's lien or other lien to be recorded against the Burdened Property as a result of its use of 4900-9528-1481.l 0
377540.00008
53605736.2
the Sewer Easement and/or the Easement Area. If any mechanic's lien or other lien is recorded as a result of Grantee's use of the Sewer Easement and/or the Easement Area, Grantee, within thirty (30) days of receipt of notice, at Grantee's sole cost, cause the effect of any lien to be removed from the Burdened Property and any legal proceedings relating thereto to be dismissed. If Grantee shall fail to do so, Grantor may take any action it may deem appropriate to cause any lien to be removed and/or action dismissed and the cost thereof, together with reasonable attorneys' fees, shall be immediately due and payable from Grantee. For the avoidance of doubt, Sections 2, 4, 5, and 10 of the Agreement shall also apply to the Sewer Easement.
3. Grantee's Insurance. Grantee shall carry (or cause to be carried) commercial general liability insurance covering Grantee's (or its Permittees') access to, and use of, the Easement Area (which shall be primary and non-contributing as to any liability insurance which Grantor may carry), naming the Grantor and such other parties as reasonably requested by Grantor as an additional insured. Such insurance shall provide combined single limit coverage of at least $1,000,000 (which limit may be satisfied by primary coverage and/or excess or umbrella coverage), shall be issued by a carrier admitted within the State of California and having an "A" rating from Best's Insurance Guide and shall otherwise be in form, substance and amount reasonably satisfactory to Grantor. Upon written request, but not more than once a calendar year, unless in connection with a proposed sale or refinancing of the Burdened Parcel, Grantee shall promptly provide to Grantor a copy of such owner's insurance certificate demonstrating the required coverage is in place.
4. New Utility Facilities Defined Term. The parties acknowledge and agree that the reference to "Utility Facilities" in Paragraph 7 of the Agreement is hereby amended and shall refer to "New Utility Facilities."
5. Termination of Existing Easement. As of the date that this Amendment is recorded in the Official Records, the Existing Easement is hereby terminated and is of no further force and effect. Accordingly, the Burdened Property shall no longer be burdened by, and no party shall have any further rights or obligations under, the Existing Easement.
6. Mortgagee Protection. Notwithstanding all other provisions of the Agreement, as amended by this Amendment (the "Amended Agreement"), no breach of this Amended Agreement, nor the enforcement of any provision hereof, shall defeat or render invalid the rights of a mortgagee or beneficiary ( each, a "Mortgagee") under any recorded mortgage or deed of trust affecting any portion of the Burdened Parcel or the Benefitted Parcel or any part thereof made in good faith and for value; provided that after such Mortgagee obtains title thereto by judicial foreclosure or by means of the powers set forth in such mortgage, or deed of trust, or by deed in lieu of foreclosure, such property shall remain subject to this Amended Agreement including all obligations of payment and performance under this Amended Agreement.
7. Effect of Amendment. Except to the extent the Agreement is modified by this Amendment, the remaining terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect. In the event of conflict, between the terms and conditions of the Agreement and the terms and conditions of this Amendment, the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall prevail and control.
4900-9528-1481.10
377540.00008
53605736.2
8. Entire Agreement. The Agreement, together with this Amendment and the Exhibit attached hereto, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof and all prior and contemporaneous agreements, representations, negotiations, and understandings of the parties, oral or written, are hereby superseded and merged herein.
9. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
4900-9528-1481. l 0
377540.00008
53605736.2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.
GRANTOR:
DPML CORDELIA ROAD, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: _ _ .L_ -_-----=-?6+--+--- Name: - - - c+.-+D-tEOtt1U1HglH!la1&8-t.L.aSllnHOn in'"tg _ Title: - - - tC7Flhtttie:ttf-fF'ffin-Kalfin .... c·..,,a ..... 1 O ffi..,.c=e.,_r - - - GRANTEE:
SHELDON INVESTMENT COMPANY,
a California corporation
By: _
Name: Joan Towner
Title: President
4900-9528-1481.10
377540.00008
53605736.2
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of N.JLJ.J~ Countyof w~ )
)
On ~ ~ = ::i...t-+-- ' 20 24, before me, m~ /bJu-JcJi,~ Notary Public, person II appeared . ~ · · , who proved to me on t basis of satisfactory evi nee to be the e son(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of /\ l'eJJ ~ that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signatur ;seal)
•
MARCHELLE HELENE SCHIELD
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF NEVADA
APPT. NO. 25-5891-02
. flY APPT. EXPIRES MARCH 17, 2029
53605736.2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.
GRANTOR:
DPML CORDELIA ROAD, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: _
Name: _
Title: -- - - - - - - - - - - - -
GRANTEE:
SHELDON INVESTMENT COMPANY,
a California corporation
4900-9528-1481. I 0
377540.00008
53605736.2
ACKN OWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of CO\, 11) (V' '"'
County of &~'"""
)
)
On ~ ':? , l;:) , 202-l::,, before me, \) \ CAV\l,i w~ ~ k_C-.1'\ ~ i.1· "- , Notary Public, personally appeared ...-. 0 '- 1\e,r"
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the persorus) whose name(s) re subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/~ ey executed the same in his~ heir authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/~ eir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of Ci). \'~foM'1. that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct, WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Seal) ..
DIANA LORENA GAYTAN MEJIA
_ Notary Public • California a;
I Solano County ? Commission # 2465999
My Comm. Expires Oct 10, 2027
53605736.2
CONSENT
For purposes of Section 5 of the Amendment to which this Consent is attached, the City of Fairfield hereby consents to the termination of the Existing Easement.
CITY OF FAIRFIELD
By: _
Name:
Title:
53605736.2
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California
County of _
)
)
On , 20_ , before me, _
Notary Public, personally appeared _
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature - - - - - - - - - - - (Seal)
53605736.2
CONSENT AND SUBORDINATION
The undersigned, TRUIST BANK, a North Carolina banking corporation, in its capacity as administrative agent for the Lenders ("Lender"), as beneficiary under that certain Deed of Trust, Security Agreement, Assignment and Fixture Filing dated as of August 18, 2022, and recorded on August 19, 2022, as Instrument No. 202200054998 (the "Deed of Trust") hereby unconditionally subordinates the lien of the Deed of Trust to the effects of the Amended Agreement, including the Amendment to which this Consent and Subordination is attached, and agrees that said Amended Agreement shall unconditionally be and remain at all times a lien or charge prior and superior to the Deed of Trust and any related agreements.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed as of F'i.i.rv,r'( ('1. _ , 20 2(,..
TRUIST BANK, a North Carolina banking corporation,
as Administrative Agent and the sole Lender
By:d ~ ~ Name: ,v1,. ff "'' "' \[. £ hr, ?-
Title:Senior Vice President
53605736.2
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of 6:g~ t Countyof 6FJ S
)
)
On N{Yu~ /~ , 20;) (,,, before me, J /'tiad/t: ,) {le, fo._, , Notary Public, personally app ared , who proved to
me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature/ ~ (Seal)
53605736.2
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of Burdened Parcel
ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD, COUNTY OF SOLANO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
Parcel A:
Parcel One as shown on Notice of Minor Lot Line Adjustment, as evidenced by document recorded July 25, 2022 as Instrument No. 202200049635 of Official Records, being more particularly described as follows:
That portion of real property situate in the County of Solano, State of California, and being a portion of projected Sections 34 and 35, Township 5 North, Range 2 West, Mount-Diab lo Base and Meridian, also being a portion of Parcel A and a portion of Parcel B, as described in Document No. 202100079757, said county records, and also being all of that certain parcel of land as described in Document No. 202100079755, said county records and being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the most Southeasterly corner of said Parcel A; thence, from said Point of Beginning, and along the Easterly line of said Parcel A, North 12°41'4511 East 139.94 feet;
thence, leaving said Easterly line, North 26°04'5911
West 528.34 feet; thence, along the Easterly
projection of the Northerly line of said Parcel A, North 90°00'0011 West 45.73 feet to a point on
said Northerly line; thence, along said Northerly line the following six (6) courses and distances:
1) North 90°00'0011
West 250.98 feet; 2) North 45°00'0011
West 131.45 feet; 3) South 82°33'1411
West 210.26 feet; 4) South 07°26'4611
East 8.00 feet; 5) South 82°33'1411
West 30.50 feet; and 6)
North 07°26'4611
East 8.00 feet; thence, along the Westerly projection of said Northerly line of said Parcel A and the Northerly line of Parcel 2 as shown in Book 47 of Parcel Maps at Pages 99-101, said county records, South 82°33'1411
West 341.97 feet to an angle point on said
Northerly line of said Parcel 2; thence, along said Northerly line of said Parcel 2, North 29°26'2811
West 21.72 feet; thence, leaving said Northerly line, South 83°26'2911 West 122.26
feet; thence, North 88°43'5711
West 201.66 feet; thence North 33°49'0511
West 16.81 feet; thence
North 88°20'2511
West 88.86 feet; thence South 67°26'4311
West 354.65 feet to the Northerly line
of that certain 20.00 foot wide private waterline easement as described in Document No. 200300214710, said county records; thence, along said Northerly line, South 89°56'3311 West
39.53 feet to the Westerly line of said Parcel 2; thence, along said Westerly line the following three (3) courses and distances: 1) South 00°02'4511
East 389.10 feet;.2) South 87°44'4511
East
493.43 feet; and 3) South 00°00'5511
East 395.01 feet to the Northeast corner of said parcel of land as described in said Document No. 202100079755; thence, along said Northerly line the following three (3) courses and distances: 1) North 71 °03'4511 West 109.10 feet; 2) North
10°56'5511
East 74.23 feet; and 3) North 87°44'4511
West 404.12 feet to the Northwest corner of
said parcel of land; thence, along the West line of said parcel of land the following three (3) courses and distances: 1) South 00°02'4511
East 684.74 feet; 2) along a tangent curve to the left
concave Northerly, said curve having a radius of 50.00 feet through a central angle of 106°44'3111 and having an arc distance of 93.15 feet; and 3) South 16°47'10" East 53.26 feet to the Southwest corner of said parcel of land; thence, along the Southerly line of said parcel of Land, North 53605736.2
73°12'50" East 431.04 feet to the Southeast corner of said parcel of land; thence, along the East line of said parcel of Land, North 00°00'55" West 35.51 feet to the Southerly line of said Parcel 2; thence, along said Southerly line and the Southerly line of said Parcel A, North 73°12'50" East
68.72 feet to an angle point in said Southerly line of said Parcel A; thence, along said Southerly line, North 61 °30'1511
East 1,602.79 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The basis of bearings for this description is North 12°41'4511 East, being the Easterly line of
Parcel A, as described in said Document No. 202100079757, said county records.
Parcel B:
Parcel Two as shown on Notice of Minor Lot Line Adjustment, as evidenced by document recorded July 25, 2022 as Instrument No. 202200049635 of Official Records, being more particularly described as follows:
That portion of real property situate in the County of Solano, State of California, and being a portion of projected Sections 34 and 35, Township 5 North, Range 2 West, Mount Diab lo Base and Meridian, also being a portion of Parcel A as described in Document No. 202100079757, said county records, and being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning on the Easterly line of said Parcel A; said point being North 12°41'4511 East 139.94
feet from the most Southeasterly corner of said Parcel A; thence, from said Point of Beginning, and leaving said Easterly line, North 26°04'59" West 528.34 feet; thence North 90°00'00" West 45.73 feet to an angle point on the Northerly line of said Parcel A; thence, along said Northerly line the following three (3) courses and distances: 1) North 00°00'0011
West 284.54 feet; 2) North 51 °45'08" East 263.29 feet; and 3) South 89°39'44" East 242.65 feet to the Northeast corner of said Parcel A; thence, along said Easterly line of said Parcel A the following five (5) courses and distances: 1) South 13°28'1811 East 62.50 feet; 2)
along a tangent curve to the right concave Westerly, said curve having a radius of 500.00 feet through a central angle of36°16'0511
and having an arc distance of316.50 feet; 3) South
22°47'47" West 209.13 feet; 4) along a tangent curve to the left concave Easterly, said curve having a radius of 780.00 feet through a central angle of20°30'4011 and having an arc distance of
279.23 feet; And 5) South 12°41'4511
West 87.89 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The basis of bearings for this description is North 12°41 '4511 East, being the Easterly line of
Parcel A, as described in said Document No. 202100079757, said county records. 53605736.2
Parcel C:
Parcel Three as shown on Notice of Minor Lot Line Adjustment, as evidenced by document recorded July 25, 2022 as Instrument No. 202200049635 of Official Records, being more particularly described as follows:
That portion of real property situate in the County of Solano, State of California, and being a portion of projected Sections 34 and 35, Township 5 North, Range 2 West, Mount Diab lo Base, and Meridian, also a portion of Parcel B, as described in Document No. 202100079757, said county records, and also being a portion of Parcel 2 as shown in Book 47 of Parcel Maps at Pages 99-101, said county records, and being more particularly Described as follows:
Commencing on the Northerly line of said Parcel 2, said point being distant the following eleven (11) courses and distances from the most Southeasterly corner of Parcel A as shown in said Book 4 7 of Parcel Maps at Pages 99-101, said county records: 1) along the Easterly line of said Parcel A, North 12°41 '4511
East 139.94 feet; 2) leaving said Easterly line, North 26°04'5911 West 528.34
feet; 3) along the Easterly projection of the Northerly line of said Parcel A, North 90°00'0011 West 45.73 feet to an angle point on said Northerly line; along said Northerly line the following courses and distances: 4) North 90°00'0011
West 250.98 feet; 5) North 45°00'0011
West 131.45
feet; 6) South 82°33'1411
West 210.26 feet; 7) South 07°26'4611
East 8.00 feet; 8) south 82°33'1411
West 30.50 feet; 9) North 07°26'4611
West 8.00 feet; 10) along the Westerly projection of said Northerly line of said Parcel A, and along said Northerly line of said Parcel 2, South 82°33'1411 West 341.97 feet to an angle point on said Northerly line of said Parcel 2; and 11) along said Northerly line of said Parcel 2, North 29°26'2811
West 21. 72 feet to the true Point of Beginning;
thence, from said true Point of Beginning, and leaving said Northerly line, South 83°26'2911 west
122.26 feet; thence North 88°43'5711
West 201.66 feet; thence North 33°49'0511
west 16.81 feet;
thence North 88°20'2511
West 88.86 feet; thence South 67°26'4311
West 354.65 feet to the
Northerly line of that certain 20.00 foot wide private waterline easement as described in Document No. 200300214710, said county records; thence, along said Northerly line, South 89°56'3311
West,39.53 feet to the Westerly line of said Parcel; 2; thence, along said Westerly line, North 00°02'4511
West 57.64 feet to the Northwest corner of said Parcel 2; thence, along said Northerly line of said Parcel 2 the following three (3) courses and distances: 1) North 61 °49'3211 East 295.73 feet; 2) North 78°00'5311
East 446.54 feet; and 3) South 29°26'2811
East 184.83 feet to
the true Point of Beginning.
The basis of bearings for this description is North 12°41'4511 East, being the Easterly line of
Parcel A, as described in said Document No. 202100079757, said county records. 53605736.2
EXHIBITB
Legal Description of Benefitted Parcel
ALL THAT REAL PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD, COUNTY OF SOLANO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
NEWPARCEL2
Parcel "2" as shown on Notice of Minor Lot Line Adjustment recorded on July 12, 2021 as Instrument No. 202100073484, of Official Records, County of Solano, State of California.
Also described in the document as follows:
All that certain real property situate in the City of Fairfield, State of California, being all of Parcel 1 as shown on that certain map filed for record December 18, 2003 in Book 45 of Parcel Maps at Page 12 in the office of the Solano County Recorder, and also being a portion of the
39.32± acre Remainder Parcel shown on that certain map filed for record June 19, 2006 in Book 47 of Parcel Maps at Page 99 in said Recorder's office, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at an angle point in the northerly line of said Remainder Parcel, said point being further described as the westerly terminus of the arc defined on said 47 PM 99 as having a radius of 2,814.79 feet and an arc length of 134.21 feet, from which point the radius bears South 02° 23' 39" East; thence easterly along said arc and said northerly line 134.21 feet through a central angle of2° 43' 55"; thence continuing along said northerly line South 89° 39' 44" East, 300.22 feet; thence leaving said northerly line South 51° 45' 08" West, 263.29 feet; thence South 00° 00' 00" East, 284.54 feet; thence South 90° 00' 00" West, 227.50 feet to the southeast corner of said Parcel 1; thence along the general southerly line of said Parcel 1 South 90° 00' 00" West,
23.48 feet; thence North 45° 00' 00" West, 131.45 feet; thence South 82° 33' 14" West, 210.26 feet; thence leaving said general southerly line South 07° 26' 46" East, 8.00 feet; thence South 82° 33' 14" West, 30.50 feet; thence North 07° 26' 46" West, 8.00 feet to a point on said general southerly line; thence continuing along last said line, and the general westerly, and northerly lines of said parcel 1 the following courses and distances: thence South 82° 33' 14" West, 341.98 feet; thence North 29° 26' 28" West, 206.55 feet; thence South 78° 00' 53" West, 446.54 feet; thence North 61 ° 49' 32" East, 23.85 feet to the beginning of a curve concave southerly having a radius of 2,814.79 feet, said curve being the westerly extension of the 2,814.79 foot radius curve described hereinabove; thence easterly along the arc of said curve 1,266.51 feet through a central angle of25° 46' 49" to the point of beginning.
Containing 9.39 acres, more or less.
Bearings used in this description are based upon Book 47 of parcel Maps, Pages 99-101, Solano County Records.
4900-9528-1481.10
377540.00008
53605736.2
Project Location
Cordelia Rd
Beck Ave
Hwy 12
Easement to be Terminated
per First Amendment to
Easement Agreement
Agenda Item No: N.8
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: March 17, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: David Gassaway, City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution 2026-41 PW Budget Adjustment for Robbieburr Berger Park - 2030 N.
Texas Street Recreation Center Project
Authorizing an Update to the Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Robbieburr Berger Park - 2030 North Texas Street Recreation Center Project Budget to Reflect Modified Development Revenue Forecasts
Funding Source: $3,700,000; Bedroom Tax Fund
Contact: Ryan Panganiban, (707) 428-7017
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt resolution.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The Public Works Department is requesting an update to the fiscal year (FY) 2025 -2026 Robbieburr Berger Park – 2030 N. Texas Street Recreation Center Project (Project, CPW050035) updating the funding of $3,700,000 from AB 1600 – Parks Funds (Fund 263) to Bedroom Tax Fund (Fund 165) to reflect modified development revenue forecasts.
DISCUSSION
On December 17, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024 -291, award ing a construction contract for the Project to CWS Construction Group, Inc. (CWS). Construction began on March 17, 2025 , and is approximately 52% complete. The Project is tentatively slated for substantial completion in July 2026.
The Project includes the development of 4.43 acres of land located directly adjacent to the Linear Park Trail. The site features a 6,700 -square-foot recreation center; multi -use fields with two soccer fields; a perimeter walking and jogging trail with lighting; a multi -use court area for basketball, futsal, volleyball, and pickleball; a lighted running track; a lighted children’s playground; an additional play area; a multi -use open-space turf area; a multi -generational
fitness node; a plaza with picnic area; a parking lot; and a perimeter wall and fencing for safety throughout the park.
The current total Project budget is $18,255,703, which includes $10,586,493 of AB 1600 – Parks Funds, $5,669,210 in Proposition 68 state grant funds, and $2,000,000 in grant funds from Solano First 5. Staff recently reviewed historical trends comparing projected park development impact fee revenues to the actual revenues collected. Based on th is review, staff determined that it is prudent to apply a more conservative approach in forecasting park development impact fee revenues citywide. Under this approach, staff assume that certain master-planned developments may dedicate land and construct neighborhood or community parks as part of their development obligations in lieu of paying park development impact fees. As a result, staff project park impact fee revenue available for th e Project to be approximately $3,700,000 less than previously anticipated.
Staff requests an update to the funding for the project by utilizing $3,700,000 from the Bedroom Tax Fund instead of from AB 1600 – Parks Fund. The budget update will result in a net -zero increase to the total Project budget.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
This is a one-time budget reallocation of $3,700,000 from the AB 1600 Parks Fund (Fund 263) to the Bedroom Tax Fund (Fund 165). This adjustment does not require additional funding for the project.
PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The council may choose not to approve the adjustment, delay approval of the adjustment , or direct staff to return with additional information.
COORDINATED WITH
Finance Department
STAFF CONTACT
Ryan Panganiban, Assistant Public Works Director and City Engineer (707) 428-7017
[email protected]
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 2: Proposed Resolution
CITY OF FAIRFIELD
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-41
AUTHORIZING AN UPDATE TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 ROBBIEBURR BERGER PARK – 2030
NORTH TEXAS STREET RECREATION CENTER PROJECT BUDGET TO REFLECT MODIFIED
DEVELOPMENT REVENUE FORECASTS
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2024, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-291, awarding a construction contract to CWS Construction Group, Inc. (CWS) for the Robbieburr Berger Park – 2030 N. Texas Street Recreation Center Project (Project, CPW050035); and
WHEREAS, construction began on March 17, 2025 , is approximately 52% complete, and is tentatively slated for substantial completion in July 2026; and
WHEREAS, the Project includes the development of 4.43 acres of land directly adjacent to the Linear Park Trail into a 6,700 square foot recreation center, various multi-use fields, open space, and outdoor recreational areas, a parking lot, and picnic areas; and
WHEREAS, the total Project budget is $18,255,703, which include s $10,586,493 of AB 1600 – Parks Funds; and
WHEREAS, due to modified development forecasts, the AB 1600 – Parks revenue available for the Project will be $3,700,000 less than anticipated; and
WHEREAS, funding of $3,700,000 has been updated from AB 1600 – Parks Fund (Fund 263) to Bedroom Tax Fund (Fund 165); and
WHEREAS, the budget adjustment will result in a net -zero increase to the total Project budget ; and
WHEREAS, the revised appropriation constitutes an update to the fiscal year (FY) 2025-2026 budget approved pursuant to Resolution No. 2025-103.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:
Section 1. The council hereby approves a one -time budget adjustment to update the project’s funding from AB 1600 – Parks Fund (Fund 263) by $3,700,000 to Bedroom Tax Fund (Fund 165) in the FY 2025 -2026 Robbieburr Berger Park – 2030 N. Texas Street Recreation Center Project budget.
RES. NO. 2026-41
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of March 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: MEMBERS: MOY/BERTANI/CARR/PANDURO/SANDHU/TONNESEN/WILLIAMS NOES: MEMBERS: _________________________________________________ ABSENT: MEMBERS: _________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: MEMBERS: _________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________
CITY CLERK
Agenda Item No: N.9
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: March 17, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: David Gassaway, City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution 2026-42 HD Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP) Application
Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Application to the California Housing and Community Development Department for Prohousing Incentive Program Funds
Funding Source: N/A
Contact: LaTanya Terrones, (707) 428-7454
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt resolution.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The City has been approved for the ProHousing Program by the State of California. The City has exhausted its current P rohousing Incentive Program (PIP) funds and will be submitting an application for additional funds.
DISCUSSION
California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) administers the Prohousing Designation Program. The Program creates incentives for jurisdictions that comply with Housing Element requirements and have enacted Prohousing policies. The incentives include additional points or other preferences in scoring applications for competitive housing and infrastructure program grants. Each state program administrator determines the preference values awarded to applicants.
The City of Fairfield is an approved ProHousing Designation juris diction. As such, the state aims to assist Fairfield and other similarly designated jurisdictions in creating affordable housing initiatives to benefit extremely low to moderate-income households. Based on Fairfield’s Housing Needs analysis, the City must build additional affordable housing to meet housing needs.
Currently, the state designates much of Fairfield as a low -resource area, making it hard for affordable housing developers to succeed in state funding competitions. The Prohousing
Designation help s level the playing field. Fairfield projects receive additional points and incentives in affordable housing financing applications.
Additionally, each year, the state issues a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for grant funds for Prohousing Designation jurisdictions. The City of Fairfield last applied in March 2024 and was awarded $774,253 in PIP funds during that application period. The expenditure deadline is March 31, 2026. The City will have expended all the available funds from the previous approval cycle by the deadline.
Staff seeks Council authorization to submit a new application for the next cycle of PIP funds to support ongoing affordable housing efforts.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Completing this application has no fiscal impact. However, if awarded PIP funds, the Housing Services Department will be required to utilize PIP funds to support affordable housing projects on behalf of the City of Fairfield.
PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The City Council may choose not to approve the resolution and not apply for additional PIP funds from the state.
COORDINATED WITH
N/A
STAFF CONTACT
LaTanya Terrones, Sr. Project Manager
(707) 428-7454
[email protected]
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 2: Proposed Resolution
Attachment 3: PIP Application
CITY OF FAIRFIELD
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-42
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT FOR PROHOUSING INCENTIVE
PROGRAM FUNDS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code 50470 et. Seq, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) is authorized to issue Guidelines as part of an incentive program (hereinafter referred to by the Department as the Prohousing Inc entive Program or “PIP”); and
WHEREAS, the City of Fairfield desires to submit a PIP grant application package (Application), on the forms provided by the Department, for approval of grant funding for eligible activities toward planning and implementation activities related to housing and community development as a result of meeting eligibility criteria, including but not limited to a Prohousing Designation; and
WHEREAS, the City was deemed a Prohousing Designated City in March 2024, therefore, eligible to apply for the PIP funds.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:
Section 1. The city manager or designee is hereby authorized and directed to submit an application to HCD in response to the NOFA, and to apply for the PIP grant funds in a total amount not to exceed $1,080,000.
Section 2. In connection with the PIP grant, if the Application is approved by the Department, the City Manager is authorized and directed to enter into, execute, and deliver on behalf of the Applicant, a State of California Agreement (Standard Agreement) for the amount of $1,080,000, and any and all other documents required or deemed necessary or appropriate to evidence and secure the PIP grant, the Applicant’s obligations related thereto, and all amendments thereto.
Section 3. The Applicant shall be sub ject to the terms and conditions as specified in the Guidelines and the Standard Agreement provided by the Department after approval. The Application and any and all accompanying documents are incorporated in full as part of the Standard Agreement. Any and all activities funded, information provided, and timelines represented in the Application will be enforceable through the fully executed Standard Agreement. Pursuant to the Guidelines and in conjunction with the terms of the Standard Agreement, the Applic ant hereby agrees to use the funds for eligible uses and allowable expenditures in the manner presented and specifically identified in the approved Application.
RES. NO. 2026-42
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of March 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: MEMBERS: MOY/BERTANI/CARR/PANDURO/SANDHU/TONNESEN/WILLIAMS NOES: MEMBERS: _________________________________________________ ABSENT: MEMBERS: _________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: MEMBERS: _________________________________________________
_________________________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________
CITY CLERK
Prohousing Incentive Program
(PIP)
2025 Application for Local Governments
State of California
Governor, Gavin Newsom
Tomiquia Moss, Secretary
Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency
Gustavo Velasquez, Director
Department of Housing and Community Development
Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director
Division of Housing Policy Development
Final Filing Date: March 31, 2026
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95811
Website: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-and-funding/programs-active/prohousing- incentive-program
Email: [email protected]
X
X
X
X
X
Prohousing Incentive Program (PIP) Application Instructions The applicant is applying to the Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) for a grant authorized under the provisions pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 50470(2)(C)(i). PIP is designed to encourage cities and counties to achieve Prohousing Designation. Please refer to the PIP Guidelines and September 2024 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for detailed information on eligible uses and awards. If you have questions regarding this application or the PIP Program, email [email protected].
If approved for funding, the PIP application is incorporated as part of your Standard Agreement with the Department. To be considered for funding, all sections of this application, including attachments if required, must be complete and accurate.
In order to be considered for funding, all applicants must submit a complete, signed application to [email protected] by March 31, 2026. Pursuant to Section 202 of the PIP Guidelines, all applicants must meet the following threshold requirements to be eligible for funding:
Threshold Requirements
Demonstration of meeting threshold criteria shall be determined by the Department in its sole and absolute discretion. No documentation of meeting threshold requirements is required in the application unless requested by the Department.
Applicant
Applicant Agency Type
Mailing Address
City Zip Code
County
Website
TIN
Authorized Representative Name
Authorized Representative Title
Phone Fax
Email
Contact Person Name
Contact Person Title
Phone Fax
Email
Signature Date
Name Title
David Gassaway
City Manager
707-4287398
[email protected]
LaTanya Terrones
Applicant Information
City of Fairfield
City
1525 Webster St. Suite B
Fairfileld 94533
Solano
www.fairfield.ca.gov
David Gassaway City Manager
As the official designated by the governing body (authorized representative above and in resolution), I hereby certify that, if approved by HCD for funding through PIP, the applicant assumes the responsibilities specified in the NOFA and certifies that the information, statements, and other contents contained in this application are true and correct.
Sr. Project Manager
707-428-7455
[email protected]
94-600031
Applicant Information
94533
City Manager
As the official designated by the governing body (authorized representative above and in resolution), I hereby certify that, if approved by HCD for funding through PIP, the applicant assumes the responsibilities specified in the NOFA and certifies that the information, statements, and other contents contained in this application are true and correct.
Jurisdiction Name Eligible Base Award
Geographic Category Bonus Award Amount:
Prohousing Designation Application
Score Total Award33
Award Amount
Fairfield
Bay Area
Click the dropdown menu to choose a jurisdiction. The geographic category and base award will auto-populate. If the jurisdiction has obtained Prohousing Designation at the time of PIP application submittal, enter in the Prohousing Designation applicant score.
Population projections are based on the Department of Finance E-1 January 1, 2025 estimates. https://dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/estimates-e1/
Admin 54000
Matching Funds for
LHTF
Eligible Use Category
iii
End
4/1/2028
Subtask(s)
City of Fairfield
Est. Cost
1026000
Begin
4/1/2026
Eligible Applicants must use award funds towards any planning or implementation activities related to housing and community development including, but not limited to, any eligible uses pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 50470(b)(2)(D), as described below. Please indicate which of the following the applicant will use award funds toward:
Eligible Uses
Objective
(v) Capitalized reserves for services connected to the creation of new permanent supportive housing, including, but not limited to, developments funded through the Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention Bond Act of 2014. (vi) Assisting persons who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness, including providing rapid rehousing, rental assistance, navigation centers, emergency shelters, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing. (i) The predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of multifamily, residential live-work, rental housing that is affordable to extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income households, including necessary operating subsidies. (ii) Affordable rental and ownership housing that meets the needs of a growing workforce earning up to 120 percent of area median income, or 150 percent of area median income in high-cost areas. (iii) Matching portions of funds placed into local or regional housing trust funds. (vii) Accessibility modifications.
(viii) Efforts to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed or vacant homes. (ix) Homeownership opportunities, including, but not limited to, downpayment assistance. (x) Fiscal incentives or matching funds to local agencies that approve new housing for extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income households. (iv) Matching portions of funds available through the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 34176 of the Health and Safety Code.
Responsible Party
Summary of Proposed Activities
NotesEligible Use Category
iii
Statement of Work Plan
The City will be applying for additional LHTF funds from the state to support the development and preservation
of affordable hhousing. These funds can support the
Eligible Applicants must use award funds towards any planning or implementation activities related to housing and community development including, but not limited to, any eligible uses pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 50470(b)(2)(D), as described below. Please indicate which of the following the applicant will use award funds toward:
Eligible Uses
(v) Capitalized reserves for services connected to the creation of new permanent supportive housing, including, but not limited to, developments funded through the Veterans Housing and Homelessness Prevention Bond Act of 2014. (vi) Assisting persons who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness, including providing rapid rehousing, rental assistance, navigation centers, emergency shelters, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing. (i) The predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of multifamily, residential live-work, rental housing that is affordable to extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income households, including necessary operating subsidies. (ii) Affordable rental and ownership housing that meets the needs of a growing workforce earning up to 120 percent of area median income, or 150 percent of area median income in high-cost areas. (iii) Matching portions of funds placed into local or regional housing trust funds. (vii) Accessibility modifications.
(viii) Efforts to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed or vacant homes. (ix) Homeownership opportunities, including, but not limited to, downpayment assistance. (x) Fiscal incentives or matching funds to local agencies that approve new housing for extremely low, very low, low-, and moderate-income households. (iv) Matching portions of funds available through the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 34176 of the Health and Safety Code.
Summary of Proposed Activities
Agenda Item No: O.1
AGENDA REPORT
DATE: March 17, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: David Gassaway, City Manager
SUBJECT: CD Presentation of Draft 2026 Build Fee Study Update
Presentation and Discussion Regarding the Proposed 2026 Building Fee Update
Funding Source: N/A
Contact: Jeff Thomas, (707) 428-7442
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive report, open discussion, and provide direction to staff.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The Building Safety Division (Division) last completed a comprehensive fee study five years ago.
Since then, operating costs have increased, and the current fees no longer fully recover the cost of providing services. The proposed fee updates will more accurately reflect the costs of providing services and reduce the impact on the general fund.
DISCUSSION
The Division aims to operate as a cost-recovery service; however, over the past two fiscal years, the General Fund has subsidized services because fees have not kept pace with rising operational costs. This has been caused by several factors, including:
Increased building code requirements, such as the new high fire regulations Increased costs in technology
Increased liability costs
The California Construction Cost Index (CCI) is not keeping pace with the division’s operating costs
If fees are not adjusted, the Division will require increasingly more General Fund support. The proposed fees realign true operational costs on each permit and project type. Applicants will see a reduction in most basic permits , and home remodel permits, such as water heaters, heating
and air conditioning, roof-mounted solar, and kitchen and bath remodels. Most of these permits would see reductions ranging from approximately 4% to over 20%.
Conversely, the study found that new construction permits were found to under -recover costs.
Under the proposed update, new construction permits may increase by up to approximately 15%.
The following is an example of the impact under the proposed update for a new residen tial produced home permit.
Example: Single Family Dwelling 2,000-sf with a 400-sf garage. Current fee (effective July 1, 2026): approximately $5,115 Proposed fee (effective July 1, 2026): approximately $5,850.
This increase reflects a more accurate al location of plan review, inspections, and administrative costs.
The intent of the fee update is not a revenue -generating increase, but a structural realignment to match actual service delivery costs. The proposed update reduces fees for many common homeowner renovations and home upgrade permits while modestly increasin g fees for larger, more complex projects that require significantly more plan review, inspection time, and staff resources. By aligning fees with actual costs, the Division will be more financially sustainable.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
If adopted, the proposed fees should result in improved cost recovery beginning in fiscal year 2027, reducing the impact on the General Fund by approximately $300,000 if permit activity remains steady.
PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Provide staff direction to modify the proposed fee structure or maintain the current fee structure, which may result in additional impacts to the General Fund.
COORDINATED WITH
Finance Department
STAFF CONTACT
Jeff Thomas, Chief Building Official
(707) 428-7442
[email protected]
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 2: Proposed Fee Structure
City of Fairfield
Building Division User Fee Study
March 9, 2026
i Building User Fee Study
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................. ................................................... ............. i Executive Summary ................................. ................................................... .............. 1 User Fee Background ............................... ................................................... ............. 2 Background .................................................................................................................................................. 2 California User Fee History .......................................................................................................................... 2 Additional Policy Considerations ................................................................................................................. 3 Study Objective ................................... ................................................... ................. 4 Scope of the Study ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Aim of the Report......................................................................................................................................... 4 Project Approach and Methodology .................. ................................................... ...... 5 Conceptual Approach................................................................................................................................... 5 Fully Burdened Hourly Rates........................................................................................................................ 5 Summary Steps of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 6 Allowable Costs ............................................................................................................................................ 6 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................ 7 Quality Control/Quality Assurance .............................................................................................................. 7 Reasons for cost increases/decreases over current fees............................................................................. 7 City Staff Contributions ................................................................................................................................ 8 Fairfield User Fees ............................... ................................................... ................. 9 Cost Recovery............................................................................................................................................... 9 Subsidization ................................................................................................................................................ 9 Impact on Demand (Elasticity) ................................................................................................................... 10 Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 10 Building .......................................... ................................................... ................... 11 Analysis ...................................................................................................................................................... 11 Appendix A – Total Allowable Cost to be Recovered . ................................................. 1 2 Appendix B – Fully Burdened Hourly Rates .......... ................................................... .. 13 Appendix C – Cost Recovery Analysis ............... ................................................... ..... 14
1 Building User Fee Study
Executive Summary
The City of Fairfield engaged Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) to determine the full costs incurred by the City to support the various activities for which th e City charges user fees. Due to the complexity an d the breadth of performing a comprehensive review of fee s, Willdan employed a variety of fee methodologies to identify the full costs of individual fee and pr ogram activities. This report and the appendices h erein identify 100% full cost recovery for City services. Appendix C details the full cost and suggested fees as determined through discussion with departmental sta ff. The recommended fees identified herein are either at or less than full cost recovery.
2 Building User Fee Study
User Fee Background
Background
As part of a general cost recovery strategy, local governments adopt user fees to fund programs and services that provide limited or no direct benefit to the co mmunity as a whole (“User Fees”). As cities strugg le to maintain levels of service and variability of deman d, they have become increasingly aware of subsidies provided by the General Fund and have implemented c ost-recovery targets. To the extent that governments use general tax monies to provide indiv iduals with private benefits, and not require them to pay the full cost of the service (and, therefore, receive a subsidy), the government is limiting funds that may be available to provide other community-wide benefits. In effect, the government is using community funds to pay for private benefits. Unlike most revenue sources, cities have more control over the level of user fees they charge to recover costs, or the subsidies they can institute.
Fees in California are required to conform to the s tatutory requirements of the California Constitutio n, Proposition 218, Proposition 26, and the California Code of Regulations. The Code also requires that the City Council adopt fees by either ordinance or resolution, and that any fees in excess of the estimated total cost of rendering the related services must be appr oved by a popular vote of two-thirds of those elect ors voting because the charge would be considered a tax and not a fee. There are no fees suggested to be s et above the cost of service and as such a public vote is not required.
California User Fee History
Before Proposition 13, in times of fiscal shortages, California cities were able to raise property taxes, which funded everything from police and recreation to dev elopment-related services. However, this situation changed with the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978.
Proposition 13 established the era of revenue limitation in California local government. In subsequent years, the state saw a series of additional limitations to local government revenues. Proposition 4 (1979) defined the difference between a tax and a fee: a fee can be no greater than the cost of providing the service; and Proposition 218 (1996) further limited the impositi on of taxes for certain classes of fees. As a resul t, cities were required to secure a supermajority vote in ord er to enact or increase taxes. Due to the threshold s needed to increase local taxes, cities have less co ntrol and very few successful options for new reven ues.
The State of California took a series of actions in the 1990’s and 2000’s to improve the State’s fiscal situation, at the expense of local governments. In 2004-05, th e Educational Revenue Augmentation Funds (“ERAF”) take-away of property taxes and the reduction of Vehicle License Fees further reduced local tax revenues.
In addition, on November 2, 2010, California voters approved Proposition 26, the “Stop Hidden Taxes Initiative”, which is aimed at defining “regulatory fees” as a special tax rather than a fee, thus req uiring approval by two-thirds vote of local voters. These regulatory fees are typically intended to mitigate the societal and environmental impacts of a business or person’s activities. Proposition 26 contains seve n categories of exceptions. The fees analyzed as par t of a User Fee study typically fall under categori es one through five consisting of charges for specific ben efits, government service, regulatory need, for use of government property, or a fine/penalty.
3 Building User Fee Study
Additional Policy Considerations
State regulations require that municipalities update their fee schedules to reflect the actual costs of certain public services primarily benefiting users. User Fees recover costs associated with the provision of specific services benefiting the user, thereby typically reducing the use of General Fund monies for such purposes.
In addition to collecting the direct cost of labor and materials associated with processing and administering user services, it is common for local governments t o recover reasonable support costs. Support costs are those costs relating to a local government’s centra l service departments that are allocable to the loc al government’s operating departments. Central service s support cost allocations were incorporated using the resulting indirect overhead percentages determi ned through the City’s Cost Allocation Plan. A Cost Allocation Plan identifies the central service functions of the City such as Finance, City Manager, and Human Resources and allocates their cost to the departmen ts and funds of the City that they support. This pl an was used in the User Fee study to account for the b urden placed upon central services by the operating departments in order to allocate a proportionate share of central service cost through the study.
As labor effort and costs associated with the provision of services fluctuate over time, a significant element in the development of any fee schedule is that it h as the flexibility to remain current. Therefore, i t is recommended that the City include an inflationary f actor in the resolution adopting the fee schedule t o allow the City to annually increase or decrease the fees by changes in a pre-approved inflationary index, as described below. However, such inflationary increas es shall not exceed the reasonable estimated cost o f providing the services each year.
The City may employ many different inflationary fac tors. The most commonly used and recommended inflator is the Consumer Price Index (CPI) as it is widely well known, understood, and accepted. Sinc e the primary factor for the cost of a City’s services is usually the costs of the personnel involved, tying an inflationary factor that connects more directly to the personnel costs can also be suitable if there is a clear method, or current practice of obtaining said factor.
Each City should use an inflator that they are comf ortable with for their specific situation and needs . The analysis performed is a reflection of the cost of service at a point in time, and an inflator is used to project cost increases in future years. But inflators such as CPI will become less and less reliable as a determination of the change in cost of service as each year passe s. Since it is incumbent upon each agency to ensure the amount of the fees charged does not exceeds the reasonable estimated costs of providing the services, it is recommended that the City perform an internal revie w annually with a comprehensive review of services and fees performed every five years, which would in clude adding, amending, or removing fees for programs/services.
4 Building User Fee Study
Study Objective
As the City of Fairfield seeks to efficiently manag e limited resources and adequately respond to incre ased service demands, it needs a variety of tools. A User Fee Study provides assurance that the City has the best information and the best resources available to mak e sound decisions, fairly and legitimately set fees , maintain compliance with state law and local polici es, and meet the needs of the City administration a nd its constituency. Given the limitations on raising revenue in local government, the City recognizes th at a User Fee Study is a very cost-effective way to unde rstand the total cost of services and identify pote ntial fee deficiencies. Essentially, a User Fee is a payment for a requested service provided by a local government that primarily benefits an individual or group.
The total cost of each service included in this ana lysis is based on the full cost of providing City s ervices, including direct salaries and benefits of City staff, direct departmental costs, and indirect costs from central service support. This study determines the full co st recovery fee for the City to provide each servic e; however, each fee is set at the City’s discretion, up to 100% of the total cost, as specified in this report.
The principal goal of the study was to help the Cit y determine the full cost of the services that the City provides. In addition, Willdan established a series of additional objectives including:
Developing a rational basis for setting fees
Identifying subsidy amount, if applicable, of each fee in the model Ensuring compliance with State law
Developing an updatable and comprehensive list of fees Maintaining accordance with City policies and goals
The study results will help the City better underst and its true costs of providing services and may se rve as a basis for making informed policy decisions regard ing the most appropriate fees, if any, to collect f rom individuals and organizations that require individualized services from the City.
Scope of the Study
The scope of this study encompasses a review and calculation of user fees charged by the Building Division.
The study involved the identification of existing a nd potential new fees, fee schedule restructuring, data collection and analysis, orientation and consultati on, quality control, communication and presentation s, and calculation of individual service costs (fees) or program cost recovery levels.
Aim of the Report
The User Fee Study focused on the cost of City serv ices, as City staff currently provide them at exist ing, known, or reasonably anticipated service and staff level needs. This report provides a summary of the study results, and a general description of the approach and methods Willdan and City staff used to determin e the recommended fee schedule. The report is not int ended to document all of the numerous discussions throughout the process, nor is it intended to provi de an influential dissertation on the qualities of the utilized tools, techniques, or alternative approaches.
5 Building User Fee Study
Project Approach and Methodology
Conceptual Approach
The basic concept of a User Fee Study is to determi ne the “reasonable cost” of each service provided by the City for which it charges a user fee. The full cost of providing a service may not necessarily become the City’s fee, but it serves as the objective basis as to the maximum amount that may be collected.
The standard fee limitation established in Californ ia law for such fees is the “estimated, reasonable cost” principle. In order to maintain compliance with the letter and spirit of this standard, every componen t of the fee study process included a related review. Th e use of budget figures, time estimates, and improvement valuation clearly indicates reliance upon estimates for some data.
Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
The total cost of each service included in this analysis is primarily based on the Fully Burdened Hourly Rates (FBHRs) that were determined for City personnel directly involved in providing services. The FBHRs include not only personnel salary and benefits (see Appendix B), but also any costs that are reasonably ascribable to personnel for fee cost recovery. The cost elements that are included in the calculation of fully burdened rates are:
Salaries & benefits of personnel involved
Operating costs applicable to fee operations
Departmental support, supervision, and administration overhead Indirect City-wide overhead costs calculated through the Cost Allocation Plan An important factor in determining the fully burden ed rate is in the calculation of productive hours f or personnel. This calculation takes the available workable hours in a year of 2,080 and adjusts this fi gure to 1,650 productive or billable hours to account for c alculated or anticipated hours’ employees are invol ved in non-billable activities such as paid vacation, s ick leave, holidays, and other considerations as necessary.
Dividing the full cost, including overhead, of a po sition by the number of productive hours provides t he FBHR.
The FBHRs are then used in conjunction with time es timates, when appropriate for how a service is provided, to calculate a fee’s cost based on the pe rsonnel and the amount of their time that is involv ed in providing each service.
6 Building User Fee Study
Summary Steps of the Study
The process of the study is straightforward and simple in concept. The following list provides a summary of the study process steps:
Allowable Costs
This report identifies three types of costs that, w hen combined, constitute the fully burdened cost of a service (Appendix A) . Costs are defined as
direct labor, including salary and benefits,
departmental overhead costs, and the City’s
central services overhead, where
departmental and central service overhead
costs constitute support costs. These cost
types are defined as follows:
Direct Labor (Personnel Costs): The
costs related to staff salaries for
time spent directly on fee-related
services.
Departmental Overhead: A
proportional allocation of
departmental overhead costs,
including operation costs such as
supplies and materials that are necessary for the department to function. Central Services Overhead: These costs, as provided via the City’s Cost Alloca tion Plan, represent services provided by those Central Services Departm ents whose primary function is to support other City departments.
Data Analysis
Department Interviews
Time Estimates
Labor Costs
Cost Allocation Plan
Building Cost Layers
Direct Services
Indirect Services
Department Overhead
City-Wide Overhead
Set Fees
Define the Full Cost of
Services
Set Cost Recovery Policy
7 Building User Fee Study
Methodology
The two methods of analysis for calculating fees used in this report are the:
Case Study Method (Standard Unit Cost Build-Up Appr oach): This approach estimates the actual labor and material costs associated with providing a unit of service to a single user. This analysis is suitable when City staff time requirements do not vary drama tically for a service, or for special projects wher e the time and cost requirements are easy to identify at the project’s outset. Further, the method is effective in instances when a staff member from one department a ssists on an application, service or permit for another department on an as-needed basis. Costs are estimated based upon interviews with City staff regarding the time typically spent on tasks, a review of available records, and a time and materials analysis.
Program Cost Approach: In some instances, the underlying data is not available or varies widely, leaving a standard unit cost build-up approach impractical. In addition, market factors and policy concerns (a s opposed to actual costs) tend to influence rental based fee levels more than other types of services. Willdan employed a different methodology where appropriate to fit a programs’ needs and goals. Typical programmatic approach cases are valuation-based fee s, Recreation programs, and instances where a program cost is divided over the user base to obtain a per applicant cost for shared cost services.
Quality Control/Quality Assurance
All study components are interrelated, thus flawed data at any step in the process will cause the ulti mate results to be inconsistent and unsound. The element s of our Quality Control process for User Fee calculations include:
Involvement of knowledgeable City staff
Clear instructions and guidance to City staff
Reasonableness tests and validation
Internal and external reviews
Cross-checking
Reasons for cost increases/decreases over current f ees Within the fee tables in Appendix C , the differences are identified between the full c osts calculated through the study and the fee levels currently in e ffect. The reasons for differences between the two can arise from a number of factors including:
Previous fee levels may have been set at levels les s than full cost intentionally, based on policy decisions
Position staffing levels, seniority, and the positions that complete fee and service activity may vary from when the previous costs were calculated
Personnel and materials costs could have increased at levels that differed from any inflationary factors used to increase fees since the last study
Changes in processes and procedures within a department, or the City as a whole
8 Building User Fee Study
Changes in the demand for services in a City may ha ve also changed the staffing or cost structure of departments over time
City Staff Contributions
As part of the study process, Willdan received tremendous support and cooperation from City staff, which contributed and reviewed a variety of components to the study, including:
Budget and other cost data
Staffing structures
Fee and service structures, organization, and descriptions Direct work hours (billable/non-billable)
Time estimates to complete work tasks
Review of draft results and other documentation
A User Fee Study requires significant involvement of the managers and line staff from the departments on top of their existing workloads and competing prior ities. The contributions from City staff were criti cal to this study. We would like to express our appreciati on to the City and its staff for their assistance, professionalism, positive attitudes, helpful suggestions, responsiveness, and overall cooperation.
9 Building User Fee Study
Fairfield User Fees
Cost Recovery
The cost recovery models, by department/division fee type, are presented in detail in Appendix C . Full cost recovery is determined by summing the estimated amount of time each position (in increments of minutes or hours) spends to render a service. Time estimate s for each service rendered were obtained through interviews conducted with City staff for each depar tment/division fee included in the study. The resul ting cost recovery amount represents the total cost of p roviding each service. The City’s current fee being charged for each service, if applicable, is provided in this section, as well, for reference.
It is important to note that the time data used to determine the amount of time each employee spends assisting in the provision of the services listed o n the fee schedule is essential in identifying the total cost of providing each service and will differ from City to City depending on staffing, positions involved, experience of staff, the use of consultants, and th e policies and procedures in place for each City.
Specifically, in providing services, multiple employees are often involved in various aspects of the process, spending anywhere from a few minutes to several hours on the service.
The primary goal of this study was to identify the cost of City services, to provide information to he lp the City make informed decisions regarding the actual fee levels and charges. The responsibility of determining the final fee levels is a complicated task. City st aff must consider many issues in formulating recommendations, and the City Council must consider those same issues and more in making the final decisions.
City staff assumes the responsibility to develop sp ecific fee level recommendations to present to the City Council. Unfortunately, there are no fixed rules to guide the City, since many of the considerations are based on the unique characteristics of the City of Fairfi eld, and administrative and political discretion. H owever, in setting the level of full cost recovery for each fee, one should consider whether the service solely benefits one end user or the general community.
Subsidization
Recalling the definition of a user fee helps guide decisions regarding subsidization. The general standard is that individuals (or groups) who receive a wholly p rivate benefit should pay 100% of the full cost of the services. In contrast, services that are purely public benefit should be funded entirely by the general fund’s tax dollars. Unfortunately, for the decision makers , some services fall into the range between these t wo extremes.
Further complicating the decision, opponents of fee s often assert that the activities subject to the f ees provide economic, cultural, “quality of life,” or other community benefits that exceed the costs to the City, but it is important to distinguish the difference b etween any purported possible benefits that may be conveyed through the result of activities of the se rvice receiver and the direct benefit being conveye d through the City providing the service to the requestor.
It is recommended the City consider such factors during its deliberations regarding appropriate fee levels.
10 Building User Fee Study
Of course, subsidization can be an effective public policy tool since it can be used to reduce fees to encourage certain activities (such as to ensure pub lic safety) or allow some people to be able to affo rd to receive services they otherwise could not at the fu ll cost. In addition, subsidies can be an appropria te and justifiable action, such as to allow citizens to rightfully access services, without overburdensome costs.
Despite the intent, it is important for the City an d public to understand that subsidies must be cover ed by another revenue source, typically the General Fund’s other unrestricted funds.
Impact on Demand (Elasticity)
Economic principles of elasticity suggest that increased costs for services (higher fees) will eventually curtail the demand for the services; whereas lower fees may spark an incentive to utilize the services and encourage certain actions. Either of these conditi ons may be a desirable effect to the City. However, the level of the fees that would cause demand changes i s unknown. The cost of service study did not attemp t to evaluate the economic or behavioral impacts of h igher or lower fees; nevertheless, the City should consider the potential impacts of these issues when deciding on fee levels.
Summary
City staff is recommending setting user fees at suggested fee amounts as detailed in Appendix C. City and departmental goals, City Council priorities, policy initiatives, past performance, implementation issues, and other internal and external factors should influenc e staff recommendations and City Council decisions. In this case, the proper identification of additional services (new or existing services) and the update to a consistent and comprehensive fee schedule were the primary objectives of this study. City staff has reviewed the full costs and identified the recommended fee levels for consideration by City Council.
The following sections provide background for each department, division, and fee group and the results of this study’s analysis of their fees. For the full list of each fee’s analysis, refer to Appendix C of this report.
11 Building User Fee Study
Building
The mission of the Community Development Department is to protect, enhance, and expand the community’s physical, environmental, economic, and historical assets, and ensure building safety. The Department is responsible for current and long-rang e planning, building plan checks and inspections, a nd economic development. The professional staff has a wide variety of work experience in government, non- profit organizations, housing, and the private sect or. Areas of specialization include planning, econo mic development and redevelopment, land development, engineering and building construction.
Analysis
Willdan individually reviewed the services and programs associated with the Building Safety Division. The review also consisted of an evaluation of existing services in an effort to update the fee schedule.
The analysis of Building Safety flat fee services relied primarily upon a standard unit cost build-up approach, whereby the reasonable cost of each fee occurrence was determined using staff time involved in providing services to recover the direct cost of staff and th e pro-rata share of departmental costs, including i ndirect costs for City central services. Willdan then comp ared the calculated full cost against the current f ee amount to determine, if charged, whether the curren t fee is recovering the costs associated with the requested service. The analysis found that overall, the current fees are under funding the cost for mo st services but there are slightly more flat fees that would need to decrease as the fees decrease to be at full cost recovery. It is recommended that the City incr ease cost recovery to 100% for Building Safety serv ices as detailed in Appendix C . As a result, there would be:
An increase to 70 fees;
92 fees would decrease;
26 fees would remain as currently set, and;
the average fee change would be an increase of 2% for currently existing fees.
In addition to the above referenced flat fees listed under Building, the Building Permit fees are also provided by this division. For the Building Permit fees, valuation is used as a proxy for measuring the amount of effort needed to provide services on a case-by-case basis. This method is an industry standard widely used by other jurisdictions to evaluate the cost of providi ng service. It is generally understood that the lar ger and more complex a project is, the more time and effort that is required to provide code compliance servic es.
Project valuation also follows that trend, and so b y using a combination of either project valuation o r historical revenue figures along with a multiplier or cost recovery analysis for historical and antici pated future trends, current cost recovery along with var iability in charges due to project type and scale i s determined. The result of the cost analysis complet ed for the Building Permit program found that the program is currently operating at 85% cost recovery based on average annual activity levels from fiscal year 2025. Staff is recommending that the fees be increased to 100% cost recovery.
12 Building User Fee Study
Appendix A – Total Allowable Cost to be Recovered
Below are the total allowable costs that may be rec overed through User Fees; however, only a portion o f the total allowable cost is recovered as staff not only works on services related to User Fees, but also works on an array of other City functions during the operational hours of the City. The amounts listed below will not reconcile to City budgets as costs that should not be included in overhead for personnel in the application of determining fully burdened hourly rates were excluded. Examples of these costs are capital, debt, monetary transfers, contract costs, and any o ther costs that are charged directly to the service requestor.
Department
Total Salaries
& Benefits
Department
O&M
Direct
Overhead %
CD Admin
Allocation
CD Admin
Allocation %
Indirect
Allocation
Indirect
Allocation %
Planning $1,401,904 $309,202 22% $355,351 25% $0 0%
Building $2,258,442 $545,825 24% $572,464 25% $207,265 9% Economic Development $1,219,708 $138,228 11% $154,584 13% $187,406 15% Comm Dev Administration $988,528 $287,615 29% $0 0% $78,063 8% Business License $133,984 $36,475 27% $33,962 25% $25,375 19%
13 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Appendix B – Fully Burdened Hourly Rates
Below are fully burdened hourly rates of staff positions that provide for the services detailed in Appendix C. The FBHRs were used to determine the full cost of each service. They include the salary and benefit costs for each position as well as all applicable overhea d amounts for each position. When a central servic e department position works on a fee or project in th e purview of an operating department, the overhead rates of the operating department (shown in Appendix A ) will be applied to that central service positions’ salary and benefit rate for full cost recovery since indirect overhead cost only applies to non-central service functions of the City. For any user fee service re quest that is outside the scope of the fees detaile d in Appendix C , or for services for which there is no fee currently set, the City can charge up to the full cost of the FBHR for personnel involved.
City of Fairfield Building Fee Study
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculation
Position
Fully Burdened
Hourly Rate
Bldg - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT $88.27
Bldg - ASSOCIATE CIVIL ENGINEER $134.33
Bldg - BUILDING INSPECTOR II $100.47
Bldg - BUILDING INSPECTOR III $110.24
Bldg - BUILDING INSPECTOR SENIOR $121.68
Bldg - BUILDING INSPECTOR SUPERVISOR $134.33
Bldg - BUILDING PERMIT TECHNICIAN I $86.12
Bldg - BUILDING PERMIT TECHNICIAN II $95.06
Bldg - BUILDING PERMIT TECHNICIAN SENIOR $104.92
Bldg - BUILDING PLANS EXAMINER $115.82
Bldg - CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL $176.26
Bldg - PERMIT CENTER SUPERVISOR $124.74
CD Admin - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT $76.20
CD Admin - DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT $180.86 CD Admin - DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT $214.39 CD Admin - MANAGEMENT ANALYST SENIOR $118.86
ED - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT $77.52
ED - ECON DEV PROJ MGR SENIOR $133.48
ED - ECON DEVELOPMENT MANAGER $140.24
ED - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST $85.57
Plng - ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT $81.99
Plng - ASSISTANT PLANNER $99.90
Plng - ASSOCIATE PLANNER $110.28
Plng - PLANNER SENIOR $121.73
Plng - PLANNING DIVISION MANAGER $159.72
Plng - PRINCIPAL PLANNER $148.32
14 Comprehensive User Fee Study
Appendix C – Cost Recovery Analysis
The following tables provide the results of the ana lysis, resulting full cost recovery amount, and recommended fees. For fees, services, and penalties in which the full cost, existing fee, and suggested fee is listed as “NA,” the amount or percentage was not calculable. This is most common when either the current or the suggested fee includes a variable co mponent that is not comparable on a one-to-one basi s, a full cost was not calculated (for penalties, fine s, market-based fees, or items not included in the study), or when there is not a current fee amount to compare against.
Community Development Department - Building Division
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current
Subsidy % Suggested Fee
Suggested
Subsidy % Fee Δ
1 INSPECTION FEES
2 GRADING PERMIT INSPECTION FEE TABLE
3 Cubic Yards Moved
4 1 to 49 Less than 50 cubic yards
exempt* NA NA Less than 50 cubic
yards exempt* 0% $0
5 50 237.42 $329.85 28% $329.00 0% $92
Up to 5,000 18.61
for each additional 1,000
cubic yards, or fraction
thereof above 50 YC
$46.96 60% $46.96 0% $28
6 5,000 311.85 $564.65 45% $564.00 0% $252
Up to 10,000 15.36
for each additional 1,000
cubic yards, or fraction
thereof above 5,000
$67.05 77% $67.05 0% $52
7 10,000 388.62 $899.91 57% $899.00 0% $510
Above 10,000 13.00
for each additional 1,000
cubic yards, or fraction
thereof
$56.75 77% $56.75 0% $44
8 9 HOURLY INSPECTION SERVICE FEES - FOR ALL BUILDING DIVISION PERMITS 10 Reinspection Fee (1hr min per site visit) 118.71
per hour1 $105.35 -13% $105.00 0% -$14
11 Site Inspections (1hr min per site visit) pre-construction site assessment for new structures or grading activities. 118.71 per hour 1 $105.35 -13% $105.00 0% -$14
12 Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated (min charge 1hr) 118.71 per hour
1 $105.35 -13% $105.00 0% -$14
13 After-hours and Holiday Inspections at 150% Inspector hourly rate. Requests are subject to pre-approval by Chief Building Official(CBO) (2hr min).
178.07 per hour
1 $165.35 -8% $165.00 0% -$13
14 Temporary Occupancy Inspections are subject to pre-
approval by the Chief Building Official (CBO) (2hr min) 118.71 per hour 1 $176.26 33% $176.00 0% $57
15 Accessibility Inspections for Multifamily and Commercial Projects for alterations to accessible elements (1hr min) 129.70 per hour 1 $134.33 3% $134.00 0% $4
16 Inspection by Outside Consultant Actual cost per hour1 NA NA Actual cost NA $0 17 PERCENTAGE INSPECTION SERVICE FEES
18 Combination Permit Rates
19 Electrical Inspections in addition to Building Inspections 5% of Building Inspection fee NA NA 5% 0% 0% 20 Mechanical Inspections in addition to Building Inspections 5% of Building Inspection fee NA NA 5% 0% 0% 21 Plumbing Inspections in addition to Building Inspections 5% of Building Inspection fee NA NA 5% 0% 0% 22 Stormwater Inspections for State Issued Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) for project site
disturbance of 1 acre or greater, on-site stormwater
treatment and pre-treatment for single lot developments Division 7 of the Calfornia Code of Regulations
15% of Building Inspection fee NA NA 15% 0% 0%
23 Investigation Fee
for work without benefit of permit assessed
under provisions of Fairfield Municipal Code Section 114.4.1 amending the 2019 California Building Code Section 114.4 as enacted by Ordinance 2019-08
ActualCost
Hourly staff cost equal to
hours worked to achieve
compliance1
NA NA Actual
Cost NA $0
24 PLAN CHECK FEES
*Provison for exemption is to aid in the administration of grading permits and applies, as long as the proposed amount of grading and grading methodology doesn't conflict with exemptions listed in CBC(latest adopted) Appendix J Section 103 and exemptions listed in Secton 25.240 of the City of Fairfield Municipal Code, Chapter 25, Article IV.
15
Community Development Department - Building Division
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current
Subsidy % Suggested Fee
Suggested
Subsidy % Fee Δ
25 26
Plan Check Commercial/Multifamily Includes Commercial
Master Plans and Multifamily projects. Not to exceed three (3) rounds of review. Additional reviews, Revisions and Alternate Materials and Methods Requests (AMMRs) are
subject to hourly rates contained herein.
90% of Building Inspection Fee NA NA 90% NA 0%
27 Plan Check Residential Not to exceed three (3) rounds of review. Additional reviews, revisions and Alternate Materials and Methods Requests (AMMRs) are subject to hourly rates contained herein.
75% of Building Inspection Fee NA NA 75% NA 0%
28 Plan Check Grading Includes Residential and
Commercial/Multifamily. Not to exceed three (3) rounds of review. Additional reviews, revisions and Alternate Materials and Methods Requests (AMMRs) are subject to hourly rates contained herein.
75% of Grading Inspection Fee NA NA 75% NA 0%
29 Hourly Plan Check is utilized for additional reviews that exceed the first three (3) rounds and plan review otherwise not listed within this fee schedule and are based on hourly rates. For plan review of project types not otherwise listed, the Chief Building Offical will determine the minimum charge at time of application to reasonably cover the estimated time required for the first round of plan review with the
outstanding plan review time accounted and collected at time of issuance. Hourly plan review is to be assessed in
increments of one quarter hour (0.25 hr) with a 1 hour
minimum.
145.47 per hour or consultant
cost
1,2 $134.33 -8% $134.00 0% -$11
30 Revision Plan Check is for changes to any project component submitted for review after permit issuance revisions and plan review otherwise not listed are based on hourly rates with full recovery of plans examiner cost or contractural rate,
whichever is greater. Reviews are based on hourly rates or a combination of consultant cost and hourly rates with a
minimum of 1 hr due at the time of application for revisions with increments thereafter charged at one quarter hour (0.25 hr) Revision submittals are considered separate plan review records and are subject to Technology and Permit
Administration fees.
145.47 per hour or consultant
cost
1,2 Minimum 1 hr due at application $134.33 -8% $134.00 0% -$11 Plan Check fees are assessed when conformance to Building Code and Municipal Code Standards require a plans examiner to review provided plans, standards and calculations to ensure compliance. All plan check fees are subject to Technology fees. 16
Community Development Department - Building Division
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current
Subsidy % Suggested Fee
Suggested
Subsidy % Fee Δ
31 Deferred Submittal Plan Check is for any project component submitted for review after permit issuance such as shop drawings, trade plans & truss packages. Reviews are based on hourly rates or a combination of consultant cost and hourly rates with a minimum of 1 hr due at the time of application for revisions with increments thereafter charged at one quarter hour (0.25 hr) Deferred Submittals are considered separate plan review records and are subject to Technology and Permit Administration fees.
145.47 per hour or consultant
cost
1,2 Minimum 1 hr due at application $134.33 -8% $134.00 0% -$11 32 Commercial/Mullitfamily: Master Plan-Plan Check for any production type project where set design plans are
established for re-use within a current code cycle. Plan Review records are established to represent each unique Plan or Model that may contain a subset of options. Plan Review fees are determined by the Fairfield Square Foot Construction Cost Table using square footage, occupancy and construction type of the Plan or Model option with the largest square footage to calculate the percentage plan review rate
(Residential or Commercial/Multifamily) that appropriately captures the level of review required. Building Inspection fees are not assessed on Master Plan-Plan Check Records. Master Plans are considered separate plan review records and
subject to Technology and Permit Administration fees.
90% of Building Inspection Fee
*Inspection fee not assessed or
collected and is used for
calculation purposes only
NA NA 90% NA 0%
33 Residential Single Family: Master Plan-Plan Check for any production type project where set design plans are
established for re-use within a current code cycle. Plan Review records are established to represent each unique Plan or Model that may contain a subset of options. Plan Review fees are determined by the Fairfield Square Foot Construction Cost Table using square footage, occupancy and construction type of the Plan or Model option with the largest square footage to calculate the percentage plan review rate
(Residential or Commercial/Multifamily) that appropriately captures the level of review required. Building Inspection fees are not assessed on Master Plan-Plan Check Records. Master Plans are considered separate plan review records and
subject to Technology and Permit Administration fees.
75% of Building Inspection Fee
*Inspection fee not assessed or
collected and is used for
calculation purposes only
NA NA 75% NA 0%
34 Production Plan-Plan Check of previously approved Model Plan or Master Plan (must be under the same code cycle).
Master Plans and Model Plans require a full review of each plan or project type under a separate permit or plan review record-See Master Plan-Plan Check
22.5% of Building Plan Check Fee NA NA 22.5% NA 0%
17
Community Development Department - Building Division
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current
Subsidy % Suggested Fee
Suggested
Subsidy % Fee Δ
35 Expedited Plan Check- Expedited plan review requests are subject to the approval of the Chief Building Official (CBO) or designee. Approved requests will charged an additional 50% of plan review fees. Expedited plan reviews exceeding three (3) rounds, revisions and deferred submittals will be charged an additional 50% of the hourly rate or consultant cost. 50%
Increase to Plan Check
fee, per hour
1 or
expedited consultant
cost
2 NA NA 50% NA 0%
36 Temporary Use and Event Plan Check 145.47 per hour or consultant cost1,2 $134.33 -8% $134.00 0% -$11
37 AMMR Review (Alternate Materials and Methods Request) conducted by the Chief Building Official (CBO) or designee for alternate construction solutions that are not explicitly addressed by the adopted State and local regulations.
Reviews are based on hourly rates or a combination of
consultant cost and hourly rates with a minimum of 2hrs due at the time of application. AMMRs are considered plan
review records and subject to Technology and Permit
Administration fees.
371.94 Building Official Minimum 2 hrs $352.51 -6% $352.00 0% -$20 38 COMBINATION FLAT RATE PERMITS
39 40 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS R-3 and U Occupancies Only Includes Building and any applicable trades such as Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing 41 Ground-mount Solar or Thermal Solar System up to
15kW/kWth 346.52 Provides 45 mins, 2 site
visits
Per residential system. Total Solar
Permit Fee Limit $500.00 till 2034
per GC 66015
$328.70 -5% $328.00 0% -$19
42 Roof-mount Solar or Thermal Solar System up to 15kW/kWth 191.45 Provides 30 mins, 1 site visit
Per residential system. Total Solar
Permit Fee Limit $500.00 till 2034
per GC 66015
$157.76 -21% $157.00 0% -$34
43 Roof-mount or Ground-mount Solar or Thermal Solar System, each ADDITIONAL 1 kW/kWth above 15kW/kWth 10.50 per 1kW Per residential system. Total Solar
Increment Fee Limit $15.00 per kW
till 2034 per GC 66015
$10.52 0% $10.50 0% $0
44 COMMERCIAL PROJECTS Occupancies other than R-3 Includes Building and any applicable trades such as Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing 45 Ground-mount Solar or Thermal Solar System up to
50kW/50kWth 865.28 Provides 3.5 hours, 3 site
visits
Per system. Total Solar Permit Fee
Limit $1,000.00 till 2034 per GC
66015
$628.38 -38% $628.00 0% -$237
46 Roof-mount Solar or Thermal Solar System up to
25kW/25kWth 336.92 Provides 1.5 hours, 1 site
visit
Per system. Total Solar Permit Fee
Limit $1,000.00 till 2034 per GC
66015
$386.60 13% $386.00 0% $49
47 Roof-mount Solar or Thermal Solar System up to
50kW/50kWth 601.10 Provides 2.5 hours, 2 site
visits
Per system. Total Solar Permit Fee
Limit $1,000.00 till 2034 per GC
66015
$499.63 -20% $499.00 0% -$102
48 Solar or Thermal Solar System, each 1 kW/1kWth between 51 and 250kW/kWth 5.00 per 1kW
Per system. Total Solar Increment
Fee Limit $7.00 per kW till 2034
per GC 66015
$47.53 89% $5.00 89% $0
49 Solar or Thermal Solar System, each 1 kW/1kWth over
250kW/kWth 3.00 per 1kW
Per system. Total Solar Increment
Fee Limit $5.00 per kW till 2034
per GC 66015
$47.53 94% $3.00 94% $0
Flat rate permits represent the maximum subtotals of plan check and inspection costs. Flat rates are limited to the initial permit and do not apply to fees associated with AMMRS, Deferred Submittals, Revisions, Reinspections or Administrative fees for Appeals, Extensions, Reactivation or duplicate permit card/plans. Flat rate permits are subject to only State Fees and Technology Fees. 18
Community Development Department - Building Division
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current
Subsidy % Suggested Fee
Suggested
Subsidy % Fee Δ
50 COMBINATION BASE RATE PERMITS
51 52 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS R-3 and U Occupancies Only Includes Building and any applicable trades such as Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing 53 Kitchen Remodel, No Layout or Framing Changes 273.79 Limit 15 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $243.05 -13% $243.00 0% -$31 54 Kitchen Remodel WITH Layout and/or Framing Changes 428.87 Limit 30 mins, 3 site visits Minimum Cost $371.95 -15% $371.00 0% -$58 55 Bathroom Remodel up to 2 Baths, NO Layout or Framing Changes - Both bathrooms to be simultaneously inspected 392.50 Limit 15 mins, 3 site visits Minimum Cost $245.75 -60% $245.00 0% -$148 56 Bathroom Remodel up to 2 Baths WITH Layout and/or
Framing Changes - Over 2 bathrooms or bathroom inspected out of sync. Added to base rate parent charge
118.71 1 site visit Minimum Cost $100.47 -18% $100.00 0% -$19 57 Bathroom Remodel up to 2 Baths WITH Layout and/or
Framing Changes - Both bathrooms to be simultaneously
inspected
547.58 Limit 30 mins, 4 site visits Minimum Cost $480.09 -14% $480.00 0% -$68 58 Bathroom Remodel ADDITIONAL, WITH Layout and/or
Framing Changes - Over 2 bathrooms or bathroom inspected out of sync. Added to base rate parent charge
273.79 Limit 15 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $216.28 -27% $216.00 0% -$58 59 Kitchen and Bathroom Remodel, NO Layout or Framing
Changes - Covers 1 kitchen and up to 2 bathrooms
simulatneously inspected
392.50 Limit 15 mins, 3 site visits Minimum Cost $245.75 -60% $245.00 0% -$148 60 Kitchen and Bathroom Remodel WITH layout and/or Framing Changes - Covers 1 kitchen and up to 2 bathrooms
simulatneously inspected
547.58 Limit 30 mins, 4 site visits Minimum Cost $480.09 -14% $480.00 0% -$68 61 HCD/HUD Manufactured Housing on HCD Approved
Permanent Foundation - Per structure and includes
Manufactured Home set-up and connection
392.50 Limit 15 mins, 3 site visits Minimum Cost $419.48 6% $419.00 0% $27 62 HCD/HUD Manufactured Housing on Concrete Foundation - Per structure and includes Manufactured Home set-up and connection
620.31 Limit 1 hour, 4 site visits Minimum Cost $577.85 -7% $577.00 0% -$43 63 Above Ground Pool and/or Spa - Per residence 155.08 Limit 15 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $205.90 25% $205.00 0% $50 64 In-ground Pool and/or in-ground Spa - Per residence with pre- site inspection included 547.58 Limit 30 mins, 4 site visits Minimum Cost $364.27 -50% $364.00 0% -$184 65 In-ground Pool and/or in-ground Spa Remodel/Re-plaster - per residence 392.50 Limit 15 mins, 3 site visits Minimum Cost $314.04 -25% $314.00 0% -$79 66 Pre-engineered Patio Cover with Optional Electrical - Attached, detached and includes electrical, if desired.
Electrical scope to be declared and provided at time of application. Changes after issuance require revision.
255.60 Limit 7.5 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $263.81 3% $263.00 0% $7 67 Back-up Generator Installation - hardwired up to 49HP/49KVA - Per residence and includes transfer switch or interlock system
255.60 Limit 7.5 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $263.81 3% $263.00 0% $7 68 69 Up to 6 ft 100 Linear fee 392.50 Limit 30 mins, 3 site visits Minimum Cost $314.04 -25% $314.00 0% -$79 Base rates include estimates of minimum plan review time and inspection visits. Plan review time exceeding the estimated minimums will be charged hourly1,2 in one quarter hour (0.25 hr) increments. Base Rates include fractional inspection visit required to complete additional scope. Inspection requests that exceed the estimated minimums will be charged at the hourly rate1,2 for inspection staff. All fee increments and base fee combinations are to be applied at the discretion of the Chief Building Official (CBO). Base rate permits are subject to Permit Administration, Technology and State Fees.
Retaining Wall - Retaining walls not exempt form the provisions of the Building Code. Heights are measured from bottom of footing to top of wall.
Attached to structure or detached, to include no more than 2 retaining walls with/without drainage system and must be inspected simultaneously. Fee is determined using the greatest height of the wall section, as that directly correlates to plan review time. For sections that exceed the Section Limit or will be inspected out of sequence, use ADDITIONAL fee below. 19
Community Development Department - Building Division
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current
Subsidy % Suggested Fee
Suggested
Subsidy % Fee Δ
70 Over 6 ft to 8 ft 100 Linear fee 428.87 Limit 7.5 mins, 3 site visits Minimum Cost $422.18 -2% $422.00 0% -$7 71 Greater than 8 ft 100 Linear fee 501.60 Limit 1 hour, 3 site visits Minimum Cost $530.32 5% $530.00 0% $28 72 Retaining Wall, each ADDITIONAL separate wall or phased wall inspection (100 Linear feet) 59.36 0.5 site visit Minimum Cost $50.23 -18% $50.00 0% -$9 73 COMMERCIAL PROJECTS Occupancies other than R-3 Includes Building and any applicable trades such as Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing 74 Temporary Construction Trailer, NO Sales or Design, each - HCD Pre-manufactured trailer installation with utility
connection. Temporary power not included.
155.08 Limit 15 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $155.67 0% $155.00 0% $0 75 Temporary Trailer for Event, Sales or Design, each - HCD Pre- manufactured trailer installation with utility
connection.Temporary power not included.
465.23 Limit 45 mins, 3 site visits Minimum Cost $422.18 -10% $422.00 0% -$43 76 Parking Lot & Site Lighting Poles (up to 5) - Same lot or parcel 273.79 Limit 15 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $314.04 13% $314.00 0% $40 77 Parking Lot & Site Lighting Poles, each ADDITIONAL (Group of 5) - Same lot or pacel 59.36 0.5 site visit Minimum Cost $108.14 45% $108.00 0% $49 78 Sign, Monument or Pole (First sign) - Supplied from one branch circuit or non-illuminated 428.87 Limit 30 mins, 3 site visits Minimum Cost $314.04 -37% $314.00 0% -$115 79 Sign, Monument or Pole ADDITIONAL, each - Supplied from one branch circuit or non-illuminated 59.36 0.5 site visit Minimum Cost $108.14 45% $108.00 0% $49 80 In-ground Pool and/or in-ground Spa - Covers 1 pool or 1 spa or 1 pool and spa group with pre-site inspection 739.02 Limit 1 hour, 5 site visits Minimum Cost $551.96 -34% $551.00 0% -$188 81 In-ground Pool and/or in-ground Spa Remodel - Covers 1 pool or 1 spa or 1 pool and spa group with pre-site inspection 547.58 Limit 30 mins, 4 site visits Minimum Cost $438.93 -25% $438.00 0% -$110 82 Generator
83 up to 49HP/kVA 155.08 Limit 15 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $215.67 28% $215.00 0% $60 84 greater than 49HP/kVA 77.54
Limit 7.5 mins, 0.5 site
visit; $ amount plus the
base fee
Minimum Cost $84.07 8% $84.00 0% $6
85 Interior Demoliton (Non-structural Only) - Interior demolition associated with a Tenant Improvement permit under review 191.45 Limit 30 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $155.67 -23% $155.00 0% -$36 86 BUILDING BASE RATE PERMITS
87 88 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS R-3 and U Occupancies Only Building only scope. 89 Foundation Repair or Seismic Strengthening - Includes Residence and Detached Garage, to be inspected
simultaneously
273.79 Limit 15 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $205.90 -33% $205.00 0% -$69 90 Re-roof, NO Material or Framing Changes - Includes
Residence and Detached Garage, to be inspected
simultaneously
237.42 2 site visits Minimum Cost $195.52 -21% $195.00 0% -$42 91 Re-roof, WITH Material or Framing Changes - Includes Residence and Detached Garage, to be inspected
simultaneously
310.16 Limit 30 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $314.04 1% $314.00 0% $4 Base rates include estimates of minimum plan review time and inspection visits. Plan review time exceeding the estimated minimums will be charged hourly1,2 in one quarter hour (0.25 hr) increments. Base Rates include fractional inspection visit required to complete additional scope. Inspection requests that exceed the estimated minimums will be charged at the hourly rate1,2 for inspection staff. All fee increments and base fee combinations are to be applied at the discretion of the Chief Building Official (CBO). Base rate permits are subject to Permit Administration, Technology and State Fees
20
Community Development Department - Building Division
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current
Subsidy % Suggested Fee
Suggested
Subsidy % Fee Δ
92 Window Replacement NO material or framing Changes - Per structure, to be inspected simultaneously, retrofit types 155.08 Limit 15 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $145.29 -7% $145.00 0% -$10 93 Window Replacement WITH material or framing Changes - Per structure, to be inspected simultaneously 273.79 Limit 15 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $205.90 -33% $205.00 0% -$69 94 Siding Replacement WITH/WITHOUT material or framing
Changes - Includes Residence and Detached Garage, to be inspected simultaneously
392.50 Limit 15 mins, 3 site visits Minimum Cost $314.04 -25% $314.00 0% -$79 95 Fences - Fences not exempt from the provisions of the Building or Municipal Code 273.79 Limit 15 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $205.90 -33% $205.00 0% -$69 96 Patio Covers or Decks to 750SF - Ground level deck only - Attached and detached decks less than 30in above grade 374.31 Limit 7.5 mins, 3 site visits Minimum Cost $314.04 -19% $314.00 0% -$60 97 Patio Covers or Decks over 750SF - Ground level deck only - Attached and detached decks less than 30in above grade 392.50 Limit 15 mins, 3 site visits Minimum Cost $364.27 -8% $364.00 0% -$29 98 Covered OPTION for Decks to 750SF - Ground level deck only - Add on option for construction of covered decks 155.08 Limit 15 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $216.28 28% $216.00 0% $61 99 Decks to 750SF - Above ground level deck - Attached and detached decks GREATER than 30in above grade 392.50 Limit 15 mins, 3 site visits Minimum Cost $371.95 -6% $371.00 0% -$22 100 Decks over 750SF - Above ground level deck - Attached and detached decks GREATER than 30in above grade 428.87 Limit 30 mins, 3 site visits Minimum Cost $429.86 0% $429.00 0% $0 101 COMMERCIAL PROJECTS Occupancies other than R-3 Building only scope. 102
Re-roof, NO Material or Framing Changes - Per Structure without phasing of inspections. If phasing is needed,
additional inspections will be charged according to the site visit rate. 10,000 sf
392.50 Limit 15 mins, 3 site visits Minimum Cost $260.41 -51% $260.00 0% -$133 103 Addtnl Area Rate - per each addtnl 10,000sf 118.71 1 site visit Minimum Cost $110.24 -8% $110.00 0% -$9 104
Re-roof, WITH Material or Framing Changes - Per Structure without phasing of inspections. If phasing is needed,
additional inspections will be charged according to the site visit rate. 10,000 sf
465.23 Limit 15 mins, 3 site visits Minimum Cost $383.81 -21% $383.00 0% -$82 105 Addtnl Area Rate - per each addtnl 10,000sf 118.71 1 site visit Minimum Cost $168.14 29% $168.00 0% $49 106 Re-roof, Site Visit, each ADDITIONAL - Per Structure requiring phasing of re-roof inspections 121.13 Limit 1 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $110.24 -10% $110.00 0% -$11 107 ELECTRICAL FLAT RATE PERMITS
108
109 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS R-3 and U Occupancies Only Electrical only scope. 110 Electrical Meter/Subpanel Replacement - Meter or subpanel up to 400A, must be same location. 118.71 1 site visit $97.76 -21% $97.00 1% -$22 111 Electrical Meter Reconnection Inspection - One meter not exceeding 400A 118.71 1 site visit $97.76 -21% $97.00 1% -$22 112 COMMERCIAL PROJECTS Occupancies other than R-3 Electrical only scope. 113 Electrical Meter/Subpanel Replacement - Meter or subpanel up to 1000A, must be same location. 237.42 2 site visits $212.88 -12% $212.00 0% -$25 114 Electrical Meter Reconnection Inspection - One meter not exceeding 1000A 118.71 1 site visit $157.76 25% $157.00 0% $38 115 Temporary Generator - Rate per generator 118.71 1 site visit $113.03 -5% $113.00 0% -$6 116 ELECTRICAL BASE RATE PERMITS
Flat rate permits represent the maximum subtotals of plan check and inspection costs. Flat rates are limited to the initial permit and do not apply to fees associated with AMMRS, Deferred Submittals, Revisions, Reinspections or Administrative fees for Appeals, Extensions, Reactivation or duplicate permit card/plans. Flat rate permits are subject to only State Fees and Technology Fees. 21
Community Development Department - Building Division
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current
Subsidy % Suggested Fee
Suggested
Subsidy % Fee Δ
117
118 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS R-3 and U Occupancies Only Electrical only scope. 119 Electrical Meter/Subpanel New and/or Relocation - Meter or subpanel up to 400A 273.79 Limit 15 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $205.90 -33% $205.00 0% -$69 120 Electrical System Rewire -Per residence 273.79 Limit 15 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $205.90 -33% $205.00 0% -$69 121 Energy Storage System - Battery or Fuel Cell - up to 49kWh 115.08 Limit 15 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $155.67 26% $155.00 0% $40 122 Energy Storage System - Battery or Fuel Cell - greater than 49kWh - rate per each 50kWh 77.54 Limit 7.5 mins, 0.5 site visit Minimum Cost $108.14 28% $108.00 0% $30
123
Electrical Apparatus, Transformer or Equipment -For
equipment such as, electric pumps, welding equipment or compressors and transfer switches/outlets for temporary generators - up to 49HP/kVA
155.08 Limit 15 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $155.67 0% $155.00 0% $0 124
Electrical Apparatus, Transformer or Equipment -For
equipment such as, electric pumps, welding equipment or compressors and transfer switches/outlets for temporary generators - greater than 49HP/kVA - rate for each 50HP/kVA
77.54 Limit 7.5 mins, 0.5 site
visit Minimum Cost $213.58 64% $213.00 0% $135
125 Electric Vehicle Charger or outlet 155.08 Limit 15 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $155.67 0% $155.00 0% $0 126 Temporary Power - Per temporary serivce request 118.71 1 site visit Minimum Cost $155.67 24% $155.00 0% $36 127 Electrical, Miscellaneous - For electrical types other than listed, hourly rates for service apply 136.89 Limit 7.5 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $155.67 12% $155.00 0% $18 128 COMMERCIAL PROJECTS Occupancies other than R-3 Electrical only scope. 129 Electrical Meter/Subpanel New and/or Relocation - Meter or subpanel up to 1000A 310.16 Limit 30 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $215.67 -44% $215.00 0% -$95 130 Electrical Meter/Subpanel New, Upgrade or Relocation, each ADDITIONAL - Per additional meter or subpanel up to 1000A 59.36 0.5 site visits Minimum Cost $55.12 -8% $55.00 0% -$4 131 Energy Storage System - Battery or Fuel Cell - up to 49kWh 310.16 Limit 30 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $273.58 -13% $273.00 0% -$37 132 Energy Storage System - Battery or Fuel Cell - greater than 49kWh - rate per each 50kWh 95.73 Limit 15 mins, 0.5 site visit Minimum Cost $113.03 15% $113.00 0% $17 133
Electrical Apparatus, Transformer or Equipment -For
equipment such as, electric pumps, welding equipment or compressors and transfer switches/outlets for temporary generators - up to 49HP/kVA
191.45 Limit 30 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $215.67 11% $215.00 0% $24 134
Electrical Apparatus, Transformer or Equipment -For
equipment such as, electric pumps, welding equipment or compressors and transfer switches/outlets for temporary generators - greater than 49HP/kVA - rate for each 50HP/kVA
95.73 Limit 15 mins, 0.5 site visit Minimum Cost $160.55 40% $160.00 0% $64 135 Temporary Power - Per temporary serivce request 118.71 1 site visit Minimum Cost $215.67 45% $215.00 0% $96 136 Electrical, Miscellaneous - For electrical types other than listed, hourly rates for service apply 136.89 Limit 7.5 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $160.55 15% $160.00 0% $23 137 MECHANICAL FLAT RATE PERMITS
Base rates include estimates of minimum plan review time and inspection visits. Plan review time exceeding the estimated minimums will be charged hourly1,2 in one quarter hour (0.25 hr) increments. Base Rates include fractional inspection visit required to complete additional scope. Inspection requests that exceed the estimated minimums will be charged at the hourly rate1,2 for inspection staff. All fee increments and base fee combinations are to be applied at the discretion of the Chief Building Official (CBO). Base rate permits are subject to Permit Administration, Technology and State Fees
22
Community Development Department - Building Division
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current
Subsidy % Suggested Fee
Suggested
Subsidy % Fee Δ
138
139 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS R-3 and U Occupancies Only Mechanical only scope. 140 HVAC Replacement, each - Per Packaged Unit or Split Unit Furnace AND Condenser. Must be same location or type. 136.89 Limit 7.5 mins, 1 site visit $97.76 -40% $97.00 1% -$40 141
Furnace or Condenser, Mini-split or Component
Replacement, each - Per component. Must be same location or type.
136.89 Limit 7.5 mins, 1 site visit $97.76 -40% $97.00 1% -$40 142 MECHANICAL BASE RATE PERMITS
143
144 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS R-3 and U Occupancies Only Mechanical only scope. 145 Furnace, Condenser, Mini-split or Component New, Upgrade or Relocation - per residence or unit 155.08 Limit 15 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $263.81 41% $263.00 0% $108 146
Furnace, Condenser, Mini-split or Component New, Upgrade or Relocation, each ADDITIONAL - Additional fee add-on for Roof top packaged units or additional components
77.54 Limit 7.5 mins, 0.5 site
visit Minimum Cost $50.23 -54% $50.00 0% -$28
147 Mini-split Install, per system - Rate dependent upon entire system being inspected at same time 136.89 Limit 7.5 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $263.81 48% $263.00 0% $126 148 HVAC system Install with Ducting, per residence or unit 273.79 Limit 15 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $263.81 -4% $263.00 0% -$11 149 HVAC Duct Replacement/Extension, per residence or unit 255.60 Limit 7.5 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $263.81 3% $263.00 0% $7 150
Fireplace, Fireplace Insert or Stove, each - Fuel burning heating units must be EPA Certified per Air Quality
Management District
136.89 Limit 7.5 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $263.81 48% $263.00 0% $126 151
Mechanical, Miscellaneous - For mechanical types other than listed, hourly rates for service apply 136.89 Limit 7.5 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $155.67 12% $155.00 0% $18 152 COMMERCIAL PROJECTS Occupancies other than R-3 Mechanical only scope. 153 Air Handling System, New or Replacement, first - Limited to one system per address 155.08 Limit 15 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $273.58 43% $273.00 0% $118 154 Air Handling System, each ADDITIONAL - Limited to one address for each additional system 59.36 0.5 site visits Minimum Cost $113.03 47% $113.00 0% $54 155
Evaporative Cooler or Heat Pump, New or Replacement, first - Limited to one address 136.89 Limit 7.5 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $273.58 50% $273.00 0% $136 156
Evaporative Cooler or Heat Pump, New or Replacement. each ADDITIONAL - Limited to one address for each additional element
59.36 0.5 site visits Minimum Cost $113.03 47% $113.00 0% $54 157 Furnace, ductwork, ventillation systems, appliances, first - Limited to one address 155.08 Limit 15 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $273.58 43% $273.00 0% $118 158
Furnace, ductwork, ventillation systems, appliances, each ADDITIONAL - Limited to one address for each additional element
59.36 0.5 site visits Minimum Cost $113.03 47% $113.00 0% $54 159 Boiler Install or Replacement, first - Limited to one address 273.79 Limit 15 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $328.70 17% $328.00 0% $54 Flat rate permits represent the maximum subtotals of plan check and inspection costs. Flat rates are limited to the initial permit and do not apply to fees associated with AMMRS, Deferred Submittals, Revisions, Reinspections or Administrative fees for Appeals, Extensions, Reactivation or duplicate permit card/plans. Flat rate permits are subject to only State Fees and Technology Fees.
Base rates include estimates of minimum plan review time and inspection visits. Plan review time exceeding the estimated minimums will be charged hourly1,2 in one quarter hour (0.25 hr) increments. Base Rates include fractional inspection visit required to complete additional scope. Inspection requests that exceed the estimated minimums will be charged at the hourly rate1,2 for inspection staff. All fee increments and base fee combinations are to be applied at the discretion of the Chief Building Official (CBO). Base rate permits are subject to Permit Administration, Technology and State Fees
23
Community Development Department - Building Division
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current
Subsidy % Suggested Fee
Suggested
Subsidy % Fee Δ
160 Boiler Install or Replacement, each ADDITIONAL - Limited to one address. Add-on for slave systems and additional units 59.36 0.5 site visits Minimum Cost $113.03 47% $113.00 0% $54 161 Kitchen Hood, New or Replacement, first - Fire Department Review requried 310.16 Limit 30 mins, 2 site visits
min 4 visits Minimum Cost $457.45 32% $457.00 0% $147
162 Kitchen Hood, each ADDITIONAL - Fire Department Review requried 59.36 0.5 site visits Minimum Cost $122.28 51% $122.00 0% $63 163
Mechanical, Miscellaneous - For mechanical types other than listed, hourly rates for service apply 136.89 Limit 7.5 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $180.19 24% $180.00 0% $43 164 PLUMBING FLAT RATE PERMITS
165
166 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS R-3 and U Occupancies Only Plumbing only scope. 167 Water Heater Replacement - Must have same location, type and Energy Source (gas, solar or elec) 118.71 1 site visit $97.76 -21% $97.00 1% -$22 168 Fixture Replacement, covers two plumbing fixtures - Per residence 118.71 1 site visit $97.76 -21% $97.00 1% -$22 169 Water Service or Sewerline Replacement or Repair - Per residence 118.71 1 site visit $97.76 -21% $97.00 1% -$22 170
Water Service or Sewerline Replacement or Repair, each
ADDITIONAL - Cost per additional line/service. Fee added for replacement/repair of sewerline and water service
59.36 0.5 site visit $50.23 -18% $50.00 0% -$9
171 COMMERCIAL PROJECTS Occupancies other than R-3 Plumbing only scope. 172 Water Heater Replacement, up to 100gal, each - Must have same location, type and Energy Source (gas, solar or elec) 136.89 Limit 7.5 mins, 1 site visit $102.65 -33% $102.00 1% -$35 173
Water Heater Replacement, up to 100gal, each ADDITIONAL - Must have same location, type and Energy Source (gas, solar or elec)
59.36 0.5 site visit $55.12 -8% $55.00 0% -$4
174 PLUMBING BASE RATE PERMITS
175
176 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS R-3 and U Occupancies Only Plumbing only scope. 177 Water Heater New, Relocated or Energy Source Change - Location change, energy source change or new installation 155.08 Limit 15 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $205.90 25% $205.00 0% $50 178 Water Distribution System Re-pipe - per residence 273.79 Limit 15 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $205.90 -33% $205.00 0% -$69 179 Water Service or Sewerline New or Relocation - Per residence 136.89 Limit 7.5 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $147.99 8% $147.00 1% $10 180 Water Service or Sewerline New or Relocation, each
ADDITIONAL - Cost per additional line/service. 59.36 0.5 site visit Minimum Cost $50.23 -18% $50.00 0% -$9 181 Water Distribution System Re-pipe - Cost per residence 273.79 Limit 15 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $205.90 -33% $205.00 0% -$69 182
Gas Distribution System New or Re-pipe, group of 10 - Covers up to 10 outlets 255.60 Limit 7.5 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $205.90 -24% $205.00 0% -$51 183
Gas Distribution System New or Re-pipe, group of 10
ADDITIONAL - Covers up to 10 outlets in addition to the first 10 outlets
77.54 Limit 7.5 mins, 0.5 site
visit Minimum Cost $108.14 28% $108.00 0% $30
Flat rate permits represent the maximum subtotals of plan check and inspection costs. Flat rates are limited to the initial permit and do not apply to fees associated with AMMRS, Deferred Submittals, Revisions, Reinspections or Administrative fees for Appeals, Extensions, Reactivation or duplicate permit card/plans. Flat rate permits are subject to only State Fees and Technology Fees.
Base rates include estimates of minimum plan review time and inspection visits. Plan review time exceeding the estimated minimums will be charged hourly1,2 in one quarter hour (0.25 hr) increments. Base Rates include fractional inspection visit required to complete additional scope. Inspection requests that exceed the estimated minimums will be charged at the hourly rate1,2 for inspection staff. All fee increments and base fee combinations are to be applied at the discretion of the Chief Building Official (CBO). Base rate permits are subject to Permit Administration, Technology and State Fees
24
Community Development Department - Building Division
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current
Subsidy % Suggested Fee
Suggested
Subsidy % Fee Δ
184 Plumbing, Miscellaneous - For plumbing types other than listed, hourly rates for service apply 136.89 Limit 7.5 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $108.14 -27% $108.00 0% -$29 185 COMMERCIAL PROJECTS Occupancies other than R-3 Plumbing only scope. 186 Water Heater New, Upgrade or Relocation up to 100gal, each 155.08 Limit 15 mins, 2 site visit Minimum Cost $215.67 28% $215.00 0% $60 187
Water Heater New, Upgrade or Relocation up to 100gal, each ADDITIONAL 77.54 Limit 7.5 mins, 0.5 site
visit Minimum Cost
$113.03 $0.31 $113.00 0% $35
188 Fats, Oil or Grease (FOG) Interceptors or Other Pre-treatment Clarifier, first 255.60 Limit 7.5 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $328.70 22% $328.00 0% $72 189 Fats, Oil or Grease (FOG) Interceptors or Other Pre-treatment Clarifier, each ADDITIONAL 59.36 0.5 site visit Minimum Cost $113.03 47% $113.00 0% $54 190 Drain/Waste/Vent piping, Water or Gas Piping, Fixtures and Appliances, first 310.16 Limit 30 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $273.58 -13% $273.00 0% -$37 191 Drain/Waste/Vent piping, Water or Gas Piping, Fixtures and Appliances, each ADDITIONAL 59.36 0.5 site visit Minimum Cost $113.03 47% $113.00 0% $54 192 Stormwater Piping Systems - Piping less than 6 inches - rate for first 500 LF. if phased, addition inspection fee applies 155.08 Limit 15 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $169.81 9% $169.00 0% $14 193 Stormwater Piping Systems - Piping no greater than 4 diameter inches - up to 4in diameter - for each addtnl 300 LF 77.54 Limit 7.5 mins, 0.5 site visit Minimum Cost $122.28 37% $122.00 0% $44
194
Stormwater Piping Systems - Piping 6 diameter inches and GREATER - rate for first 500 LF. If phased, additional
inspection fees apply
310.16 Limit 30 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $292.09 -6% $292.00 0% -$18 195 Stormwater Piping Systems - Piping 6 diameter inches and GREATER - rate for each addtnl 300 LF 95.73 Limit 15 mins, 0.5 site visit Minimum Cost $122.28 22% $122.00 0% $26 196 Stormwater Treatment Systems, each system - Systems comprising of retention or retardation basins 310.16 Limit 30 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost $347.21 11% $347.00 0% $37 197
Stormwater Piping or Treatment Systems, each ADDITIONAL - Systems comprising of retention or retardation basins 59.36 0.5 site visit Minimum Cost $122.28 51% $122.00 0% $63 198 Plumbing, Miscellaneous - For plumbing types other than listed, hourly rates for service apply 136.89 Limit 7.5 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost $169.81 19% $169.00 0% $32 199 DEMOLITION PERMITS - Structure Removal
200
201 RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS R-3 and U Occupancies Only
202 Demolition up to 3 Structures on the same lot - Demolished at the same time and DO NOT require shoring 118.71 1 site visit Minimum Cost $97.76 -21% $97.00 1% -$22 203
Demolition ADDITIONAL Structure on the same lot or out of sequence - Over 3 structures or per structure demolished out of sequence
59.36 0.5 site visit Minimum Cost $50.23 -18% $50.00 0% -$9 204
Demolition of In-ground Pool and/or Spa-In-place
abandonment with uncertified fill - Requires plan review of notice of un-certified fill and accurate representation of exclusion zone exhibit for recordation on property deed. 310.16 Limit 30 mins, 2 site visits Minimum Cost
$253.43 -22% $253.00 0% -$57
Base rates include estimates of minimum plan review time and inspection visits and do not include the additional applicable Administrative Fees. Plan review time exceeding the estimated minimums will be charged hourly1,2 in one quarter hour (0.25 hr) increments. Base Rates include fractional inspection visit required to complete additional scope. Inspection requests that exceed the estimated minimums will be charged at the hourly rate1,2 for inspection staff. All fee increments and base fee combinations are to be applied at the discretion of the Chief Building Official (CBO). NOT SUBJECT TO
STATE FEES
25
Community Development Department - Building Division
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current
Subsidy % Suggested Fee
Suggested
Subsidy % Fee Δ
205 Demolition of In-ground Pool and/or Spa via complete removal with certified fill 237.42 2 site visits Minimum Cost $147.99 -60% $147.00 1% -$90 206 COMMERCIAL PROJECTS Occupancies other than R-3
207
Commercial Demolition up to 3 Structures on the same lot - Demolished at the same time, no shoring or high-rise
structures
191.45 Limit 30 mins, 1 site visit Minimum Cost
$226.05 15% $226.00 0% $35
208
Commercial Demolition, each ADDITIONAL - Over 3 structures or per structure out of sequence, no shoring or high-rise structures
59.36 0.5 site visit Minimum Cost $113.03 47% $113.00 0% $54 209
Abandonment In-Place of In-ground Pool and/or Spa with
uncertified fill -Requires plan review of notice of un-certified fill for accurate representation of build exclusion zone exhibit for recordation on property deed.
428.87 Limit 30 mins, 3 site visits Minimum Cost $381.63 -12% $381.00 0% -$48 210 Demolition of In-ground Pool and/or Spa via complete 356.13 3 site visits Minimum Cost $273.49 -30% $273.00 0% -$83 211 ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECH FEES
212
213 ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
214
Permit Technician Issuance Fee is collected on all permits and plan check records to reasonably cover the cost of
Administrative support provided by the Permit Technicians for the application, review, issuance, inspection coordination and records maintenance required for Building Division
operation. This fee is not applicable to FLAT RATE permit types.
52.50 Limit 30 mins Minimum Cost $47.53 -10% $47.00 1% -$6 215
216 Plan Review Extension Request 59.61 $91.59 35% $91.00 1% $31 217 Issued Permit Extension Request 72.74 $91.59 21% $91.00 1% $18 218
Expired Permit Reactivation is limited to a one-time ninety (90) day period of reactivation subject to the approval of the Chief Building Offical for projects which have received ALL required inspections EXCEPT a Final Inspection. Fairfield Municipal Code Section 5.1.4.3: 105.5 amending the 2019 California Building Code Section 105 as enacted by Ordinance 2019-08. Inspections required to FINAL will be charged at hourly rate per Site Visit required.
98.99 $91.59 -8% $91.00 1% -$8
219
Appeal Filing Fee is non-refundable fee collected in order to appeal the decisions of the Chief Building Official to the Building Appeals Board as provided in Fairfield Municipal Code Section 5.1.4.7 creating section 105.5 amending the 2019 California Building Code Section 105 as enacted by Ordinance 2019-08.
371.94 $984.89 62% $984.00 0% $612
220 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT ARCHIVE FEES
Administrative Extensions are limited to two (2) requests for an extension period of maximum 1-year each for ACTIVE Plan Review records and Issued Building Permits. Requests are subject to the approval of the Chief Building Offical with the following considerations: effective code cycle, extent of progress and amount of completeness. Fairfield Municipal Code Section 5.1.4.3:105.3.1 and 105.5 amending the 2019 California Building Code Section 105 as enacted by Ordinance 2019-08.
Base rates include estimates of minimum administrative time required to complete the below listed functions. Administrative time exceeding the estimated minimums will be charged hourly1,2 in one quarter hour (0.25 hr) increments. All Administrative fees are to be applied at the discretion of the Chief Building Official (CBO).
26
Community Development Department - Building Division
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current
Subsidy % Suggested Fee
Suggested
Subsidy % Fee Δ
221
222 up to 11x17in 1.00 per page NA NA $1.00 NA $0
223 greater than 11x17in 2.00 per page NA NA $2.00 NA $0 224 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT COPY FEES
225
Duplicate Permit Card Fee is collected in cases where
inspections have been conducted on a project and the permit inspection card has been lost. Flat rate covers the
administrative time to process the request and transcribe inspection results. Costs associated with printing the permit card to be collected separately.
26.25 $23.76 -10% $23.00 3% -$3
226
Duplicate Copy of Issued Plan Fee is collected for projects in which the OFFICIAL Field Copy of plans require re-issuance.
The Administrative fee covers the Permit Technician time in researching, compiling, coordinating and placing official stamps and notes to re-create the OFFICIAL Field Copy of plans. Costs associated with printing the construction
documents to be collected separately.
52.50 $47.53 -10% $47.00 1% -$6
227
228 8.5x11 0.10 per page or City cost
whichever is greater
NA NA $0.10 NA $0
229 up to 11x17in 0.25 per page or City cost
whichever is greater
NA NA $0.25 NA $0
230 greater than 11x17in 5.00 per page or City cost
whichever is greater
NA NA $5.00 NA $0
231 SPECIAL FUND FEES
232
Technology Fee is to provide the necessary revenue needed to implement, maintain and upgrade citywide systems
needed for operation and customer service, as provided for in Resolution 2009-54. Fee is applicable to Plan Check and Inspection fees for ALL permit types to include Building, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing, Demolition and Grading Permits.
9.20%
of the sum of Inspection
and Plan Check fees,
including addtnl
Inspection or Plan Check
Service fees
9.6% 4% 9.6% 0% 0.4%
233 REFUNDS
234
Refund Requests are to provide the avenue for permit
applicants who no longer wish to pursue their permits a way to recover a portion of fees paid. Per Division Refund Policy, only those fees paid for services not yet rendered, either administration, plan review or inspection, are elligible for a partial refund. State fees collected can only be refunded prior to permit ISSUANCE at a rate of 100%, as after issuance fees are promptly transferred to the state agencies. Requests for Refund are subject to the APPROVAL of the Chief Building Official.
80%
of the sum of elligible
Inspection and Plan Check
fees, including
addtnl Inspection or Plan
Check Service fees
NA NA 80% NA $0
Plan Retention Fee is collected to cover the adminstrative time and cost to digitally convert hardcopies of permit documentation for the purposes of plan review, issuance and archiving. Fee not assessed on electronic construction document submissions Copy Fee is collected to cover the City costs associated with printing or the cost to the City for a printing service to produce the requested hardcopy, whichever is greater. Printing service fee invoices shall be kept with the permit record and a copy provided to the applicant. Fee is not collected on pdf copy requests. Administrative time for duplicate offical copies is collected separately. 27
Community Development Department - Building Division
# Description Current Fee/Charge Unit Notes Full Cost
Current
Subsidy % Suggested Fee
Suggested
Subsidy % Fee Δ
235 HOURLY RATES FOR STAFF
236 Permit Technician 104.99 per hour1 $95.06 -10% $95.00 0% -$10 237 Senior Permit Technician 110.13 per hour1 $104.92 -5% $104.00 1% -$6 238 Plan Review/Associate Civil Engineer 145.47 per hour1 $134.33 -8% $134.00 0% -$11 239 Permit Center Supervisor 132.24 per hour1 $124.74 -6% $124.00 1% -$8 240 Building Inspector 118.71 per hour1 $100.47 -18% $100.00 0% -$19 241 Senior Building Inspector 129.70 per hour1 $104.92 -24% $104.00 1% -$26 242 Building Inspector Supervisor 141.26 per hour1 $134.33 -5% $134.00 0% -$7 243 Chief Building Official 185.97 per hour1 $176.26 -6% $176.00 0% -$10 244 STATE OF CALIFORNIA FEES
245
STATE IMPOSED FEES: Fees Not Elligible for Refund After Permit Issuance: State Fees not assessed on Demolition
Permits involving structure removal
246
247 Residential 3-stories or less $0.00013 x Valuation min fee $0.50 NA NA $0.00013 x Valuation NA $0 248 Non-residential and Residential 4-stories or more $0.00028 x Valuation min fee $0.50 NA NA $0.00028 x Valuation NA $0 249
Building Standards Administration Special Revolving Fund.
This State-mandated fee arises from the passing of Sentate Bill 1473 (eff Jan 1, 2009) that only applies to Building Permits (trade only permits for Mechanical, Electrical or Plumbing are excluded) and creates the Building Standards Administration Special Revolving Fund for the maintenance and development of State Building programs. This fee is remitted quarterly to the California Building Standards Commision with 10% of this fee collected retained by the City for administrative costs as provided in SB1473. Fee not subject to Consumer Price Index Increase.
1.00 per $25,000 of valuation NA NA $1.00 NA $0
Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP), collected on all permits which affect the seismic reaction of a building through either load changes, wall relocation, replacement or removal and changes in openings. This fee is to fund the study and research of seismic activity through the purchase, installation and monitoring of strong-motion instruments located throughout the state that arose from the passing of Senate Bill 809 (SB-809) and codified as California Public Resources Chapter 8, Sections 2700-2709.1. This fee is remitted to the California Geological Survey with 5% of this fee collected retained by the City for administrative costs as provided in SB-809. Fee not subject to Consumer Price Index Increase. 28
Minimum
Value Maximum Value
Current Base
Rate
Suggested Base
Rate
Current
Plus $$
Suggested
Plus $$ For every
0 500 118.71 139.69 0.00 0.00 0.00
501 2,000 118.71 139.69 3.60 4.24 100.00
2,001 25,000 172.72 203.25 16.54 19.46 1,000.00
25,001 50,000 553.12 650.88 11.93 14.04 1,000.00
50,001 100,000 851.42 1,001.91 8.27 9.73 1,000.00
100,001 500,000 1,264.90 1,488.47 6.62 7.79 1,000.00
500,001 1,000,000 3,911.27 4,602.58 5.61 6.60 1,000.00
1,000,001 9,999,999,999 6,717.12 7,904.37 3.72 4.38 1,000.00 Percent Change = 17.7%
Cost Recovery Level = 100%
Building Valuation Table
Current (All New Construction)
29
27368 Via Industria, Suite 200
Temecula, California 92590-4856
800.755.6864 | Fax: 888.326.6864
951.587.3500 | Fax: 951.587.3510
www.willdan.com