Agenda Item No: O.4
COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO AGENDA REPORT
DATE: April 3, 2026
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Fairfield Rental Property Owners & Property Managers
SUBJECT: Rental Housing Safety Program
Contact: Karl Dumas, (707) 567-5758 [email protected]
RECOMMENDED ACTION / REQUEST
This Agenda item should be continued or canceled until and unless staff provides a data-driven justification for a city-wide Rental Housing Safety Program (RHSP) that encompasses both single- family and multifamily units. The city needs to explore community-driven alternative solutions that address specific issues rather than the RHSP fee-based single mandate proposed.
STATEMENT OF ISSUE
We strongly oppose the proposed Rental Housing Safety Program because it is not based on documented need. The city has failed to provide data linking aging rental housing to actual health and safety violations. A city-wide mandate is premature without a clear breakdown of the where, how often and the type of enforcement actions currently occurring on rental properties, along with a comparison of incidents for multifamily vs single family, and rental vs owner occupied units.
DISCUSSION
RENTAL HOUSING PROGRAM CONCERNS:
• No factual data provided to support claim that unsafe rental housing is a significant, widespread problem in Fairfield.
• Does not address issues of tenants caused health and safety hazards in rental housing. • Erroneously states Fairfield’s housing stock has 50% rental units. • Incorrectly equates chronological age of housing with health and safety hazards. • Void of any impact studies performed related to adverse effects on affordable housing. • Underestimates cost and liability on City.
• Creates city-wide blanket program instead of targeted focus on geographic hot spots. • Does not offer any alternative options and solutions. • Assembly Bill (AB) 548 is inaccurately used to justify citywide inspection program including single-family rental homes.
• Proposes to hire four code enforcement officers and one administrative staff member but lacks specific Ordinance language ensuring these roles remain dedicated to the RHSP.
Owners might fund general code enforcement instead of RHSP specific services. • No coordination with County E nvironmental H ealth program that inspects for mold & vermin. • Void of community data showing tenant support for program’s invasive nature. • Fails to set minimum standards for staff training and certifications to ensure full compliance with California Health and Safety code.
• Fails to identify specific scope of inspection and provide the resulting data on projected findings, costs and citywide impact.
• Lists several other cities with a rental housing program but does not give any data on their success or failures in reducing incidences of substandard housing. • Does not provide any targeted metrics or procedures for annual evaluation of the program. • Does not demonstrate an interdepartmental coordinated program approaches for creative techniques to alleviate substandard housing. (i.e., no program participation from Housing Services, or Community Development).
• Lacks a coordinated active community approach to code enforcement.
ANALYSIS
City of Fairfield Code Enforcement Division’s proposal for rental property owners to annually fund a city-wide Rental Housing Safety Program lacks critical data that undermines it necessity. RHSP information identifies 16,192 rental units exist in the city, but provides no data on historical code enforcement actions, their outcomes, or their specific locations, or geographic hot spots. Crucially, neither the outreach meeting nor the City Council report has presented evidence of a specific health and safety problem that justifies a city-wide mandate.
1. Rental Housing Safety Program Data: While the Staff Report asserts that Fairfield faces ongoing health, safety, and habitability concerns, it fails to provide the empirical data necessary to support such claims. The report lacks critical metrics, including the percentage of rental stock classified as substandard, the annual volume of rental-specific complaints, the frequency of repeat violations at same address, and the specific nature of these issues.
Without this foundational data, the city has not demonstrated that substandard rental housing is a significant or systemic problem in Fairfield.
2. Proposed RHSP Adversely Affects Affordable Housing: Increases Landlord costs via added fees, registration fee, inspection fee, admin and property correction requirements. An apartment building with 100 units would pay $19,500 annually, just in initial inspection fees.
Reduces affordable housing stock as Landlords will have to recover accumulating expenses in the form of increased rent. Reduces overall rental housing stock as Landlords sell off or exchange single family rentals for property in areas with less admin and overhead cost.
3. Underestimates Cost and Liability Burden on City: By certifying rental housing safety, the city assumes significant legal liability for potential future damages. Code enforcement officers will need new and ongoing training and certifications. Failure to properly train staff could lead to missed hazards and a false sense of security for tenants. Additionally, the program creates an unfunded administration burden on the Building Division, which will inevitably delay turnaround times for all city building inspections.
4. AB548: The City’s attempt to link the proposed mandate to California Assembly Bill (AB) 548 is a significant overreach. AB548 is strictly limited to multifamily housing and does not apply to single-family rentals. The state law is trigger-based, with additional inspections only occurring after an unsafe condition is reported in a specific unit. The proposed RHSP is an invasive, city-wide program that exceeds the scope of state law without providing the data necessary to justify such a departure from established state standards.
5. Miscalculation of Rental Inventory: US Census data reports 41,854 total dwelling units in Fairfield with an approximate 40% rental occupancy rate; significantly lower than the
50% figure cited in the RHSP Findings (Housing Age and Condition). Fairfield water billing data identified 3,289 out of town rental owners. County record information identifies 1,864 rental property owners have a Fairfield mailing address. The Staff Report provides no data on the percentage of rental housing units under professional management that already undergo rigorous annual safety and habitability inspections.
6. RHSP Registration and Certification Fiscal Impact: All R esidential R ental Unit owners are required to pay an annual Registration Fee (amount not given in report) and annual Inspection Fees ($195 per unit). Actual inspections would only occur every three years, however inspection fees must be paid every year. The Staff Report Fiscal Impact shows $1,579,871 in inspection fee revenue based on 8,681 total units. This projection does not account for the reminder of the total 16,192 rental units that are required to pay the $195 inspection fee. A ctual potential revenue amount for 16,192 rental units is:
15,156 units X $195 (inspection fees) = $2,955,420
1,036 (low-income units) X $85 = $ 88,060
Total Potential Fee-Based Inspection Revenue $3,043,480
7. Health & Safety Code Inspection Checklist: The proposal lacks a sample Health & Safety Code Inspection Checklist, leaving property owners without a clear standard for compliance or self-certification. Because Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 requires specialized technical knowledge, the absence of a defined inspection scope makes it impossible to accurately project RHSP operational costs and city resource needs.
Specifically, the city has failed to account for the secondary fiscal impact of inspections that may trigger the involvement of building inspectors or third-party specialists.
8. Housing Age and Condition: Staff Report relies on a broad generalization that the 70% of Fairfield’s housing built before 1999 is inherently unsafe. This claim ignores critical data from the Building Division, which has issued over 250 remodel and alteration permits annually for years. By failing to account for this continuous reinvestment which has revitalized both multifamily and single-family stocks, the city’s data fails to show that age correlates with poor condition. In fact, since 2008 housing downtown, revival of older stock is a primary driver of Fairfield’s rising rent levels, suggesting high demand and well- maintained properties rather than neglect.
PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Require an Evidence-Based Analysis: Before proceeding with any mandate, the city should first validate the need with hard data. City staff must provide comprehensive data for the period of at least 2023-2025, including:
1. Enforcement Metrics: Total complaints regarding unsafe rental housing, staff hours dedicated to these issues, and success rates of existing corrective measures.
2. Targeted Demographics: A precise count of “aged” units requiring inspection and data on units currently under professional management.
3. Existing Compliance: Documentation of units already performing annual safety inspections by professional managers or self-managed landlords.
4. Hazard Causation: Data distinguishing between structural deficiencies and tenant-created hazards.
Establish a Collaborative Working Group: Create a stakeholder task force comprising local landlords, property managers, Code Enforcement, Housing Services and the Building Department.
This group will use the data collected to develop targeted, community-driven solutions that ensure Fairfield’s rental housing remains both safe and affordable.