Fairfield City Council
April 7, 2026

P3 S1 P1 M1 P2M2
P2 M2 P1 S1 P3
P2 S1M2 P1
F:\Shared\Projects\Active Projects\Wood Rodgers Inc 23466  Fairfield\07 Design Documents\7.1 Architect Drawings Current\7.1.3 Revit\Suisun Valley Elevations.rvt 9/19/2024 3:41:23 PM 1/8" = 1'-0"FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA

SUISUN VALLEY PLACE
09/19/2024
A2RETAIL BUILDING 2
1/8" = 1'-0"1 RETAIL BLDG 2- FRONT
1/8" = 1'-0"2 RETAIL BLDG 2- REAR
1/8" = 1'-0"3 RETAIL BLDG 2- ENDS

P3 P2 S2 M2 P4P5 P3
M2 P5 S2 P3 P4P2P3 S2
P4 P3 M2 P2 P4
F:\Shared\Projects\Active Projects\Wood Rodgers Inc 23466  Fairfield\07 Design Documents\7.1 Architect Drawings Current\7.1.3 Revit\Suisun Valley Elevations.rvt 9/19/2024 3:41:28 PM 1/8" = 1'-0"FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA

SUISUN VALLEY PLACE
09/19/2024
A3RETAIL BUILDING QSR
1/8" = 1'-0"1 RETAIL BLDG QSR - FRONT
1/8" = 1'-0"2 RETAIL BLDG QSR - REAR
1/8" = 1'-0"3 RETAIL BLDG QSR - ENDS

P5 S2P1
S2 P1 M2
P1S2 P1 P5M2
F:\Shared\Projects\Active Projects\Wood Rodgers Inc 23466  Fairfield\07 Design Documents\7.1 Architect Drawings Current\7.1.3 Revit\Suisun Valley Elevations.rvt 9/19/2024 3:41:33 PM 1/8" = 1'-0"FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA

SUISUN VALLEY PLACE
09/19/2024
A4RETAIL BUILDING COFFEE PAD
1/8" = 1'-0"1 RETAIL BLDG COFFEE PAD - FRONT
1/8" = 1'-0"2 RETAIL BLDG COFFEE PAD - REAR
1/8" = 1'-0"3 RETAIL BLDG COFFEE PAD - ENDS

F:\Shared\Projects\Active Projects\Wood Rodgers Inc 23466  Fairfield\07 Design Documents\7.1 Architect Drawings Current\7.1.3 Revit\Suisun Valley Elevations.rvt 9/19/2024 3:41:39 PM 1/8" = 1'-0"FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA

SUISUN VALLEY PLACE
09/19/2024
A5CORNER & SIGN
1/8" = 1'-0"1 CORNER
1/8" = 1'-0"2 RETAIL SIGN

F:\Shared\Projects\Active Projects\Wood Rodgers Inc 23466  Fairfield\07 Design Documents\7.1 Architect Drawings Current\7.1.3 Revit\Suisun Valley Elevations.rvt 9/19/2024 3:41:44 PM 1/8" = 1'-0"FAIRFIELD, CALIFORNIA

SUISUN VALLEY PLACE
09/19/2024
A6RETAIL MATERIAL BOARD

M I Architects, Inc.GAS STATION, COVENIENCE STORE &EXPRESS CAR WASHSUISUN VALLEY ROAD & I-80FAIRFIELD, CA 94534NOT FORCONSTRUCTION

CONVENIENCE STORE NORTH ELEVATION

CONVENIENCE STORE WEST ELEVATION

M I Architects, Inc.GAS STATION, COVENIENCE STORE &EXPRESS CAR WASHSUISUN VALLEY ROAD & I-80FAIRFIELD, CA 94534NOT FORCONSTRUCTION

CONVENIENCE STORE SOUTH ELEVATION

CONVENIENCE STORE EAST ELEVATION

M I Architects, Inc.GAS STATION, COVENIENCE STORE &EXPRESS CAR WASHSUISUN VALLEY ROAD & I-80FAIRFIELD, CA 94534NOT FORCONSTRUCTION

CARWASH NORTH ELEVATION

CARWASH WEST ELEVATION

M I Architects, Inc.GAS STATION, COVENIENCE STORE &EXPRESS CAR WASHSUISUN VALLEY ROAD & I-80FAIRFIELD, CA 94534NOT FORCONSTRUCTION

CARWASH SOUTH ELEVATION

CARWASH EAST ELEVATION

M I Architects, Inc.GAS STATION, COVENIENCE STORE &EXPRESS CAR WASHSUISUN VALLEY ROAD & I-80FAIRFIELD, CA 94534NOT FORCONSTRUCTION

FUEL CANOPY NORTH ELEVATION

FUEL CANOPY WEST ELEVATION

Agenda Item No: O.2

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: April 7, 2026

TO: Mayor and Council

FROM: David Gassaway, City Manager

SUBJECT: Resolutions 2026-54 and 2026-55 CD Advisory Board Report and Levy an Assessment Against North Texas Street Business Improvement District

Resolution 202 6-54 Approving the Report of the Advisory Board for Calendar Year 202 5 and Proposed Budget for Calendar Year 202 6 in Connection with the North Texas Street Business Improvement District; and

Resolution 202 6-55 Declaring Intention to Levy an Assessment Against Businesses Within the North Texas Street Business Improvement District for Calendar Year 2026 and Setting a Time and Place for Hearing Objections Thereto

Funding Source: N/A

Contact: David Zellers, (707) 428-7436

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt resolutions.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The North Texas Street Business Association (Advisory Board) to the North Texas Street Business Improvement District (NTSBID), seeks City Council approval of the NTSBID Annual Report for 2025 and Proposed Budget for Calendar Year 202 6 (Report), and declaration of the intent to levy an assessment against businesses within the District for calendar year 2026 and setting the required public hearing for April 21, 2026.

DISCUSSION
In September 199 9, the council adopted Ordinance 99 -21, establishing NTSBID and the levy of assessments within NTSBID under the Parking and Business Improvement Law of 1989. Under this law, the process of levying an assessment involves the preparation of a report each yea r by an advisory board appointed by the council and the holding of a public hearing before levying the assessments. The report must include the expenditure of revenues derived from the levying of

assessments, the classification of businesses, the method an d basis of levying the assessments, and a description of the improvements and activities to be performed during the year. In November 2000, the council adopted Resolution 2000 -280 appointing the Advisory Board to make recommendations on the expenditure of revenues derived from the assessments.

The Advisory Board filed the Report on March 12, 2026 , with the City Clerk’s Office to comply with the above -noted requirements. The Report indicates that approximately $58,000 is anticipated from assessments in 202 6. The proposed activities reflect the Advisory Board organizational style actions, including membership services, beautification of NTSBID, and economic restructuring activities that focus on recruiting new businesses, retaining viable businesses, and cre ating a dynamic business district. The proposed 202 6 assessment amount against each business will remain the same as that assessed initially in 2000.

Staff recommend council declare its intention to levy an assessment against businesses within the NTSBID for calendar year 202 6, and set the April 21, 2026, council meeting as the date and place for the public hearing on this matter.

At the April 21, 2026, council meeting, staff intend to submit for review and approval a contract between the City and the Advisory Board to provide the activities and services proposed in the Report.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
No City funds are involved. The 202 6 NTSBID assessments are estimated to be approximately $58,000 and deposited in the NT SBID Assessments Fund (Fund 583, Division and Responsibility Code 99000).

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
The Advisory Board approved the Report at its board meeting on February 11, 2025.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The council may elect to modify or not take action on the recommendations of the Advisory Board report.

COORDINATED WITH
N/A

STAFF CONTACT
Jennifer Rice, Economic Development Specialist
(707) 428-7727
[email protected]

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 2: Proposed Resolution Approving Advisory Report and Budget

Attachment 3: Exhibit A - Certified Advisory Report for 2026 Attachment 4: Proposed 2026 Budget
Attachment 5: Proposed Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessment and Setting Hearing

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-54

APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE ADVISORY BOARD FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2025 AND PROPOSED BUDGET FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2026 IN CONNECTION WITH THE NORTH TEXAS

STREET BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

WHEREAS, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Law), California Streets and Highways Code Sections 36500, et seq., authorizes the City Council to levy an assessment against businesses within a parking and business improvement area, in addition to any assessments, fees, charges, or taxes imposed in the city; and

WHEREAS, the Law requires the council to appoint an advisory board, which shall make recommendations to the council on the expenditure of revenues derived from the levy of assessments, on the classification of businesses, as applicable, and on the method and basis of levying the assessments; and

WHEREAS, by Resolution 2000 -280, the council appointed the North Texas Street Business Association to serve as the Advisory Board (Advisory Board) for the North Texas Street Business Improvement District (District); and

WHEREAS, the Advisory Board has prepared a report entitled “North Texas Street Business Improvement District Advisory Report for 202 5 and Proposed Budget for Calendar Year 2026” (Report), attached hereto as Exhibit A, which reports on the District’s 2025 activities and details the proposed levy of an assessment against businesses in the District and the District’s plans for calendar year 2026; and

WHEREAS, the city clerk certified the Report (Exhibit A) on March 12, 2026.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. In accordance with Section 36533 of the Law, the Advisory Board has prepared and filed with the City Clerk ’s Office, and the city clerk has presented to the council the Report, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which contains the proposed budget for 2026.

Section 2. The council has examined and reviewed the Report, and such Report is hereby approved as filed.

RES. NO. 2026-54

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of April 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: MEMBERS: MOY/BERTANI/CARR/PANDURO/SANDHU/TONNESEN/WILLIAMS NOES: MEMBERS: _________________________________________________ ABSENT: MEMBERS: _________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: MEMBERS: _________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________

CITY CLERK

North Texas Street Business Association 2026 Budget

2025
Actual
2026
Budget
Income:

Assessments
$ 49,105.00
$ 58,000.00

Carry over as of 12-31-25
$
$ 14,965.01
Total Income:
$ 49,105.00
$ 72,965.01

Expenses

2025
Actual
2026
Budget
Professional Fees:

Bookkeeping
$ 3,195.00
$ 3,200.00

Tax Preparation 25 Paid in 2026
$
$ 1000.00

Secretary of State $ -

Program Management
$ 50,400.00
$ 50,400.00

Bank Services Charges
$ 238.40
$ 250.00

Dues & Subscriptions $ 913.10
$ 1,100.00

Total Professional Fees
$ 54,746.50
$

55.950.00

2025
Actual
2026
Budget
Savings (Reserves):

Savings Reserves:

Checking Reserves:
$ 10,501.11
4464.01
$ 14,965.12
Total Miscellaneous
$ 14,965.12

2025
Actual
2026 Budget
Office Supplies, Postage. Telephone:

Office Supplies $ 196.16 $ 300.00
Postage $ 150.00 $ 2000.00

Total Miscellaneous $ 346.16 $3200.00

2025
Actual
2026 Budget
Event Costs:

National Night Out Kettle Corn
$ - 0.00
$ -0.00
Business Watch Lunch $ -0.00 $ -0.00
2025 Major Event $ - 0.00 $ 7500.00
Total Miscellaneous $ -0 $ 7500.00

2025
Actual
2026
Budget
Insurance:

Insurance
$ 3,454.00
$3500.00

Total Insurance $ 3454.00 $3,500.00

2025
Actual
2025 Budget
Marketing:

Advertising, Promotion & Social Media
$0.00
$ 7500.00
Website and Domain's
$ 0.00
$ 1,403.86

Shirts, Name Tags & Other Marketing Paraphernalia $ 0.00
$ 1000.00
Total Marketing
$ 0.00
$ 9903.86

Totals:

Total Annual Expense
$ 58,546.76
$ 80,053.86

Total Net Operating Income
$ -9441.13

$ 72,965.01

Estimated Carry Over
$ 14,965.01
$ 5000.00

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-55

DECLARING INTENTION TO LEVY AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST BUSINESSES WITHIN THE NORTH TEXAS STREET BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2026 AND SETTING A

TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO

WHEREAS, the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Law), California Streets and Highways Code Sections 36500, et seq., authorizes the City Council to levy an assessment against businesses within a parking and business improvement area, in addition to any assessments, fees, charges, or taxes imposed in the city; and

WHEREAS, by Resolution 2000 -280, the council appointed the North Texas Street Business Association to serve as the Advisory Board (Advisory Board) for the North Texas Street Business Improvement District (NTSBID); and

WHEREAS, the boundaries of the NTSBID are generally described to include all properties abutting North Texas Street and Texas Street between Clay Street to the south and Nelson Road to the north as well as certa in properties abutting these core properties. A map showing the boundaries of the NTSBID and properties which are included in the NTSBID is on file in the City Clerk’s Office and is open to public inspection; and

WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 36533 of the Law, the Advisory Board prepared and filed with the City Clerk’s Office a report entitled, “North Texas Street Business Improvement District Advisory Report for 2025 and Proposed Budget for Calendar Year 2026” (Report), and by previous resolution, the council preliminarily approved the Report as filed. Said Report is on file in the City Clerk’s Office and is open to public inspection.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. The City Council hereby declares its intention, in addition to any assessments, fees, charges or taxes imposed by the City, to levy and collect an assessment against businesses within the NTSBID for calendar year 202 6 (commencing January 1, 202 6, and ending December 31, 2026).

Section 2. The council hereby declares that, as provided by Law, the types of improvements and activities to be funded by the levy of an assessment against businesses within the NTSBID are as follows:

(a) The acquisition, construction, installation, or maintenance of tangible property with a useful life of five years or more, including, but not limited to, the following:

 benches

RES. NO. 2026-55

 trash receptacles
 decorations
 permanent landscaping

(b) Promotion of public events which benefit businesses in the NTSBID and which takes place within public places within the NTSBID;
(c) Furnishing of music in any public place in the NTSBID; and (d) Activities that benefit businesses located and operating in the NTSBID.

Section 3. New businesses established in the NTSBID after January 1, 2026, shall be exempt from the levy of the assessment for calendar year 2026.

Section 4. The council hereby fixes the time and place for a public hearing on the proposed levy of an assessment against businesses within the NTSBID for calendar year 2026 as follows:

TIME: 6:00 p.m.

DATE: Tuesday, April 21, 2026
PLACE: Harry T. Price Memorial Council Chamber, 1000 Webster Street, Fairfield, CA

At the public hearing, the testimony of all interested persons regarding the levy of an assessment against businesses within the NTSBID for calendar year 202 6 shall be heard. A protest may be made orally or in writing by any interested person.

Any protest pertaining to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceeding s must be in writing and shall clearly set forth the irregularity or defect to which the objection is made.

Every written protest must be filed with the City Clerk’s Office at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. The council may waive any irre gularity in the form or content of any written protest and at the public hearing may correct minor defects in the proceedings. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing.

Each written protest must contain a description of the business in which the person subscribing the protest is interested sufficient to identify the business and, if a person subscribing is not shown on the official records of the City as the owner of the business, the protest sha ll contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person subscribing is the owner of the business.

A written protest, which does not comply with the requirements set forth in this paragraph, will not be counted in determining a majority protest (as defined below).

If, at the conclusion of the public hearing, written protests are received from the owners of businesses in the NTSBID which will pay 50% or more of the assessments proposed to be levied and protests are not withdrawn so as to reduce the protests to less than that 50% (i.e., there is a

RES. NO. 2026-55

majority protest), no further proceedings to levy the proposed assessment, as contained in this resolution of intention, shall be taken for a period of one year from the date of the finding of a majority protest by the council.

If the majority protest is only against the furnishing of a specified type or types of improvement or activity within the NTSBID, those types of improvements or activities shall be eliminated.

Section 5. For a full and detailed descr iption of the improvements and activities to be provided for calendar year 202 6, the boundaries of the NTSBID, and the proposed assessments to be levied against the businesses within the NTSBID for calendar year 2026, reference is hereby made to the Report of the Advisory Board. The Report is on file with the City Clerk’ s Office and open to public inspection.

Section 6. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to provide notice of the public hearing in accordance with law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of April 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: O.3

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: April 7, 2026

TO: Mayor and Council

FROM: David Gassaway, City Manager

SUBJECT: PW Landscape Oversight Committee Recommendation to Modify Member Residency Requirements

Discussion and Direction Regarding the Landscape Oversight Committee Recommendation to Modify Membership Residency Requirements to Allow At -Large Appointments for All Member Seats

Funding Source: N/A

Contact: Chris Lewis, (707) 428-7089

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive report, open discussion, and provide direction to staff.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The Landscape Oversight Committee (LOC) consists of seven members; six members who each live in and represent their respective council district area and one member at large. The LOC recommends that the membership residency requirements be modified to allow at -large appointments for all member seats.

DISCUSSION
On February 21, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-26, establishing the Fairfield LOC and providing oversight of the City’s Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Districts (LLMD) and all landscaping areas funded by the General Fund per Exhibit A.

On June 3, 2025, the council adopted Resolution No. 2025-78, updating the LOC Guidelines and Duties. In accordance with the original LOC formation, the Committee structure consists of seven members; six members who each live in and represent their respective council district area and one member at large.

The LOC currently has one vacancy in District 2 after the previous incumbent resigned in October 2024. Since then, the City has advertised the position at various council meetings and periodically in social media posts and press releases . To date, no applications for the position have been received.

On April 1, 2025, the LOC brought a recommendation to council requesting that two additional at-large member seats be added to the LOC, for a total of nine members, to address quorum issues. The meeting record per Exhibit B shows that the April and July 2024 meetings were cancelled due to a lack of quorum, despite all committee seats being filled. The October 2024 meeting was rescheduled due to the District 2 vacancy and various conflicts in the members’ schedules. The council did not approve of the recommendation but directed staff to modify the LOC attendance requirements to encourage more participation from the existing LOC members.

At the February 24, 2026, LOC meeting, the committee moved to make a recommendation to the council to modify the LOC residency requirements to allow at -large appointments for all members in an effort to fill the District 2 vacancy per Exhibit C. In lieu of adding additional members to the committee, the LOC proposes that the residency requirements be modified to allow any Fairfield resident to serve in any vacant seat. All existing members would complete their current terms as scheduled. Staff requests that the council provide direction regarding the LOC recommendation.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
N/A

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
The Landscape Oversight Committee moved to make the recommendation outlined in this report at their February 24, 2026, regular meeting.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The council may decline to approve the recommendation, approve with modification, or direct staff to return with additional information.

COORDINATED WITH
N/A

STAFF CONTACT
Chris Lewis, Sr. Management Analyst
(707) 428-7089
[email protected]

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 2: Exhibit A - Resolution No. 2025-78
Attachment 3: Exhibit B - LOC Meeting Record
Attachment 4: Exhibit C - Report from the Landscape Oversight Committee

CITY OF FAIRFIELD
RESOLUTION NO. 2025- 78

ADOPTING UPDATES TO THE LANDSCAPE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE GUIDELINES AND DUTIES

OF THE COMMITTEE
WHEREAS, the City Counciladopted Resolution No. 2023-26 Establishingthe Fairfield Landscape Oversight Committee and Setting Forth Guidelines and Duties of the Committee; and WHEREAS, the Landscape Oversight Committee and City staff collaborated during the February 27, 2025, and March 20, 2025, Landscape Oversight Committee meetings to prepare the final proposed edits to the Landscape Oversight Committee Guidelines and Duties of the Committee Exhibit " A;" and
WHEREAS, at the April 1, 2025, council meeting, the council determined that the Landscape Oversight Committee shall be subject to the same attendance policy followed by other City committees and commissions and directed staff to incorporate the policy into Exhibit " A;" and WHEREAS, at the April 17, 2025, Landscape Oversight Committee special meeting, the Landscape Oversight Committee reviewed and approved the Proposed Exhibit " A." NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. The council hereby approves the updated Landscape Oversight Committee Guidelines and Duties of the Committee, set forth in Exhibit " A" attached hereto.

PASSEDAND ADOPTEDthis 3rdday of June 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: MEMBERS: MOY/ BERTANI/ CARR/ PANDURO/ SANDHU/ TONNESEN/ WILLIAMS NOES: MEMBERS: '" JU
ABSENT: MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: MEMBERS: `^ Q
MAYOR
ATTEST:

CITY CLERK

EXHIBIT A

LANDSCAPE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE GUIDELINES AND DUTIES
The City Council of the City of Fairfield hereby establishes a Landscape Oversight Committee Committee) to provide fiscal oversight and review of the Public Works Department' s management of landscaping throughout the city. The Committee' s primary focus will be to improve the effectiveness, transparency, and financial management of the City's landscape maintenance.

Application/ Recruitment Process:

The standard recruitment process that is used for all other existing City boards, commissions and committees will be utilized to conduct the recruitment of applications for the Committee.

Notice of these vacancies will be advertised in the Fairfield Daily Republic newspaper, posted on the City' s website, and posted on the Civic Center notice boards.

Powers and Duties:

The Committee will provide independent oversight of the operational and financial aspects of all Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Districts ( LLMDs) and non- LLMD landscape areas paid for by the General Fund ( herein " non- LLMD areas"). Duties shall consist of reviewing the annual budget and any other City financial reports necessary to advise the council. The Committee will report directly to the council.

Key responsibilities include reviewing managerial processes, ensuring transparency and effectiveness, and examining the use of LLMD revenues and General Fund revenues specifically allocated for landscape maintenance in non- LLMD areas. Landscape maintenance that is funded by Enterprise funds and other funding sources are excluded from the Committee' s purview.

The Committee, together with staff, will educate District residents as to the operation and function of LLMDs and the associated costs to maintain and improve such districts. The Committee serves in an advisory - only role to the council limited to:

1. The review of operational and financial aspects of LLMD and non- LLMD landscaped areas throughout the city.

2. The review of the use of LLMD revenues ( such as assessments, interest earned, general fund contributions and/ or loans) and General Fund revenues specifically budgeted for landscape maintenance in non- LLMD areas.

3. Educating residents about the operation and function of LLMDs. 1

The duties of the Committee do not include decision - making responsibilities regarding:
spending priorities;
funding source decisions;
financing plans;
operational or managerial processes;
contractor selection or management; or
any other decision - making responsibilities that pertain to processes, procedures, or policies regarding the City's landscaping.

Qualifications for Appointment:

The Committee will consist of seven members.

Six Committee Members shall be comprised of one person with residency within the respective council district area.

One Committee Member will be at -large.

Residency may be verified annually by the City Clerk's Office through ( 1) voter registration or ( 2) utility bills ( phone, water, cable).

Selection of Members:

Candidates shall complete and submit applications to the City per instructions on the vacancy advertisement. The mayor and city council will appoint their respective Committee Members.

All Committee Members shall attend orientation and training, including the Brown Act and AB1234 Ethics Training, prior to their first regular Committee meeting.

Terms of Service:

Each Committee Member term shall be for a period of five years.

Election of Committee Chair and Vice Chair:

The Committee shall elect a Chair and Vice Chair at the first meeting of the calendar year with a simple majority vote of the Committee Members in attendance. The Chair and Vice Chair shall serve a one-year term; however, incumbents may be elected to serve additional consecutive or non- consecutive terms.

Meetings•
Schedule and Duration: The Committee shall adopt an annual regular meeting schedule no later than the last meeting of the preceding calendar year. Regular meetings shall be held on a quarterly basis for approximately two hours each meeting. Additional special meetings may be scheduled as necessary.
2

Quorum: The quorum requirement for any meeting shall be a minimum of four members. If the quorum requirement is not met by 10 minutes after the scheduled start time ( 15 minutes with notification to the staff liaison) the meeting shall be cancelled.

Guidelines: The Committee is subject to the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act. Meetings shall be noticed and open to the public. Committee meeting minutes and reports are a matter of public record. Draftmeetingminutesshallbepostedonthe City'swebsiteno laterthan 21 calendardays after conclusion of the meeting.

Voting: Committee decisions and actions require a simple majority vote of those Committee Members in attendance.

Attendance: A Committee Member may have a maximum of two unexcused absences in any twelve- month period. Absences exempt from this Section include:

1. Absences due to medical or family emergencies.

2. Absences due to unforeseen and urgent circumstances.

3. Absences approved in advance by the chairperson or staff liaison.

In the case of a medical or family emergency, or due to unforeseen and urgent circumstances, a Committee Member shall notify the chairperson or staff liaison in writing within 30 days of their absence to request an exemption.

If a Committee Member incurs a third non-exempt absence during any twelve- month period, the Committee Member will be deemed w have resigned their position and shall no longer be a member of the committee.

The staff liaison shall issue a letter to the Committee Member, with a copy to the Mayor, notifying them that they have exceeded the number of absences allowed under this policy, and have therefore resigned their position. The letter shall be personally served to the Committee Member or sent via first- class United States Postal Service ( USPS) mail, return receipt requested.

Havingreceivedthe notice, the Committee Member shall have 10 businessdaysto request an appeal of this section before the City Council. The Committee Member shall submit their request for appealin writing (either via e-mail, handdelivery, or USPSmail) to the city clerk. The.city clerk shallset the appealhearingat a regularq,r specialmeeting of the city councilwithin 45 business days from receiving the request for a hearing from the Committee Member.

If the Committee Member fails to submit the request for a right of appeal within 10 business days, the position shall be deemed vacant.
3

At an appeal hearing brought by a Committee Member under this section, the council shall allow the Committee Member to address the council to explain their absences and provide any documents or other evidence to support their appeal. The council may consider any evidence it deems necessary to make its decision. Following the hearing, by a majority vote the council may affirm the removal of the Committee Member or vote to reinstate the Committee Member to their position on the committee. In the case of a tie vote by the council, the removal of the Committee Member under the section shall be deemed affirmed. The decision of the council shall be final and not subject to appeal.

Staff Liaison Appointment:

The Director of Public Works and/ or their designee will serve as staff liaison to the Committee.

The liaison will be responsible for providing relevant information, support, and advice to the Committee. The liaison will prepare, post, and distribute agendas and take minutes at each meeting.
4

LANDSCAPE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEETING RECORD
Year Meeting Type Date Meeting Outcome
2023 Meetings Regular 11/29/23 Convened as Planned
Regular 01/17/24 Convened as Planned
Special 02/28/24 Convened as Planned
Regular 04/10/24 Cancelled - No Quorum
Regular 07/17/24 Cancelled - No Quorum
Regular 12/10/24 Rescheduled from October - Member Schedule Conflicts Regular 02/27/25 Convened as Planned
Special 03/20/25 Convened as Planned
Special 04/17/25 Convened as Planned
Regular 05/22/25 Convened as Planned
Special 07/17/25 Cancelled - No Quorum
Regular 08/28/25 Rescheduled from August 21 - Member Schedule Conflicts Special 10/09/25 Convened as Planned
Regular 11/20/25 Convened as Planned
2026 Meetings Regular 02/24/26 Convened as Planned
2024 Meetings
2025 Meetings

Landscape Oversight Committee
Recommendation to City Council to Modify Member Residency Requirements

April 7, 2026

Recommendation:

The Committee is recommending the City Council modify the Landscape Oversight Committee residency requirements to allow at-large appointments for all members.

This recommendation is a result of having a position vacant in District 2 since October 2024. This position has not been filled due to the requirement that it be filled from that district. Unfortunately, we have been unable to fill that seat for District 2 due to lack of volunteers. However, we have citizens who are willing to fill the seat outside that district.

While recruitment is outside the scope of the Landscape Oversight Committee we have done out-reach but have not been successful in doing district-based volunteer recruitment. The “City” has also posted the vacancy trying to recruit since the seat became vacant. If we maintain a district-based structure, it seems to us the responsibility for district-based volunteer recruitment is the councilmember from the district needing representation on the committee.

We recognize that this recommendation changes the fundamental structure of the committee from district-based make-up to volunteer-based make-up. The at-large structure provides a larger pool from which to recruit volunteers who are interested in and qualified to make judgements about landscape maintenance. And while the current members of the Committee would become at large they would still represent the area they are from.

Quorum is sometimes still an issue. While the Committee may have gotten off to a slower start than we wanted due to the fact that we could not conduct some meetings in 2024 due to the issue of a lack of quorum. We are working on and are laser focused on developing a Strategic Plan. We believe the Committee would be better served to have additional members seated. It would be helpful to have additional members to work on specific “assignments” related to the Strategic Plan and to carry out the work of the Landscape Oversight Committee.

Agenda Item No: O.4

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: April 7, 2026

TO: Mayor and Council

FROM: David Gassaway, City Manager

SUBJECT: PD Discussion and Direction Regarding Rental Housing Safety Program

PD Discussion and Direction Regarding Rental Housing Safety Program

Funding Source: N/A

Contact: Jeremy Profitt, (707) 428-7709

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Receive report, open discussion, and provide direction to staff.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The City Council requested a follow-up discussion on the potential development of a new Rental Housing Safety Program and is asked to provide direction to staff on whether to move forward with program.

DISCUSSION
The proposed Rental Housing Safety Program is designed to address ongoing health, safety, and habitability concerns within Fairfield’s rental housing stock. The program establishes a structured framework around state mandated legislation such as Assembly Bill ( AB) 548 for routine inspections, compliance monitoring, and property owner engagement to ensure that rental units meet minimum standards. Staff have evaluated a variety of program models and determined that implementing a proactive inspection approach , supported by dedicated personnel , is the most effective way to reduce chronic violations, improve housing conditions, and minimize long‑ term impacts on community resources.

The recommended staffing and fee structure reflect the operational needs required to administer the program, perform inspections, provide education and outreach, and ensure timely enforcement when necessary. Aligning the approval of program staffing with the adoption of ordinance is essential to ensure resources are available at the time of implementation. This

coordinated approach will allow the city to launch the program efficiently and begin addressing identified gaps in rental housing oversight.

Our first community outreach meeting was held with rental property owners and property managers on March 31, 2026, in the City Council Chamber and via Zoo m to maximize participation and discussion. A second outreach meeting for tenants will be conducted during the week of April 20.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The financial impact includes costs associated with staffing, program administration, community outreach, inspection services, and first year start-up expenses. Potential funding sources include General Fund allocations and cost recovery through Rental Housing Safety Program registration and inspection fees.

The total projected first year cost is $1,407,476. Estimated cost recovery is $1,579,871, based on approximately 7,169 rental apartment units, 476 two plus unit rental properties, and an additional 1,036 qualifying low -income units assessed at reduced fees totaling $92,820. This results in a total first year revenue projection of approximately $1,579,871.

Over the first two to three years, our goal is to reduce the number of full inspection units by 25% through increased self -certification. As more properties meet the requirements for self - certification, individual unit inspection fees would decrease from $196 to $85, as outlined in the proposed ordinance. Under this model, cost recovery projections would adjust to approximately $1,369,551, with an estimated 1,912 out of nearly 8,000 units becoming self -certified. This reduction in inspections would decrease workload for City staff while rewarding responsible property owners.

Program Fee Structure (Updated)
• Annual Program Fee: $195 per unit
• Self-Certification Annual Fee: $85 per unit
• Low-Income Fee (60% reduction): $85 per unit
• Re-inspection Fee: $255
• Annual 50% late fee does not exceed $7,000 per year

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
N/A/

COORDINATED WITH
Community Development and Economic Department

STAFF CONTACT
Jeremy Profitt, Police Support Manager
(707) 428-7709
[email protected]

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 2: Proposed Draft Ordinance

1 Chapter 5.XX — Rental Housing Safety Program

5.XX.XXX Title. ............................................................................................................................................... 1

5.XX.XXX Purpose and Intent. ....................................................................................................................... 1

5.XX.XXX Findings. ......................................................................................................................................... 2

5.XX.XXX Definitions. ..................................................................................................................................... 2

5.XX.XXX Establishment; Authority; Construction; Language Access. .......................................................... 4

5.XX.XXX Scope and Exemptions. .................................................................................................................. 4

5.XX.XXX Notice. ............................................................................................................................................ 6

5.XX.XXX Registration. ................................................................................................................................... 7

5.XX.XXX Inspection Fees. ............................................................................................................................. 8

5.XX.XXX Inspection Programs. ................................................................................................................... 10

5.XX.XXX Mandatory Inspection Program................................................................................................... 11

5.XX.XXX Self-Certification Inspection Program. ........................................................................................ 13

5.XX.XXX Tenant Rights. .............................................................................................................................. 16

5.XX.XXX Violations; Enforcement. ............................................................................................................. 20

5.XX.XXX Collection of Unpaid Fees, Fines, and Penalties. ......................................................................... 22

5.XX.XXX Appeals. ....................................................................................................................................... 23

5.XX.XXX Severability. ................................................................................................................................. 25

5.XX.XXX Title.

This Chapter shall be known as the Rental Housing Safety Program (“Program”).

5.XX.XXX Purpose and Intent.

The City Council finds and declares that the preservation of existing rental stock is of critical importance to the health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residents. Rental housing provides needed, affordable housing for many residents and is a valuable community asset that must be preserved and maintained. The purposes of this Chapter are to:

A. Proactively identify blighted, deteriorated, or substandard residential rental units and ensure the rehabilitation and prevention of housing conditions that do not meet minimum building, housing, and sanitation code standards;

B. Preserve and enhance the quality of life for residents living in or near rental properties and neighborhoods that host them; and

2 C. Provide accountability, guidance, and support for all owners and managers while protecting tenants’ health and safety; and

D. Protect the health, safety, and welfare of tenants and the public through a partnership among property owners, tenants, the City, and the broader community.

5.XX.XXX Findings.

The City council further finds and declares as follows:

A. Housing Age and Condition. Over seventy percent (70%) of the City’s housing stock was constructed prior to 1999, and over fifty percent (50%) of all housing units in the City are occupied as rentals. The age of this housing stock means that aging structural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems can deteriorate overtime and create unsafe or unhealthy conditions for occupants.

B. Neglect and Deterioration. Over time, rental housing often deteriorates because of intentional and unintentional neglect of property owners, managers, and occupants.

This deterioration results in substandard conditions that adversely affect the economic values of neighboring structures, threaten social stability of City neighborhoods, and hare hazardous to the public health and safety.

C. Underreporting of Conditions. In many cases, property owners choose not to make necessary repairs because of cost. Occupants may fail to report deficiencies out of a lack of knowledge or a fear of retaliation. As a result, substandard conditions often go unreported and unaddressed under a complaint-based model alone.

D. Shifting Enforcement Landscape. Beginning January 1, 2026, the Solano County Division of Environmental Health will limit its complaint-based role to health officer determinations under California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3, shifting most other rental housing complaints to the City’s Code Enforcement and Building Divisions.

This transition increases the City’s responsibility for proactive rental housing oversight.

E. Need for Proactive Inspections. Complaint-based enforcement, alone, is insufficient to ensure citywide compliance with health and safety standards. Routine, periodic inspections of residential rental dwelling units are necessary to protect the public interest, promote neighborhood integrity, and ensure that all persons residing in rental housing are provided with decent, safe, and sanitary conditions.

5.XX.XXX Definitions.

A. “Director” shall mean the City employee authorized by the City Manager to supervise and administer the Rental Housing Safety Program, or his or her designee.

3 B. “Engage in the business of rental housing” shall mean renting, leasing, or offering to rent or lease one or more residential rental units within the City for residential occupancy

C. “Immediate family” shall mean the owner’s spouse or domestic partner, children, stepchildren, parents, stepparents, siblings, or any other person related to the owner by blood, marriage, or adoption who resides with the owner as a member of the same household.

D. “Inspector” shall mean any City representative authorized by the City Manager or Chief of Police to conduct inspections pursuant to this Chapter.

E. “Owner” or “property owner” shall mean any person or entity holding title to a rental housing property, including any part owner, joint owner, or co-owner of record as reflected in the records of the Solano County Assessor. The terms “owner,” “property owner,” “operator,” and “landlord” may be used interchangeably in this Chapter.

F. “Owner-occupied” shall mean a rental housing property, or a specific residential rental unit within such property, in which the owner of record maintains his or her primary residence and occupies the unit as his or her principal place of residence.

G. “Primary residence” shall mean the dwelling at which a person is domiciled and to which the person intends to return whenever absent, as evidence by factors including but not limited to voter registration, vehicle registration, income tax filings, and utility service.

H. “Rental housing property” shall mean a parcel of real property upon which a residential rental unit is maintained, including but not limited to parking, driveways, landscaping, accessory structures, fences, walls, pools, hot tubs, and spas.

I. “Residential rental unit” shall mean a single unit of residence that is being rented, or is intended to be rented for residential occupancy. This term includes but is not limited to apartment units, condominiums, duplexes, single-family homes, and hotels or motels in which one or more units are rented for periods of thirty (30) or more consecutive days.

This term also includes each individual sleeping room in residential housing where bathroom or cooking facilities are shared among occupants.

J. “Responsible party” shall mean any person or entity that owns, operates, manages, or otherwise exercises control over a rental housing property or residential rental unit, including but not limited to the owner of record, a property manager, or a management company acting on behalf of the owner.

K. “Self-Certification Checklist” shall mean the form provided by the City and completed by an owner or the owner’s designee in connection with the Self-Certification Program

4 established under Section 5.XX.XXX, certifying that each residential rental unit on the rental housing property meets the minimum standards required for participation in the Self-Certification Program.

L. “Substandard building or dwelling” shall have the meaning set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3, as may be amended from time to time.

M. “Tenant” or “occupant” shall mean any person who occupies a residential rental unit, in whole or in part, regardless of whether a written lease or rental agreement exists.

5.XX.XXX Establishment; Authority; Construction; Language Access.

A. Establishment. The City Council hereby establishes the Rental Housing Safety Program consistent with the purpose and findings of this Chapter.

B. Authority. This Chapter is enacted pursuant to the City’s police powers to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of its citizens and applicable provisions of state law.

C. Construction. This Chapter supplements existing City, State, and Federal laws and shall be liberally construed to further its intent.

D. Language Access. The City shall make a reasonable effort to make all communications required by this Chapter available in English and in any other language spoken by a substantial number of residents in the City of Fairfield, in accordance with the City’s language access policy and any applicable state or federal law. This obligation extends to oral and in-person communications arising under this Chapter, including City-conducted inspection and administrative hearings. Interpreter services available to tenants during inspections are addressed in Section 5.XX.XXX, Subsection (B)(4). Interpreter services available to parties at administrative hearings are addressed in Section 5.XX.XXX, Subsection (C)(5).

5.XX.XXX Scope and Exemptions.

A. Scope. The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all owners of one or more residential rental units located within the City of Fairfield. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a single- family residential rental unit shall be subject to Chapter only if the owner of record owns, operates, or rents four (4) or more residential rental units within the City.

B. Business License Fee Waiver. Any owner subject to this Chapter who is required to obtain a business license pursuant to Fairfield Municipal Code Chapter 10B solely by reason of engaging in the business of rental housing as defined herein shall be exempt from the business license tax imposed by Chapter 10B. Such owner shall nonetheless be required to obtain a business license.

5 C. Mandatory Exemptions. The following residential rental units are exempt from mandatory inspection requirements of this Chapter:

1. Newly Constructed Units. Residential rental units that have received a certificate of occupancy within the previous five (5) years. Newly constructed units may qualify for the Self-Certification Inspection Program under Section 5.XX.XX.

2. Public Housing. Residential rental units owned and operated by the Housing Authority of the City of Fairfield.

3. Institutionally Operated Housing. Residential rental units operated by educational or religious institutions as an integral part of their institutional programs.

D. Discretionary Exemptions. The Director may exempt the following residential rental units upon a written determination that the basis for exemption is satisfied:

1. Inspections by Another Government Agency. Residential rental units subject to routine periodic inspections by another government agency, including residential rental units subject to federal housing assistance programs such as the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program, provided that the Director determines that the frequency and scope of such inspections meet the standards of this Chapter.

E. Owner-Occupancy Exemptions.

1. Single-Family and Condominium Units. An owner-occupied single-family home or condominium unit is exempt from the mandatory inspection and annual fee requirements of this chapter if:

a. No occupant of the residential rental unit pays rent or other consideration for the right to occupy; and

b. No expenses related to the property are claimed as rental income or business deductions on the owner’s personal income tax returns.

2. Multi-Unit Properties. On a rental housing property containing two (2) or more residential rental units, an owner-occupancy exemption applies only to the specific residential rental unit occupied by an owner of record or their immediate family member, provided that the conditions of subsection (D)(a) are satisfied. All remaining units on the rental housing property remain subject to this Chapter.

F. Loss of Exempt Status. Any residential rental unit that qualifies for an exemption under this section shall become subject to the full requirements of this Chapter upon a verified

6 finding of substandard conditions, the issuance of a notice and order, or a determination by the Director that the basis for the exemption no longer exists.

G. Reservation of Inspection Authority. Notwithstanding any exemption under this section, the City regains authority to inspect any residential rental unit upon receipt of information that a code violation may exist thereon, consistent with Section 5.XX.XXX.

5.XX.XXX Notice.

A. Form of Notice. Unless otherwise specified in this Chapter, all notices required to be given by the City pursuant to this Chapter shall be in writing and shall contain the following information:

a. The address and assessor’s parcel number of the rental housing property that is the subject of the notice;

b. The name and contact information of the City representative responsible for administering the matter to which the notice relates;

c. A description of the action required, if any, and the deadline by which such action must be taken; and

d. Notice of the recipient’s right to appeal, where applicable, pursuant to Section

5.XX.XXX.

B. Service on Owner. All notices required by this Chapter shall be served on the owner by one or more of the following methods:

a. First class mail to the owner’s last known address, as reflected in the City’s Program registration records or through County property tax records;

b. Certified mail, return receipt requested, to the owner’s last known address, as reflected in the City’s Program registration records or County property tax records;

c. Electronic mail, where the owner has affirmatively consented, in writing at the time of registration or re-registration, to electronic service; or

d. Personal delivery to the owner.

In the case of multiple owners of the same rental housing property, service on any one owner of record shall constitute sufficient notice to all owners.

7 C. Service on Tenants. Where this Chapter requires that a copy of any notice be provided to tenants, such notices shall be served by one or more of the following methods:

a. First class mail to the tenant’s address at the rental housing property;

b. Personal delivery to the tenant; or

c. Where mail service and personal delivery are not practicable, posting in a conspicuous location at or near the entrance to the tenant’s residential rental unit.

D. Effective Date of Notice. For purposes of calculating any deadline or time period under this Chapter:

a. Mail Service. A notice served by mail shall be deemed effective three (3) days after the date of mailing, consistent with Civil Code Section 1013.

b. Personal Delivery or Posting. A notice served by personal delivery or posting shall be deemed effective on the date of delivery or posting.

c. Electronic Mail. A notice served by electronic mail shall be deemed effective on the date of transmission.

E. Notice to City. Where this Chapter requires an owner or tenant to provide notice to the City, such notice shall be submitted in writing to the Director at the address or electronic mail address designated by the City for that purpose. Notice to the City shall be deemed effective upon receipt by the Director, or his or her designee.

F. Defective Notice. A technical defect in the form of service or any notice required by this Chapter shall not invalidate any inspection, enforcement action, or other proceeding under this Chapter, providing that the intended recipient had actual notice of the substance of the communication and was not prejudiced by the defect.

5.XX.XXX Registration.

A. Registration Required. No person shall engage in the business of rental housing within the City unless each residential rental dwelling unit is registered with the City in accordance with this section and all applicable fees have been paid as established in the City’s master schedule.

B. Initial Registration. An owner shall register each residential rental unit with the City within ninety (90) days following the effective date of this Chapter, or date of acquisition or conversion of a property to rental use. Where access to the rental housing property is delayed due to tenant-related issues, the owner may request additional time

8 from the Director, who may grant a reasonable extension upon a showing of good cause.

C. Registration Form and Required Information. Initial registration and annual re- registration shall be completed on a form provided by the City, which may be made electronically. Registration shall include the following information:

1. Description of the rental housing property, including street address and assessor’s parcel number;

2. Number and description of all residential rental units on the property;

3. Name and current contact information for the owner of record;

4. Any additional information determined by the Director to be reasonably necessary to implement this Chapter.

D. Annual Re-Registration. Following initial registration, each owner shall re-register annually. Annual re-registration is for administrative purposes and shall require the owner to confirm or update the information required under subsection C, pay all applicable fees, and report any changes in ownership, unit count, or management.

Annual re-registration does not require substantive condition reporting except as provided in subsection E.

E. Condition Reporting. In connection with each inspection cycle, the owner shall attest to the current conditions of the property, including any readily apparent violations of applicable building, housing, fire, planning, or property maintenance codes. Following the initial inspection cycle, condition reporting shall be required every three (3) years thereafter, coinciding with the scheduled inspection under Section 5.XX.XXX, or at any time that new substandard conditions are discovered or reported.

F. Self-Certification Program. At the time of registration or re-registration, an owner may apply for the Self-Certification Program under Section 5.XX.XXX.

G. Failure to Register. Failure to register a residential rental unit within the time required by this section is a violation of this Chapter and is subject to the remedies set forth in Section 5.XX.XXX, including administrative citations and civil penalties.

5.XX.XXX Inspection Fees.

A. Program Fees. The following fees are established and shall be imposed upon the owners of rental housing properties as a condition of participation in the Program:

9 1. Annual Registration Fee. An annual registration fee shall be imposed on each residential rental unit to defray the costs of administering and enforcing this Chapter, The fee shall be due at the time of initial registration and upon each annual re-registration thereafter.

2. Inspection Fee. An inspection fee shall be imposed on each residential rental unit subject to mandatory inspection under Section 5.XX.XXX.

3. Self-Certification Fee. An annual self-certification fee shall be imposed on each residential rental unit participating in the Self-Certification program under Section 5.XX.XXX, in lieu of the inspection fee.

B. Conditional Fees. The following fees shall be imposed upon the owners of rental housing properties upon the occurrence of the triggering event described. Once the triggering condition occurs, imposition of the applicable fee is mandatory.=:

1. Rescheduling Fee. A rescheduling fee shall be imposed when an inspection is rescheduled in violation of Section 5.XX.XXX, including when an inspection is rescheduled more than once or without the required advance notice.

2. Reinspection Fee. A reinspection fee shall be imposed for each reinspection required where violations identified during any inspection have not been corrected by the time of the reinspection.

3. Additional Unit Inspection Fee. An additional unit inspection fee shall be imposed when the Inspector determines that additional residential rental units beyond those initially scheduled must be inspected due to the discovery of violations on the rental housing property.

C. Fee Administration. The City Council shall establish the amounts of the foregoing fees, their respective due dates, and any penalties for delinquent payment of such fees, by resolution. All such fees, due dates, and penalties shall be posted on the City’s master fee schedule.

D. Limitation on Fee Pass-Through to Tenants. An owner shall not recover, whether directly or indirectly, more than fifty percent (50%) of the annual registration fee or self- certification fee imposed under this section from any tenant of the subject residential rental unit. Any portion of the fee lawfully recovered from a tenant shall be assessed only as a monthly surcharge added to the tenant’s rent and shall not be imposed as a lump-sum charge or condition of tenancy. Any attempt to recover fees from a tenant in excess of this limitation, or in a manner inconsistent with this subsection, shall constitute a violation of this Chapter and shall be subject to the enforcement remedies set forth in Section 5.XX.XXX.

10 5.XX.XXX Inspection Programs.

A. General. All residential rental units subject to this Chapter shall be inspected in accordance with one of the following programs:

1. Mandatory Inspection Program. The City shall conduct periodic inspections of residential rental units as provided in Section 5.XX.XXX. Participation in the Mandatory Inspection Program is the default obligation of all owners subject to this Chapter.

2. Self-Certification Inspection Program. As an alternative to mandatory City- conducted inspections, owners of qualifying rental housing properties may elect to participate in the Self-Certification Inspection Program as provided in Section

5.XX.XXX. Participation in the Self-Certification Program is not a matter of right and is subject to the eligibility requirements and continuing obligations set forth in that section.

B. Standards of Compliance.

1. Scope of Inspection. The Director, or his or her designee, may inspect residential rental units and related areas to determine compliance with relevant state housing law, this code, and prior conditions of approval.

2. Maintenance Standard. All residential rental units shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition consistent the building, housing, and sanitation codes in effect at the time of construction, except where state housing law or this code imposes additional requirements.

3. Unpermitted Additions and Alterations. Unpermitted additions or alterations to a residential rental unit shall be required to comply with the codes currently adopted by the City at the time of inspection, unless otherwise authorized under applicable law.

4. Substandard Conditions. A residential rental unit shall be deemed substandard where conditions exist that render the unit unsafe, unsanitary, or unfit for human habitation, as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 or any applicable provision of this code.

5. Technical Building Code Determinations. Where a determination made pursuant to this section involves a technical interpretation of the California Building Code or other adopted building or fire code, such determination shall be appealable pursuant to the technical building code procedures set forth in Section 5.XX.XXX (Technical Building Code Appeals).

11 C. Nonexclusivity. Nothing in this section shall limit or preclude inspections conducted by the Fire Department for compliance with applicable fire codes, or any other inspection conducted pursuant to any other provision of this code or applicable law.

D. Inspection Certification.

1. Issuance. Upon successful completion of an inspection or self-certification establishing that the rental housing property is in compliance with all applicable building, housing, and sanitation code requirements, the City shall issue to the owner of a rental housing inspection certification valid for three (3) years from the date of issuance. A certification shall be issued following:

a. A mandatory City inspection conducted pursuant to Section 5.XX.XXX; or

b. Approval of a Self-Certification application pursuant to Section

5.XX.XXX, for the duration of the owner’s participation in that program.

2. Effect of Certification. A valid certification shall not preclude code enforcement or investigation if a violation is reported or observed by the City during the certification period.

3. Revocation. The Director may revoke a certification at any time upon a finding that the rental housing property is no longer in compliance with the requirements of this Chapter. The Director shall provide written notice of any revocation to the owner in accordance with Section 5.XX.XXX.

5.XX.XXX Mandatory Inspection Program.

B. Inspection Cycle and Prioritization. Every residential rental unit subject to this Chapter shall be inspected not less than once every three (3) years, except for units participating in the Self-Certification Program under Section Section 5.XX.XXX or qualifying as exempt under Section 5.XX.XXX.

1. Systematic Inspection Program. The City shall operate a systematic inspection program to ensure that all residential rental units subject to this Chapter are inspected within each three (3) year cycle.

2. Prioritization Factors. The City shall prioritize inspections within each cycle based on the following factors, which are intended to guide but the sequencing of inspections:

12 a. Age of the rental housing stock, with priority given to units five (5) years of age or older;

b. Condition of the rental housing stock, including any known or reported deterioration or deferred maintenance; and

c. History of prior code violations on the residential rental property.

3. Scope of Inspection Authority. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the City’s authority to inspect any residential rental unit upon receipt of information that a code violation may exist thereon, or upon any other basis authorized by this Chapter or applicable law.

4. Cause for Inspection. In addition to inspections conducted as part of the inspection cycle, the City may inspect any residential rental unit upon receipt of information that a code violation may exist thereon, including but not limited to:

a. A complaint from a tenant of a residential rental unit that a code violation may exist;

b. Records maintained by the Director reflecting prior code violations or the absence of correction of such violations on the property;

c. A direct referral from another City official with code enforcement responsibility or from an official of a federal, state, or local agency, or from a public or private utility; or

d. A report or observation that the exterior condition of the rental housing property reflects the existence of code violations.

C. Inspection Notice. The City shall provide at least thirty (30) days’ written notice of the date and time of any inspection to be conducted pursuant to this Chapter, in accordance with Section 5.XX.XXX. Notice shall be provided to the owner of record and to each residential rental unit on the rental housing property.

D. Inspection Rescheduling.

1. City-Initiated Reschedule. The City may reschedule an inspection at its discretion. If the City reschedules an inspection, it shall provide updated written notice at least seven (7) days before the new inspection date, in accordance with Section 5.XX.XXX. Notice shall be provided to the owner of record and to each residential rental unit on the rental housing property.

13 2. Owner or Tenant-Initiated Reschedule. An owner or tenant may reschedule an inspection once by providing written notice to the Director at least seven (7) days prior to the scheduled inspection date, in accordance with Section

5.XX.XXX. A rescheduled inspection shall occur within fourteen (14) days of the originally scheduled date.

3. Additional Reschedules. Additional reschedules beyond the first are permitted only upon a showing a good cause and with the approval of the Inspector. A rescheduling fee shall be imposed for each additional reschedule, as established in the City’s master fee schedule.

E. Inspection Access and Entry.

1. Identification. At the time of the inspection, each person attending on behalf of the City shall identify themselves by name and title upon request of the owner or occupant.

2. Refusal of Access. If access is refused or cannot be obtained, the City may utilize all legal remedies available to secure lawful entry, including but not limited to an administrative inspection warrant pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1822.50 through 1822.57. Tenant entry rights under California Civil Code Section 1954 apply with respect to entry for necessary services and inspections.

F. Inspection Results and Reporting. Upon completion of an inspection, the Director shall provide a written summary of the inspection results, including any violations identified and the action required to remedy each violation, in accordance with Section 5.XX.XXX.

The written summary shall be provided to the owner of record and to the applicable residential rental unit on the rental housing property.

G. Violations and Reinspection. Reinspections shall verify correction of cited violations. A reinspection fee shall be imposed for each reinspection, as provided in Section 5.XX.XXX, Subsection (B)(2), and established in the City’s master schedule.

H. Inspection Certification. Upon successful completion of an inspection, the City shall issue an inspection certification to the owner, as provided in Section 5.XX.XXX.

5.XX.XXX Self-Certification Inspection Program.

A. Eligibility. Exemption from mandatory inspection shall be available for well-maintained properties that qualify under this section. To be eligible, a rental housing property must satisfy all of the following at the time of application:

1. No current complaints of code violations on the rental housing property;

14 2. No more than two (2) verified code violations on the rental housing property within the previous twelve (12) months;

3. No previously -identified and uncorrected violations of applicable state laws or codes, including the California Code of Regulations, State Housing Code, California Health and Safety Code, California Building, Plumbing, Mechanical or Electrical Codes, Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings, International Property Maintenance Code or provisions of the Fairfield Municipal Code;

4. No outstanding fees, charges, or penalties due to the City of Fairfield; and

5. No code enforcement liens or special assessments recorded against the rental housing property.

B. Application for Self-Certification. A property owner, or his or her designee, must complete an Application for Self-Certification on a form provided by the City. As part of the application process, the property owner, or his or her designee, must:

1. Conduct a self-inspection of all rental dwelling units on the property; and

2. Certify under penalty of perjury that the conditions at the property meet the requirements of the Self-Certification Program; and

3. Submit the completed application and all required fees to the Director.

C. Qualifying Inspections. Qualifying inspections shall be required for properties that have not been the subject of a residential rental unit inspection within the five (5) years preceding application for the Self-Certification Program. The cost of any qualifying inspection shall be borne by the owner and shall be subject to the inspection fee established under Section 5.XX.XXX.

D. Director Determination. Upon receipt of a completed application, the Director shall review the application and determine whether the rental housing property satisfies the eligibility criteria set forth in subsection A. The Director shall notify the owner in writing of the determination within thirty (30) days of receipt of a complete application, in accordance with Section 5.XX.XXX. If the Director determines that the rental housing property does not qualify, the owner shall be subject to the mandatory inspection requirements of Section 5.XX.XXX and all applicable fees.

E. Inspection Certification. Upon approval of an application for the Self-Certification Program, the City shall issue a rental housing inspection certification to the owner

15 pursuant to Section 5.XX.XXX. The certification shall remain valid for the duration of the owner’s participation in the Self-Certification Program subject to the following:

1. Annual Renewal. The certification shall be deemed renewed upon the owner’s timely completion of the annual self-inspection requirements set forth in subsection F. Failure to complete those requirements shall cause the certification to lapse and shall constitute grounds for removal from the Self- Certification Program pursuant to subsection H.

2. Revocation Upon Removal. Removal of a rental housing property from the Self- Certification Program pursuant to subsection H shall constitute grounds for revocation of the inspection certification pursuant to Section 5.XX.XXX. The director shall provide written notice of revocation to the owner in accordance with Section 5.XX.XXX.

F. Maintaining Eligibility. To maintain eligibility in the Self-Certification Program, the owner, or his or her designee, shall, on an annual basis:

1. Annual Self-Inspection. Conduct a self-inspection of all residential rental units on the rental housing property, including exterior conditions and common areas, in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 5.XX.XXX;

2. Self-Certification Checklist. Complete and certify, under penalty of perjury, that the conditions at the rental housing property continue to meet the minimum standards set forth in the Self-Certification Program Checklist;

3. Tenant Copy. Provide a copy of the completed Self-Certification Checklist to the occupants of each residential rental unit within seven (7) days of completion, in accordance with Section 5.XX.XXX; and

4. Recordkeeping. Retain a signed and dated copy of the Self-Certification Checklist for each unit for a minimum of three (3) years and produce such records to the Director within seventy-two (72) hours upon request.

G. Reduced Inspection Frequency. Properties participating in the Self-Certification Program shall be subject to reduced City inspections as follows:

1. The City shall inspect no more than twenty percent (20%) of the total residential rental units on each rental housing property, or at least one (1) residential rental unit per rental housing property, whichever is greater, not more than once every five (5) years.

2. If violations are found during a reduced inspection, the Director may expand the inspection to include additional residential rental units, up to and including one

16 hundred percent (100%) of the residential rental units on the rental housing property.

3. Properties in the Self-Certification Program may be subject to random inspection by the City not more than once per year, without prior notice beyond that required by Section 5.XX.XXX.

H. Removal from Self-Certification Program. A rental housing property may be removed from the Self-Certification Program by the Director under any of the following circumstances:

1. The rental housing property fails to meet the standards of the Self-Certification Checklist;

2. The rental housing property is found to have more than two (2) verified code violations within any twelve (12) month period;

3. The owner fails to maintain required records or produce them upon request; or

4. Any of the eligibility criteria set forth in subsection A cease to exist;

5. The Director determines, based on substantial evidence, that continued participation in the Self-Certification Program is inconsistent with the purposes of this Chapter or poses a risk to the health, safety, or welfare of occupants or the public.

Upon removal from the Self-Certification Program, the owner shall be subject to the mandatory inspection requirements of Section 5.XX.XXX, and the difference between the self-certification fee and the full inspection fee shall become immediately due and payable. The owner shall remain ineligible for the Self-Certification Program for three (3) years from the date of removal, unless the Director determines that the basis for removal has been fully remediated and good cause exists to reinstate eligibility sooner.

I. Limitation on Self-Certification Program. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the City’s authority to investigate and compel the abatement of code violation on a rental housing property participating in the Self-Certification Program.

5.XX.XXX Tenant Rights.

A. Pre-Tenancy Disclosures. Before the commencement of any tenancy of a residential rental unit subject to this Chapter, the owner shall provide the prospective tenant with the following:

17 1. Written notice that the residential rental unit is subject to the Rental Housing Safety program and that the tenant has the right to request an inspection by the City;

2. A copy of the most recent inspection report or Self-Certification Checklist for the unit, if available; and

3. Information concerning tenant rights and responsibilities under this Chapter, in a form approved by the Director. The Director shall make this form available in accordance with the requirements of Section 5.XX.XXX.

B. Rights During Inspection. A tenant of a residential rental unit subject to inspection under this Chapter has the following rights:

1. Notice. The tenant is entitled to receive written notice of any scheduled City inspection as provided in Section 5.XX.XXX;

2. Presence. The tenant has the right to be present during any City inspection of their residential rental unit;

3. Communication with Inspector. The tenant has the right to communicate directly with the Inspector during the inspection regarding conditions in the unit, without interference or obstruction by the owner;

4. Interpreter Services. Where a tenant has limited English proficiency, the tenant has the right to request interpreter services from the City in connection with any City inspection conducted pursuant to this chapter, consistent with Section

5.XX.XXX. The City shall make reasonable efforts to provide interpreter services at no cost of the tenant; and

5. Entry Rights.

a. City Inspections. Tenant entry rights with respect to City inspections shall be governed by California Civil Code Section 1954. Upon receipt of proper notice pursuant to Section 5.XX.XXX, the tenant shall provide reasonable access to the residential rental unit for inspections conducted by the City pursuant to this Chapter. A tenant may not refuse entry to a City Inspector conducting an inspection pursuant to a validly issued administrative inspection warrant under California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1822.50 through 1822.57. Nothing in this Chapter shall otherwise be construed to limit or waive any right afforded to tenants under California Civil Code Section 1954.

18 b. Owner Entry for Self-Certification. A tenant has the right to refuse entry to the owner of the residential rental unit for purposes of a self- certification inspection conducted pursuant to Section 5.XX.XXX. A tenant shall not be in violation of this Chapter for exercising this right.

Where a tenant refuses entry for a self-certification inspection, the following shall apply:

i. The owner shall document the refusal in writing, including the date of the attempted inspection and the method by which entry was requested, and shall submit such documentation to the Director within fourteen (14) days of the refusal, in accordance with Section 5.XX.XXX;

ii. The owner shall not be in violation of this Chapter or lose eligibility in the Self-Certification Program solely as a result of the tenant’s refusal, provided that the owner has complied with the documentation requirement of subsection (i); and

iii. The residential rental unit for which entry was refused shall not be deemed self-certified for that inspection cycle and shall remain subject to City inspection pursuant to Section 5.XX.XXX until such time as the owner is able to conduct the self-certification inspection or the City completes its own inspection of the unit.

C. Rights Following Inspection. Following the completion of any inspection conducted pursuant to this Chapter, a tenant has the following rights:

1. Inspection Results. The tenant is entitled to receive a copy of the written inspection results for their residential rental unit as provided in Section 5.XX.XXX.

2. Self-Certification Checklist. The tenant is entitled to receive a copy of the completed annual Self-Certification Checklist for their residential rental unit as provided in Section 5.XX.XXX; and

3. Complaint. The tenant has the right to file a complaint with the City regarding any building, housing, or sanitation code violation or permit violation that may exist on the rental housing property without fear of retaliation from the owner, consistent with subsection D.

D. Anti-Retaliation.

1. Protected Conduct. It shall be unlawful for an owner to retaliate against a tenant for exercising any right afforded under this Chapter, including but not limited to:

19 a. Filing or threatening to file a complaint with the City regarding conditions on the rental housing property;

b. Requesting an inspection or participating in an inspection conducted pursuant to this Chapter;

c. Communicating with a City Inspector regarding conditions in the residential rental unit;

d. Exercising any other right afforded to the tenant under this Chapter or applicable law.

2. Presumption of Retaliation. The following conduct by an owner shall be presumed retaliatory if it occurs within one hundred eighty (180) days of a tenant exercising any rights under this Chapter:

a. Initiating or threatening eviction proceedings;

b. Increasing rent or reducing services without a lawful basis;

c. Harassing or intimidating the tenant; or

d. Failing or refusing to make repairs identified during an inspection.

The presumption of retaliation established by this subsection is rebuttable. An owner may overcome the presumption by demonstrating, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the action was taken for a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason. Violations of this subsection shall constitute a violation of this Chapter and shall be subject to the enforcement remedies set forth in Section 5.XX.XXX and the collection procedures set forth in Section 5.XX.XXX.

E. Tenant Relocation Assistance.

1. Applicability. This subsection applies where a residential rental unit is determined to be substandard or unfit for human habitation within the meaning of California Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3, as a result of an inspection conducted pursuant to this Chapter, and the owner is required to vacate the unit for purposes of remediation.

2. Owner Obligation. Where the conditions of subsection (1) are met, the owner shall provide the displaced tenant with relocation assistance in accordance with Fairfield Municipal Code Chapter 27, Article XI, and any other applicable state or federal law. The amount and form of relocation assistance shall be established

20 by resolution of the City Council, consistent with applicable state law requirements.

3. Continuity of Tenancy. A tenancy shall not be deemed terminated solely as a result of a temporary displacement order issued pursuant to this Chapter. A tenant’s departure from the residential rental unit prior to authorized occupancy shall be presumed involuntary absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.

4. Rent Upon Reoccupancy. Where a tenant is temporarily displaced pursuant to a City order to vacate and subsequently reoccupies the residential rental unit, and rent charged upon reoccupancy shall be subject to the limitations of the Costa- Hawkins Rental Housing Act, codified at California Civil Code Section 1954.50 et seq.

5. Disputes. Any dispute regarding the provision of relocation assistance shall be resolved through the appeals process set forth in Section 5.XX.XXX.

5.XX.XXX Violations; Enforcement.

A. Violations. Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter, or who fails to comply with any order, directive, or condition issued by the Director pursuant to this Chapter, commits a violation subject to the enforcement remedies set forth in this section.

B. Notice of Violation. Upon determining that a violation of this Chapter exists, the Director shall issue a written notice of violation to the owner, in accordance with Section 5.XX.XXX. In addition to the information required by Section 5.XX.XXX, the notice shall identify each violation found and the applicable code section or standard violated.

The owner shall have not less than thirty (30) days from the effective date of the notice to cure all identified violations.

C. Opportunity to Cure. Prior to initiating formal enforcement action, the Director shall provide the owner with a reasonable opportunity to cure any violation identified under this Chapter, consistent with the deadline specified in the notice of violation. The following shall apply:

1. If the Owner cures all violations identified in the notice of violation by the specified deadline, no further enforcement action shall be taken with respect to those violations, provided that no new violations are identified upon reinspection;

21 2. If the owner advises the Director in writing that he or she will not proceed to correct the violation, the Director may immediately pursue any enforcement remedy available under this section without further notice; and

3. For violations involving an immediate life safety hazard, the Director may pursue enforcement remedies under subsection E immediately upon issuance of the notice of violation without providing a cure period, consistent with subsection C.

D. Enforcement Remedies. Upon the expiration of the cure period provided under subsection D, or immediately in cases involving an immediate life safety hazard or an owner’s written refusal to cure, the Director may pursue any one or more of the following remedies:

1. Issue an administrative citation imposing an administrative fine pursuant to Fairfield Municipal Code Chapter 1, Article II;

2. Seek civil penalties in the Superior Court, with each day of continued violation constituting a separate offense;

3. Refer the matter to City Attorney or District Attorney for infraction fine of not more than $1,000 per violation or misdemeanor prosecution for willful violations of this Chapter;

4. Seek injunctive relief in the superior court to compel compliance or restrain any continuing violation;

5. Recommend withholding of building permits, business licenses, or other City approvals until all violations are fully remediated;

6. Pursue any other remedy authorized by this Chapter, the Fairfield Municipal Code, or applicable state or federal law; and

7. Recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred in connection with any judicial proceeding brought to enforce this Chapter, collect unpaid fees, fines, or penalties, or recover the costs of abatement, from any person found to have violated this Chapter or against whom judgment is entered.

Unpaid fees, fines, and penalties imposed pursuant to this section shall be subject to collection in accordance with Section 5.XX.XXX.

E. Emergency Abatement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, where the Director determines that a residential rental unit or rental housing property is imminently dangerous to the public health, safety, or welfare, the City Manager, or his or her designee, may order immediate abatement of the dangerous condition without

22 prior notice to the owner in accordance with Fairfield Municipal Code Chapter 27, Article VIII. The City shall provide written notice to the owner as soon as reasonably practicable following the commencement of emergency abatement, and shall recover the costs of such abatement in accordance with Section 5.XX.XXX.

F. Repeat Violations. Where an owner has been found to have committed two (2) or more verified code violations of this Chapter within any twelve (12) month period, the Director may:

1. Remove the rental housing property from the Self-Certification Program pursuant to Section 5.XX.XXX;

2. Require more frequent inspections of the rental housing property for a period of up to three (3) years; and

3. Impose enhanced administrative fines in an amount established by resolution of the City Council.

5.XX.XXX Collection of Unpaid Fees, Fines, and Penalties.

A. Scope. This section establishes two separate collection tracks depending on the nature of the unpaid obligation:

a. Program Fees. All fees imposed pursuant to Section 5.XX.XXX shall be subject to collection through tax roll procedures set forth in subsection B.

b. Penalties, Fines, and Abatement Costs. Unpaid administrative fines, civil penalties, and abatement costs imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall be subject to collection through the administrative citation and judicial collection procedures set forth in subsections C and D.

B. Tax Roll Collection of Program Fees. Program fees imposed pursuant to Section

5.XX.XXX, including annual registration fees, inspection fees, and self-certification fees, shall be collected on the secured tax roll in conformance with

C. Administrative Citation Process. All administrative fines, civil penalties, and abatement costs imposed pursuant to this Chapter than remain unpaid shall be subject to collection through the administrative citation process established in Fairfield Municipal Code Chapter 1, Article II, including but not limited to the late payment charges, appeals procedures, and hardship waiver provisions set forth therein.

D. Judicial Collection. Any administrative fines, civil penalties, and abatement costs imposed pursuant to this Chapter that remain unpaid following the administrative citation process may be collected through any judicial remedy available to the City,

23 including but not limited to filing an action in small claims court or superior court, as authorized by Fairfield Municipal Code Section 1.12(i) and applicable provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

E. Special Assessments. Nothing in this section shall preclude the City from pursuing any other collection remedy available under state law, including but not limited to the placement of a special assessment on the rental housing property in accordance with Fairfield Municipal Code Chapter 27, Article IX.

F. Remedies Cumulative. The remedies provided in this section are cumulative and not exclusive of any other remedy available under this Chapter, this Code, or any applicable state or federal law. The City’s election to pursue any one remedy shall not preclude the simultaneous or subsequent pursuit of any other remedy.

G. Attorney’s Fees. Attorney’s fees and costs awarded to the City pursuant to Section

5.XX.XXX subsection (D)(7) shall be collectible through the judicial collection procedures set forth in subsection B and, upon entry of judgment, shall be subject to recordation as a judgment lien in accordance with subsection C.

5.XX.XXX Appeals.

A. Right to Appeal. Any owner may appeal a determination made by the Director or Inspector under this Chapter by filing a written appeal with the City within fourteen (14) days of the date of the determination. Failure to file a timely appeal shall constitute a waiver of the right to contest the determination, and the determination shall be final and binding.

B. Form of Appeal. All appeals shall be filed on a form furnished by the City and shall specify in detail the grounds for the appeal, including the specific determination being challenged and the reasons why the appellant believes the determination is erroneous.

The appeal shall be accompanied by any required deposit, hearing cost, or approved hardship waiver in accordance with Fairfield Municipal Code Section 1.15.

C. Hearing Examiner.

1. Appointment. The City Manager shall appoint a hearing examiner to conduct hearings under this section. A hearing examiner may be a City employee or a contracted third party, provided that the hearing examiner has no prior involvement in the determination being appealed.

2. Scheduling and Notice. Upon receipt of a complete appeal, the hearing examiner shall fix a time, date, and location for the hearing. The City shall provide the appellant with at least fourteen (14) days’ written notice of the hearing, in accordance with Section 5.XX.XXX.

24 3. Conduct of Hearing. At the hearing, the hearing examiner shall hear and consider all relevant evidence, objections, and protests offered by the appellant and any rebuttal evidence offered by the City. The hearing examiner shall follow, as nearly as practicable, the procedures that the City Council would have followed if it had conducted the hearing.

4. Interpreter Services. Any party to a hearing under this Section who has limited English proficiency may request interpreter services from the City. The City shall make reasonable efforts to provide interpreter services at no cost to the requesting party, consistent with Section 5.XX.XXX.

5. Recommendation. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the hearing examiner shall make a written recommendation to the City Council within thirty (30) days of the close of the hearing, which shall include factual findings based on the evidence introduced at the hearing. The hearing examiner may extend this deadline by no more than fifteen (15) additional days upon written notice to the appellant and the City, stating the reason for the extension.

D. City Council Review.

1. Action on Recommendation. Upon receipt of the hearing examiner’s recommendation, the City Council shall take one of the following actions:

a. Approve. Adopt the hearing examiner’s recommendation, which shall constitute the final determination of the City; or

b. Deny or Remand. Reject or modify the recommendation and remand the matter to the hearing examiner with written direction specifying the basis for remand and any issues to be addressed on remand.

2. Remand Procedure. Upon remand, the hearing examiner shall conduct such further proceedings as directed by the City Council and shall issue a revised written recommendation within thirty (30) days of receipt of the remand. The City Council shall thereafter take action in accordance with Subsection D.1.

3. Final Determination. The City Council’s decision to approve a recommendation under Subsection D.1.a shall be final and not subject to further administrative review.

E. Technical Building Code Appeals. Appeals of technical building or fire code decisions made by the Chief Building Official in connection with this Chapter shall be processed in accordance with the appeals procedures set forth in Fairfield Municipal Code Section X.XX.XXX, including but not limited to the procedures governing the Building Appeals

25 Board. Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or supersede those existing procedures.

F. Judicial Review. The right to judicial review of any final determination under this section shall be governed by Fairfield Municipal Code Chapter 1.18 and applicable provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

5.XX.XXX Severability. If any provision of this Chapter or its application is deemed invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the City Council intends that such invalidity will not affect the validity of the remaining provisions or their application and, to this end, the provision s of this Chapter are severable.

Agenda Item No: P.1

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: April 7, 2026

TO: Mayor and Council

FROM: David Gassaway, City Manager

SUBJECT: Resolution 2026-56 CD 2026 Building Fee Study Adoption

Amending Fees for Recovery of Costs of the Building Safety Division for Counter Services, Plan Review, Inspection, Code Enforcement , and Ordering the Fees to be Adjusted Annually to Stay Current with Expenses

Funding Source: N/A

Contact: Jeff Thomas, (707) 428-7442

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Hold public hearing and adopt resolution.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
On March 17, 2026 , staff presented to the City Council the proposed Building Safety User Fee update. At that meeting, the council received the report and provided no direction to modify the proposed fee structure.

The proposed fee structure is now presented for public hearing and adoption , with an effective date starting July 1, 2026.

DISCUSSION
The Building Safety 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. Rising costs have been caused by several factors, including:
 Increased building code requirements, such as the new high fire regulations  Increased technology costs
 Increased liability costs
 The California Construction Cost Index (CCI) is not keeping pace with the division’s operating cost

As discussed at the March 17, 2026 , council meeting, the proposed fee update is intended to achieve full cost recovery, align fee s with the actual cost of providing services, and reduce reliance on the General Fund.

The proposed fees realign operational costs on each permit and project type. Applicants will see a reduction in many basic permits and home remodel permits, such as wa ter heaters, heat ing 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 new construction permits under-recover costs. Under the proposed update, new construction permits may increase by up to approximately 15%. The following example illustrates the impact:

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

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 improvement permits while modestly increasing fees for larger , more complex projects that require more staff time and resources . By aligning fees with actual costs, the Building Safety Division will be more financially sustainable. If adopted, the updated fee schedule will take effect July 1, 2026.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
If adopted, the updated fee schedule should improve cost recovery beginning in fiscal year 2027, reducing the impact on the General Fund by approximately $300,000 annually if permit activity remains steady.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The council may deny the proposed Building Fee Update , but this will maintain the current fee schedule, 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 Resolution
Attachment 3: Exhibit A - Building Division User Fee Study Attachment 4: BIA to Fairfield Building Fee Study
Attachment 5: Willdan BIA Response

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-56

AMENDING FEES FOR RECOVERY OF COSTS OF THE BUILDING SAFETY DIVISION FOR COUNTER

SERVICES, PLAN REVIEW, INSPECTION, CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND ORDERING THE FEES TO BE

ADJUSTED ANNUALLY TO STAY CURRENT WITH EXPENSES

WHEREAS, the Building Safety Division administers and processes permits, certificates, and other forms and documents in connection with counter services, plan review, inspection, and code enforcement, as is mandated and required by the California Building Standards Code and Chapter 5 of the Fairfield Municipal Code; and

WHEREAS, the City incurs costs to perform these services; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that an updated fee schedule is necessary to recover the costs associated with the administration and processing of permits, certificates, and other forms and documents; and

WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 17951 and Government Code Section 66016 allow the City to adopt an ordinance or resolution to establish fees to administer and process permits, certificates, or other forms or documents , or defray the costs of enforcement required to be carried out by local enforcement agencies, provided that the fees do not exceed the reasonable costs to the City; and

WHEREAS, the City retained the services of Willdan Financial Services (Consultant) to review and conduct an independent analysis to determine the full costs incurred by the City to support the various activities for which the Building Safety Division charges user fees; and

WHEREAS, Consultant prepared a study listing the applicable direct and indirect costs for certain services provided by the Building Safety Division, describing the reasonable relationship between the fees and the services provided by the Building Safety Division, which is identified as the “City of Fairfield Building Division User Fee Study,” dated March 9, 2026 (Fee Study), copies of which are on file in the City Clerk’s Office; and

WHEREAS, the council has reviewed the Fee Study and finds that the proposed fees do not exceed the reasonable costs to the city; and

WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 66016 and 66018 require the city to hold at least one open and public hearing as part of a regularly scheduled meeting before adopting an ordinanc e or resolution increasing fees; and

WHEREAS, Government Code Sections 66016, 66018, and 6062a require notice to be given and data to be made available to the public before the open and public hearing; and

RES. NO. 2026-56

WHEREAS, notice was provided in accordance with Government Code Sections 66016, 66018 and 6062a; and

WHEREAS, on April 7, 2026, the council conducted an open and public hearing as required by Government Code Sections 66016 and 66018; and

WHEREAS, the user fees and charges established pursuant to this Resolution shall take effect no sooner than 60 days following the adoption of this Resolution, pursuant to Government Code Section 66017.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. The council hereby approves and adopts the recitals set forth above in support of this Resolution.

Section 2. The council hereby approves the Fee Study, attached hereto as Exhibit A , and incorporated herein by this reference, and adopts the Building Division Suggested User Fees as listed in Exhibit A - Appendix C. A copy of the Fee Study shall be maintained on file with the City Clerk and available during regular City business hours for public inspection.

Section 3. The finance director is hereby authorized to adjust the fees annually, effective July 1, starting in July 2027. The adjustments will be based on the average of each of the percent changes in the CPI for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI -W) in the following three areas: 1) San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, 2) West, and 3) U.S. city average. This CPI data will be obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or its successor agency, and the comparison will be made between the CPI values for April of the current year and the preceding April.

Section 4. The finance director is hereby authorized to adjust all construction valuations listed in the Fairfield Square Foot Construction Cost Table, as adopted and updated by Resolution 2021-83, every July 1, starting July 2027, according to the change in the California Constr uction Cost Index based upon the Building Code Index, as reported by the California Department of General Services, from April of the current fiscal year over the preceding April.

Section 5. Any provisions of prior Resolutions of the council establishing, adopting, or modifying user fees for the specific services, programs, or products outlined in the Fee Study , including, but not limited to, Resolution No. 2021-83 and Resolution No. 2024-111, are hereby repealed and replaced as of the effective date of the user fees and charges established herein; provided, however, that such repeal shall not excuse or affect the failure of any person or entity to pay any fee heretofore imposed upon such person or entity.

Section 6. The council has de termined that the adoption of this Resolution does not constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA

RES. NO. 2026-56

Guidelines Sections 15378(b)(4), as it does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.

Section 7. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution or any part hereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution or any part thereof. The council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof, irrespe ctive of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Section 8. The rates adopted in this Resolution shall go into effect on July 1, 2026.

Section 9. The city manager is authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to implement this Resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of April 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: MEMBERS: MOY/BERTANI/CARR/PANDURO/SANDHU/TONNESEN/WILLIAMS NOES: MEMBERS: _________________________________________________ ABSENT: MEMBERS: _________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: MEMBERS: _________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________

CITY CLERK

City of Fairfield
Building Division User Fee Study
March 9, 2026

EXHIBIT A

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

Sent Via Email

DATE: March 25, 2026

TO: Fairfield Chief Building Official Jeff Thomas

FROM: Lisa Vorderbrueggen, East Bay Executive Director for Gov’t Affairs

RE: Fairfield Building Division User Fee Study, dated March 9, 2026

Dear Mr. Thomas:

The Building Industry Association of the Bay Area submits this letter in response to the Fairfield Building Division User Fee Study dated March 9, 2026, prepared by Willdan Financial Services.

We appreciate the city's commitment to cost recovery and sound fiscal management, and we recognize that periodic fee studies are both appropriate and necessary. However, after careful review of the study and consultation with BIA members actively building in Fairfield, we have identified significant methodological concerns that we believe warrant the city's attention before the study is adopted.

Chief among them is the proposed 17.7 percent increase to the Building Valuation Table base rates — a double- digit, single-step hike that, if adopted as proposed, will have a material negative impact on housing production and affordability in Fairfield at a time when the city is obligated to meet sub stantial Regional Housing Needs Assessment targets.

We respectfully request that the city address the questions and concerns set forth below before finalizing and adopting the study.

I. Cost Recovery Baseline and Supporting Documentation
The study's foundational cost recovery figures require greater transparency and independent verification before they can serve as a reliable basis for fee-setting.

1. The study states the Building Permit program is currently operating at 85 percent cost recovery based on fiscal year 2025 activity levels. How was that figure derived? Is there a reconciliation showing actual permit revenue collected against actual fully burdened costs incurred, or is it a modeled estimate based on assumed permit volumes?

Page | 2

2. The study notes that overhead amounts in Appendix A "will not reconcile to City budgets" because certain costs were excluded. If the figures don't reconcile to the budget, what is the authoritative source document that can be used to verify them?

3. The study identifies 70 fee increases, 92 decreases and 26 unchanged flat fees, with a net average increase of 2 percent. However, the valuation-based Building Permit program is recommended to increase by 17.7 percent. What is the total projected annual revenue impact of each category? The 2 percent average figure could mask a situation where the valuation table increase — which applies to all new construction — generates far more actual revenue than the nominal average suggests.

II. Overhead Allocation Methodology and Nexus to Building Services The study's overhead allocations must reflect a demonstrable and reasonable relationship between the costs recovered and the services provided to permit applicants.

4. Appendix A shows the Building Division carries a $207,265 indirect allocation, representing 9 percent of its cost base, derived from the city's Cost Allocation Plan. Which specific central service departments are included in that allocation? Does the list include departments — such as the city attorney, city manager or public safety functions — whose connection to building permit processing is indirect and would require an explicit nexus justification under California law?

5. The CD Admin allocation to Building is $572,464, representing 25 percent of the Building Division's cost base. What activities within Community Development Administration are covered by that allocation, and is any portion attributable to functions serving the general public broadly rather than permit applicants specifically?

6. Does the Cost Allocation Plan itself reconcile to the adopted budget? Has the plan been independently audited and when was it last updated?

III. Productive Hours and Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculations The fully burdened hourly rate is the product of total costs divided by productive hours. Errors in either the numerator or denominator directly inflate the resulting fee. The following questions go to the integrity of that calculation.

7. The study applies a uniform assumption of 1,650 productive hours annually across all positions. Is that figure validated against the adopted budget's full -time equivalent allocations and actual payroll records, or is it a standard consultant default? Does it reflect actual patterns of leave, non- billable time and training across Building Division classifications?

8. What was the data collection period used for staff time estimates? The Fairfield study says time estimates were gathered through staff interviews, but interviews are even less rigorous than a two-week monitoring period — were time logs or actual billing records used to validate interview responses?

9. Are any Building Division staff splitting time with other city programs — the Capital Improvement Program, code enforcement, general plan administration or other non-Building activities? If so, has that time been properly excluded from both the cost numera tor and the productive hours denominator? Misalignment between these two figures will distort the fully burdened hourly rate in either direction.

10. The study shows $2,258,442 in Building Division salaries and benefits. How many full -time equivalents does that represent, and does that count match the adopted budget? If vacant positions are included in

Page | 3

the budget but not currently filled, are those vacancies' hours included in the productive hours denominator — which would artificially lower the fully burdened hourly rate — or excluded, which could artificially raise it?

IV. Public Information and General Public Benefit Cost Recovery Not all Building Division costs represent private benefits to permit applicants. Activities that serve the general public should be funded, at least in part, by the General Fund rather than recovered entirely through permit fees.

11. What portion of CD Admin costs covers general public benefit activities — pre-application consultations available to any member of the public, counter walk -in inquiries, website maintenance and public outreach — versus activities directly tied to processing a specific permit application?

12. Fairfield's adopted budget language reportedly distinguishes between fee -supported activities and those that "support the Community, pre-development work, appeals and public information, and non-project- related activities." If the budget itself acknowledges that those categories are not appropriate for full cost recovery, how does the study treat them, and why?

V. Fund Classification and the Limits of 100 percent Cost Recovery The appropriate cost recovery target for any given activity depends in part on the fund structure under which the Building Division operates and the nature of the benefit provided.

13. Is Fairfield's Building Division operating under a Special Revenue Fund or an Enterprise Fund designation? That classification has direct policy implications. Special Revenue Funds are typically supported in part by the General Fund; treating them as fully self-sustaining Enterprise Funds — recovering 100 percent of all costs through fees — may be inconsistent with standard governmental accounting practice and with the expectations of property owners who already fund city operations through property taxes.

14. The study acknowledges the city may elect to set fees at less than 100 percent cost recovery. Has the City Council made any explicit policy determination — outside of this study — identifying which categories of service are appropriate for General Fund subsidy? Without such a framework, there is no principled basis for evaluating whether the 100 percent recovery target is appropriate for each individual fee type.

VI. Phase-In of Fee Increases
Where fee increases are significant, a phased implementation approach protects housing production and allows the development community time to adapt.

15. The proposed 17.7 percent increase to the valuation-based Building Permit table is a meaningful single - step increase. Has the city evaluated a phase -in approach, particularly given that the current program is already at 85 percent cost recovery — meaning only a 15-percentage-point gap exists? An immediate jump to 100 percent on the valuation table is difficult to justify when the program is already substantially self- sustaining.

Page | 4

16. For the 70 flat fees that are increasing, what is the range of individual increases? A 2 percent average could mask individual fees increasing by significantly more. Are any individual fee changes large enough to warrant a phase-in recommendation independent of the valuation table?

17. Has the city conducted an economic feasibility analysis to assess whether the combined effect of all proposed fee changes on a typical single -family residential project or infill multifamily development is consistent with Fairfield's housing production goals and RHNA obligations? Such an analysis is standard practice in jurisdictions actively working to facilitate housing production.

VII. Peer Jurisdiction Comparison
The study includes no comparison of proposed fees or fully burdened hourly rates against comparable jurisdictions. Fairfield should conduct a meaningful peer comparison before adopting the study.

18. The study does not compare proposed fully burdened hourly rates or resulting permit fees against comparable Solano County cities. What do Vacaville, Dixon, Benicia and Suisun City charge for equivalent permits at representative valuation levels?

19. The proposed fully burdened hourly rate for the Building Plans Examiner is $115.82 per hour and for the Chief Building Official is $176.26 per hour. How do those rates compare to equivalent positions in comparable Solano County jurisdictions and similarly sized East Bay cities?

20. For a prototypical 20 -unit infill apartment building at $5 million construction cost — a project type central to Fairfield's RHNA compliance — what is the total proposed Building Permit fee under the new valuation table, and how does that compare to what the same project would pay in Vacaville or Benicia?

VIII. Third-Party Contracting and Potential Double-Recovery Where a city contracts building services to outside consultants, the fee study must clearly account for those costs to avoid charging applicants twice for the same service.

21. Does Fairfield use any outside plan check consultants, contract inspectors or third -party review services for any portion of its Building Division workload? If so, are those contract costs reflected in the study's cost basis, passed through to applicants s eparately from the fully burdened hourly rate -based fees, or both?

22. The study includes a fee for "inspection by outside consultant" charged at actual cost per hour, which implies consultant usage exists. What is the annual volume and cost of that outside consultant work, and does any portion of it also appear in the overhead allocation or cost basis in a way that could create double recovery from applicants?

23. The study acknowledges that fees "will not reconcile to City budgets" in part because "contract costs" charged directly to applicants were excluded from the overhead calculation. Is there a complete accounting of all contract costs passed through to applicants separately, with confirmation that there is no overlap with overhead costs already recovered through the fully burdened hourly rate?

Page | 5

Conclusion
BIA|Bay Area respectfully urges the city to pause adoption of the study and address the questions and concerns raised in this letter before proceeding.

The concerns identified here are not unique to Fairfield — independent peer reviews of comparable Willdan fee studies for Hollister and Morgan Hill identified many of the same methodological issues, and in both instances the proposed fees were found to significantly exceed those of comparable jurisdictions.

We are committed to working constructively with the city toward a fee structure that achieves genuine cost recovery while remaining reasonable, transparent and supportive of Fairfield's housing production goals.

Fairfield has a significant RHNA obligation, and permit fees that are higher than necessary — or that rest on a methodology that cannot withstand independent scrutiny — directly undermines the city's ability to meet that obligation.

We welcome the opportunity to meet with you and your staff to discuss these questions and to review any supplemental documentation the city can provide. We ask that the city refrain from scheduling the study for adoption until these issues have been addres sed and BIA|Bay Area has had a reasonable opportunity to review the city's responses. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Lisa A. Vorderbrueggen
BIA|Bay Area East Bay Executive Director for Government Affairs 1000 Burnett Ave., Ste. 340, Concord, CA 94520
925-348-1956 (cell)
[email protected]

Memorandum

To: Jeff Thomas, Chief Building Official, Fairfield
From: Tony Thrasher, Principal Consultant, Willdan
Date: March 24, 2026, 2 p.m.

Subject: Willdan Responses to BIA Questions

The following is Willdan’s response to the Building Industry Association of the Bay Area’s (BIA) letter sent on March 25, 2026. Note that the decision to subsidize any fees included in the study is a policy decision up to the City Council. The recommendation of the study as determined by staff is full cost recovery since the services provided are private benefits related to regulatory compliance activities.

The City endeavors to continue to provide excellent regulatory services to the public. Therefore, it is essential that the City recover the cost of providing regulatory services to ensure that the existing service standard continues. Subsidies for such services can contribute to declining services standards and cause delays in plan check and inspection activity completion if the cost of such services are forced to compete with general benefit activities for a portion of the City’s general unobligated tax dollars. Regulatory compliance services are not general benefit activities.

Below are responses to the 23 questions under the 7 sections of concern by the BIA.

I. Cost Recovery Baseline and Supporting Documentation

1. The cost portion of the analysis utilized the budget of the Building department for FY 2026 excluding technology expenses, an allocated share of Community Development Administration for Admin support and compared that against the actual revenue received for providing inspection and plan check services for FY 2025.

2. The fiscal year 2026 budget can be used to determine that the expenses included in Appendix A are not above the adopted budget. The difference between Appendix A and the City budget is achieved by excluding contract services from overhead calculations.

3. The 2% referenced in the report is the average change in existing flat fees (set fee amount listed for service) comparing the total change in all flat fees to the total current existing fees treating each fee equally (irrespective of usage) only. It is not a statement of revenue effect.

Each fee listed has a full cost determination and so is restricted to full cost recovery or less on an individual fee basis. The valuation permit program is calculated separately and will be monitored on an annual basis and adjusted when needed to be at or below full cost recovery as policy dictates.

II. Overhead Allocation Methodology and Nexus to Building Services

4. The Cost Allocation Plan (CAP) allocation includes City Manager, Cable and Media Services, Human Resources, Finance Administration, Revenue, Accounting, Accounts Payable, Payroll/Purchasing, Operations Admin, Building Maintenance, Custodial Maintenance. All allocations in the CAP represent indirect support, as determined through a study that determined the reasonable allocation of indirect support to operating units. Such plans are reasonable for the determination of indirect support for user fee activities under California law.

5. CD admin was allocated based on the amount of personnel cost for all organization units they support. That includes Planning, Building, Business License, and Economic Development. Community Development Administration activities supporting the Building Division include departmental leadership, operational oversight, permit system management, staff supervision, and coordination of development services across divisions and departments. This is a sample of the functions necessary to support the delivery of Building Safety services including plan review, inspections, and permit issuance.

6. The allocations from the Cost Allocation Plan are reviewed by City auditors annually.

III. Productive Hours and Fully Burdened Hourly Rate Calculations

7. 1,650 is a reasonable amount reflective of reducing the total workable hours in a year by vacation, holidays, sick leave, and allowing for a couple breaks each day. The staff involved with providing services in the study do not perform daily timekeeping to allow for detailed attribution, which is typical for cities.

8. Reasonable estimates of time were provided by City staff that directly provide services to the public and multiplied by the respective fully burdened hourly rates to determine a reasonable estimate of cost to provide each service.

9. Fee determination is determined on an individual service request bases for flat fees and based on personnel explicitly budgeted to Building to provide services so there is no risk of including support of other budgeted activities or support for other City functions.

10. Building has 13 positions budgeted and vacant budgeted positions are intended to be filled in order to provide services for the fiscal year. A set standard of productive hours was used, not a department wide determination, so there is no effect on productive hour calculations.

IV. Public Information and General Public Benefit Cost Recovery

11. See question 5, as CD Admin was allocated.

12. Please provide page of cited reference in the City budget.

V. Fund Classification and the Limits of 100 percent Cost Recovery

13, 14. The Building budget is within the General Fund, and the City may charge up to the reasonable estimate of the full cost of providing regulatory compliance services.

VI. Phase-In of Fee Increases

15. The suggested fees in the report would place the City at the low end of fees for providing services in their area. This question states that there is only a 15% gap to full cost recovery but at the same time the increase needed to get to full cost is a meaningful amount, which is contradictory. The fee increase suggested is to close the 15% gap to achieve full cost recovery.

16. Each fee is detailed in the report, and no “phase in” to the suggested fee amount listed for each fee is being recommended.

17. Economic feasibility studies are not typically done in conjunction with a user fee study; the fee study is designed to establish the cost of providing services and ensures compliance with State law. The City has considered potential impacts of the proposed fee update, including its housing production goals and RHNA obligations. Building fees represent one component of overall development costs, and the proposed adjustments are modest when viewed across the full fee schedule.

VII. Peer Jurisdiction Comparison
A comparison was completed and presented in the study session on March 17, 2026 (video available online), and the only City that was less than Fairfield for the building plan Check and permit fees was Vacaville, who hasn’t done a fee study in almost a decade. 18, 19, 20. It is against the law for cities to set fees based on a comparison with their neighbors, or peers under any other characteristics. The study’s purpose was to determine the reasonable estimate of full cost of providing services for the City of Fairfield, and Fairfield alone as required by law. Since fee schedules are public information on each City’s website, the BIA is free to perform any additional comparisons.

VIII. Third-Party Contracting and Potential Double-Recovery

21. Contract services are used to provide some services as listed in the fee schedule, and the cost of such services are not included in the hourly rate calculations for City staff, and such costs are reflected directly in the cost of providing plan check and permit fees.

22. Consultant and contact service usage varies based on the needs of the project and such costs are reflected directly in the cost of providing plan check and permit fees. The consultant cost incurred that would be involved with providing Building services is not included in any overhead calculations.

23. See question 2. Building contract costs are excluded from fully burdened hourly rate calculations entirely.

Response to the conclusion in the BIA letter
The Bay Area BIA challenged the City of Hollister on their fees in 2019 alleging that the fees they adopted were not based on the reasonable cost of providing service. The City then contracted with Willdan in 2020 to do a cost study on the fees and subsequently adopted fees based on that study in 2021. Morgan Hill contracted with a different vendor in 2020/21 for their user fee study.

The fees included in this study are subject to a 60-day delay in implementation after Council adoption, if it is the will of the Council to adopt, on April 7, 2026, but the actual implementation date would be July 1, 2026, or 85 days after adoption. Since public hearing notice requirements require that the hearing is noticed 10 days in advance of the meeting, the public hearing has already been noticed and therefore must open on that date. The Council may open and then continue the hearing to a later date if it is their desire, but the City and Willdan have provided sufficient responses to the BIA’s questions above and believe that the 85 day delay in implementation is more than enough time to address any additional questions the BIA has.

Agenda Item No: P.2

AGENDA REPORT
DATE: April 7, 2026

TO: Mayor and Council

FROM: David Gassaway, City Manager

SUBJECT: Resolution 2026 -57 CM Appeal of the Denial of Business Permit for Massage Establishment Located at 1328 West Texas Street

[Approving/Sustaining] [Denying/Overruling] the Appeal of the Denial of Business Permit Massage Establishment Located at 1328 West Texas Street, Fairfield, CA 94533 Pursuant to Chapter 10A (Section 10A.11; 10A.5; and 10A.6) and section 25.22.2 of the Fairf ield Municipal Code

Funding Source: N/A

Contact: David Lim, (415) 782-0393

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Hold public hearing and adopt resolution.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The Fairfield Municipal Code allows the applicant of a City business permit to appeal the denial of their permit application to the City Council. Fairfield Municipal Code section 10A.22 requires the City Council to conduct a hearing and approve/sustain or deny/overrule the appeal.

DISCUSSION
On February 2, 2025, Ms. Li Bin Dong (Appellant) applied for a massage permit with the Fairfield Police Department for “Miracle Massage,” a business at 1328 West Texas Street, Fairfield, California 94533. See Attachment 1. The City allowed Ms. Dong to open her massage business with a probationary permit while her application was being reviewed.

On May 6, 2025, the City of Fairfield Code Enforcement Division (Code Enforcement) denied the massage permit application of Ms. Dong for a Massage Establishment called Miracle Massage, located at 1328 West Texas Street (Attachment 3). The business permit was denied on the basis of various Municipal Code violations that were observed at the May 2 inspection of the business undertaken by Code Enforcement.

The code enforcement officer noted the following violations:

 10A.11(b): Close supervision required
 10A.5(h): Clean linens required/(towels left in the open)  10A.6: Record of Treatment was not being filled out correctly  10A.5(d): Inadequate lighting
 25.22.2: Sleeping on the premises
 27.401(r): Violation of any city code is a public nuisance

On May 11, 2025, Ms. Dong sent a letter appealing the denial of the permit application and has asked for a hearing before the City Council as provided for under Fairfield Municipal Code section 10A.22. See Attachment 3. The probationary massage permit remains in place while Ms. Dong’s appeal is pending.

In the letter requesting the appeal, the Appellant addressed each violation noted by the code enforcement officer. Appellant contends that each violation has been remedied:

 10A.11(b): Appellant contends that all employees are CAMTC certified and that they are appropriately supervised
 10A.5(h): Appellant contends that the way towels are stored has been appropriately adjusted
 10A.6: Appellant contends that he has reviewed the requirements for recording treatment information and will do so correctly but contends that the Fairfield municipal code contradicts California Civil Code section 1747.08
 25.22.2: Appellant contends that they will never sleep on business premises

On July 1, 2025, the City Council held a hearing on the appeal of the Appellant. By a 5-1 (Panduro - NO) vote, the City Council placed Appellant on 60 days probation with a provisional business license, subject to inspection anytime with or without a warrant. If no further violations were found by code enforcement after the 60-day period, Appellant was to be issued a permanent massage permit.

On November 19, 2025, Code Enforcement sent a letter to Appellant denying a permanent massage permit based on the following violations:

 10A.11(a): Massages conducted with non-certified massage professional  10A.6: Records of treatment not being filled out correctly  10A.15(b): Massage therapist not listed on permit
 10A.20(a)(11): Any other unprofessional conduct or violation of applicable law

On November 24, 2025, Appellant send a letter appealing the denial of a permit and the findings by Code Enforcement. A hearing date was scheduled for March 17, 2026 , with consent of Appellant.

The City Council is required to hold a pub lic hearing on this matter and approve/sustain or deny/overrule the appeal.

Fairfield Municipal Code 10A.22 states:

(a) Any person aggrieved by the grant or denial of the city manager may appeal that decision by filing written notice of such appeal and the ground therefor with the city clerk within ten days after the city manager’s decision. Upon receipt of appeal, the matter shall be set for review by the city council. No rights shall be exercised under any permit or amendment until the city council’s decision.

(b) In considering and ruling upon the appeal of the petitioner, the city council shall judge the merits of the appeal based upon those grounds set forth for revocation and suspension of permits.

The city council may reverse or affirm wholly or p artly or may modify any decision, determination or requirement of the city manager and may make such decisions or determinations or impose such conditions as the facts warrant, and may order that a permit be granted, suspended or revoked in accordance with their ruling. The decisions of the city council shall be final. Any hearing may be continued from time to time.

Both sides have been notified of their opportunity to present any documents or other evidence at the hearing.

Under existing law, the City Attorney cannot advise the hearing officers (City Council) and simultaneously advocate on behalf of City Staff. Therefore, this staff report makes no recommendation to the City Council, nor does it offer an opinion on City Staff’s actions. The City Attorney’s role will be to guide the hearing officers (City Council) on the proper process for this hearing. Outside attorney Ms. Joanne Tran has been retained to represent City Staff in this matter and will advocate on behalf of City Staff in this matter.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The financial impact is minimal, as the hearing will take place during a regularly scheduled City Council meeting.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
By operation of the Municipal Code, the City Council must issue a ruling to approve/sustain or deny/overrule the appeal.

COORDINATED WITH
Police Department

STAFF CONTACT
David Lim, City Attorney
(415) 782-0393
[email protected]

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 2: Miracle Massage Permit Denial (11/19/2025) Attachment 3: Miracle Massage Appeal (11/24/20025)
Attachment 4: Letter to Miracle Massage re: Appeal Date (01/30/2026) Attachment 5: Email confirmation from Miracle Massage re: Appeal Date (01/30/2026) Attachment 6: Email from Jeremy Profitt to Miracle Massage re: Logbook and Compliance Requirements (9/10/2025)
Attachment 7: Code Enforcement File 25-000067 re: Miracle Massage Attachment 8: Email from Jeremy Profitt re: Miracle Massage (10/22/2026) Attachment 9: Code Enforcement Powerpoint Presentation

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-57

[APPROVING/SUSTAINING] [DENYING/OVERRULING] THE APPEAL OF THE DENIAL OF BUSINESS PERMIT FOR MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT LOCATED AT 1312 WEST TEXAS STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533 PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 10A (SECTION 10A.11; 10A.5; AND 10A.6) AND SECTION 25.22.2 OF THE FAIRFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE

WHEREAS, on November 19, 2025, the City of Fairfield declined to grant a business permit to operate a massage establishment to Miracle Massage located at 1328 West Texas Street , Fairfield, California; and

WHEREAS, Fairfield Municipal Code section 10A.22 states, “Any person aggrieved by the grant or denial of the city manager may appeal that decision by filing written notice of such appeal and the ground therefore with the city cl erk within ten days after the city manager’s decision. Upon receipt of the appeal, the matter shall be set for review by the city council;” and

WHEREAS, Miracle Massage has timely exercised their right of appeal to the City Council through delivery to the City requesting an appeal of the revocation of their license on November 24, 2025; and

WHEREAS, Fairfield Municipal Code section 10A.22 states that in ruling on the appeal of the petitioner, the council “shall judge the merits of the appeal based upon th ose grounds set forth for revocation and suspension of permits” which are outlined in section 10A.19 and 10A.20; and

WHEREAS, the council may reverse or affirm wholly or partly or may modify any decision, determination or requirement of the city manager a nd may make such decisions or determinations or impose such conditions as the fact warrant, and may order that a permit be granted, suspended or revoked in accordance with their ruling; and

WHEREAS, the council has held the hearing on the appeal of the denial of the business permit by hearing and considering sworn testimony from all parties wishing to be heard, and receiving and considering all evidence lawfully admitted before it.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. The council finds that the appeal brought by Miracle Massage regarding the denial of permit to operate a massage establishment is (choose one): APPROVED/SUSTAINED, or DENIED/OVERRULED.

Section 2. City Staff are authorized to do all things prope r and necessary consistent with the findings of this resolution.

RES. NO. 2026-57

Section 3. A copy of this resolution shall be served on the business permit applicant by serving it personally or by depositing it in the post office in the city, postage prepaid, addressed to such person at the address appearing on his last license or application within 10 business days of this hearing. The city clerk is directed to keep a copy of the proof of service.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of April 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: MEMBERS: MOY/BERTANI/CARR/PANDURO/SANDHU/TONNESEN/WILLIAMS NOES: MEMBERS: _________________________________________________ ABSENT: MEMBERS: _________________________________________________ ABSTAIN: MEMBERS: _________________________________________________

_________________________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
___________________________

CITY CLERK

January 30, 2026

Libin Dong
Miracle Massage
1328 W. Texas St.

Fairfield, CA 94533

Re: Appeal Hearing re: MIRACLE MASSAGE - 1328 W. Texas St. - MARCH 17, 2026

Dear Ms. Dong,

The City has scheduled your hearing on the appeal submitted by you on November 24, 2025 regarding the denial of a business license for MIRACLE MASSAGE for TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2025 at 6:00 PM at the Fairfield City Council chambers at 1000 Webster Street, Fairfield, CA.

Please be prepared to present any evidence and testify before the City Council on that date.

Your business license will remain valid until your appeal hearing on March 17.

Sincerely,

DAVID G. LIM
City Attorney

1 David G. Lim
From: libin dong <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2026 4:14 AM
To: David G. Lim
Subject: Re: Hearing Date on Appeal of Business License re: Miracle Massage -- MARCH 17, 2026 I will be there, thank you.

On Thu, Jan 29, 2026, 10:11 PM David G. Lim <[email protected]> wrote:

Ms. Dong,

The City has scheduled your hearing on the appeal of your denial of a business license for TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 2025 at 6:00 PM at the Fairfield City Council chambers at 1000 Webster Street, Fairfield, CA.

Please be prepared to bring your appeal at that date.

Please confirm receipt of this email notice. Thank you,

David Lim | City Attorney
City Attorney’s Office | City of Fairfield
O | (707) 428-7400 E | [email protected]
1000 Webster Street Fairfield, CA 94533
www.fairfield.ca.gov
City Hall is closed the 1st and 3rd Fridays of the month

1 David G. Lim
From: Profitt, Jeremy <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2025 3:45 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Cc: David G. Lim; Eltringham, Darin
Subject: 1328 W. Texas St. Miracle massage Follow-Up on Logbook and Compliance Requirements
Good afternoon, Mr. Davis

Thank you for taking the time to meet with Code Enforcement Officer Eltringham and myself to discuss your wife’s continued noncompliance with the city’s logbook requirement and display of their CAMTC certificates over the past sixty days.

In recognition of this ongoing issue, I extended an additional opportunity for your wife to bring the logbook into compliance. During our discussion, I emphasized that owning and operating a business comes with many responsibilities and suggested it may be worthwhile for you or your wife to consider investing in administrative or recordkeeping support to ensure requirements are consistently met.

We agreed to remove the requirement to record the customer’s home address; however, your logbook must still include the following:

“You shall maintain a record of the date and hours of each treatment, the name of the patron, the amount paid for the treatment including gratuity, the name of the manager on duty, and the therapist administering the treatment.

Records must be completed in a legible manner with supporting transaction receipts. For example, if the logbook shows four massages in a day, there must be four corresponding receipts to verify the entries.”

In addition to the logbook requirement, we also discussed the proper display of massage licenses for all employees providing massage services to the public. As I explained, much like when visiting a hair salon, those licensed to cut hair are required to display their original state license at all times while working. The same standard applies here.

It is essential that these conditions are fully met during the next thirty days (and moving forward), from September 15, 2025, through October 15, 2025. At no point during an inspection should there be any deviation from what we have agreed upon. Please note, if during any inspection we find violations as outlined in our municipal code, Miracle Massage will not be granted a business license.

Thank you for your time and cooperation as we work to bring your business into full compliance.

Best regards,

Jeremy Profitt Police Support Manager
Community Engagement Division
[email protected]
Phone: 707.428.7709
Cell: 707. 366.5404
JoinFFPD.com

2 “Advancing safety, service and the quality of life in Fairfield”

FILE SUMMARY REPORT
February 24, 2026

FILE INFORMATION
File #: 25-000067 Address: 1328 W TEXAS ST
Status: Open Parcel #: 0031160310
Open Date: 02/28/2025 Description: Massage
Close Date: Owner Name: BALDEV TURNA
Type: Code Enforcement Owner Address: 10319 FRANK GREG WY ELK GROVE, CA 95757

CONTACTS

CONTACT ASSOCIATION CONTACTTYPE ADDRESS PHONE
Miracle Massage Blank
Home Address:
1328 W Texas St
Fairfield Ca 94533
Dong Li Bin Tenant Blank
Home Address:
1816 Landmark Dr
Vallejo CA 94591

REVIEWS

TYPE REVIEW DATE REVIEWER STATUS
Permit Application Recieved 02/28/2025 Officer D. Eltringham

ACTIVITIES

TYPE ACTIVITY DATE ASSIGNED TO STATUS
Follow-up 02/12/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Text message from Randy and my response: Randy-Sorry to bother you. What information do you need as far as the massage therapists are concerned? Besides the certificate. Darin-You must list all masseuse names on the application and attach a copy of the CAMTC certificates.

Follow-up 02/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Text message I sent to Randy and his response: Darin-Good morning. I sent the application to your email Got it thanks.

Randy-Darren, Sorry to bother you. I just want to be sure what day you will be back from vacation. So I can bring in the application on that day. Please let me know. Darin-2/25 Follow-up 02/26/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Randy sent text message and my responses: Randy-Hi Darren, We are here at the police dept. To turn in the massage application Are you available? Good morning, Darren, We dropped off the application yesterday for the massage permit for miracle massage. Just wanted to confirm that you did receive that. And if I could get an approximate timeframe for the processing. Darin-I did not see it at my desk when I was just in there. When I return to the office later I will check again.

Randy-Okay, thanks Randy-Were you able to locate the application? Darin-I haven't had a chance to run back into the office. I will be in there tomorrow morning at 630 Randy-Okay, thanks Follow-up 02/27/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Text communication between me and Randy: Darin-I have the application now. Randy-That's great. If I may ask, how long does it generally take to process the application?
E-Mail 02/28/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Email sent to CAMTC for any disciplinary actions for Yuena Zhang #39945. 450

Follow-up 02/28/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
I found nothing that would disqualify Libin Dong for operating this massage location. 450 Follow-up 02/28/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Text communication between me and Randy: Darin-I'm currently working on the application trying to get it processed. Do you have a CA drivers license? Could you please provide it to me? Randy-We have not updated her address yet Darin-I just need the drivers license number copy of dl was provided Darin-My part is done. Just waiting for a response from California Massage Therapy Council for any disciplinary actions taken against your masseuse Yuena Zhang. Randy-Ok thanks
E-Mail 03/04/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Dear Mr. Eltringham The certificate holder Yuena Zhang, Cert# 19987 expires 11/21/26; there have been no complaints, notifications or disciplinary actions taken against her CAMTC Certificate. Stacy Morrison Senior Paralegal CAMTC, Legal Department POST Training Coordinator [email protected] Follow-up 03/04/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Text message from the husband of Dong, Li Bin Randy - My wife is currently still working in milpitas. I will let her know she can open in Fairfirld. Is this a random inspection? If we know when you are coming, I can make sure she is there. Darin - It'll be a random inspection. Randy - Ok thanks Darin - I'll release the business license if you pass the inspection Randy - It's understood that all massage therapists must have a CAMTC license. My question is do they have to be supervised? Darin - Any employee providing massage must be supervised. Randy - Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Follow-up 03/04/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Text between me and Randy: Darin-You're good to open. Make sure you do everything right per City Of Fairfield Municipal Code. I will be by later to conduct an inspection. If you fail the inspection, I will deny your permit Randy-My wife is currently still working in milpitas. I will let her know she can open in Fairfirld. Is this a random inspection? If we know when you are coming, I can make sure she is there. Darin-It'll be a random inspection. Randy-Ok thanks Darin-Welcome Randy- Darren, Is there any problem with Mary staying there working for my wife? Please let me know. Darin-If Mary works there as an employee she is required to have supervision Randy-Yes that would be my wife. Darin-Ok that's fine Randy-Any California certified massage therapist working, there requires supervision, correct? Randy-Are we able to get a business license before your permit is officially issued? Darin-All masseuse's must have a California Massage Therapy Council certification. I'll release the business license if you pass the inspection Randy-It's understood that all massage therapists must have a CAMTC license. My question is do they have to be supervised? Darin-Any employee providing massage must be supervised. Randy-Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

Follow-up 03/06/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Text communication between Randy and I: Hi Darren, Just need some clarification. Do we need to apply for the business license before the inspection? Or do we do that after the inspection, please advise. Apply for it online. It'll pend until I approve it. Okay, thanks
Follow-up 03/06/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Text message between Randy and I. Randy - Hi Darren, Just need some clarification. Do we need to apply for the business license before the inspection? Or do we do that after the inspection, please advise. Darin - Apply for it online. It'll pend until I approve it. Randy - Okay, thanks
Follow-up 03/07/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Text communication between Randy and I: Randy-Darren, The online application will not let in proceed. It's asking for camtc license number. It's my understanding as the owner only no license is required. Please advise. Should I go in person an apply? Darin-I think it's asking for your drivers license number Randy-No, sir, it's asking for a camtc number.

Sorry you can't see that in the photo. Darin-It's not required. I can't get your questioned answered today. It's their Friday off. You can try reaching out to them on Monday. The phone number is 707-428-7509 Randy-Thanks Follow-up 03/10/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Text communication from Randy: Morning Darren, We just completed the business license application. My wife will be starting at the business today. Looking forward to your inspection. Big Emma Darren. Are you available by any chance? We are here in the lobby of the police department. We have some questions. We'd like to ask you if you're available.

Please come out. Sorry about that. I don't know where big Emma came from. Darren, I understand you are not working today. If there is any way possible for us to meet with you tomorrow. Good morning, evening, 8 o'clock. That would be great myself My wife, Mary and her boyfriend. We have that questions for you. Please let me know.

Follow-up 03/11/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Text communication between me and Randy: Darin-I'm not available this morning between 0730-0930 Randy-10 am ok? Really There's no need for a meeting. It's the other side that wants that. If you could clarify one thing, the business is not officially in my wife's name until you have done your inspection, and it's been approved, is that correct? Darin-Once I receive a new owner application the business is no longer in the prior owners Randy-Thanks Let me rephrase the question. You receive the application from my wife. The business is no longer in the previous owner's name understood.

The question is, until you've done your inspection the business is still in pre approval status. Is this correct? Sorry to bother you with all the questions. There is a dispute between the 2 parties as to when the final payment should be made. I know that's not your concern. However, your answer to the question would be helpful. Darin-My opinion is your wife is the new owner. No one is disputing who the owner of the business is. The question is, is the business officially approved to operate? Or is it still in pending status upon approval of your inspection. Permission to open granted. Pending on issuing the business license and the massage permit upon completion of inspection and approval. Would this be a fair assessment? Please advise. Darin-I told you on March 4th you could open for business. I'll be conducting an inspection at a later date. It'll just be a drop in. During that inspection I'll be looking to make sure you're following code. Any violation or violations could result in your application getting rejected. If you pass the inspection, I'll release your business license.

Follow-up 03/12/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Text communication from Randy and I: Randy-Darren, There is currently a dispute between the two parties as to the purchase of this business. Therefore, at this time, we can not move forward with this process. If you have already received the application, please put it on hold. If you are able to do so until this issue is resolved. Please let me know if you are able to do so.. I would appreciate your quick attention to this. Thank you. DarinPer the lease you submitted, it shows Bin Dong as the tenant valid 3/1/25-3/31/28. Mary is no longer the lessee. I don't understand what the issue could be. Please tell me in detail what is actually happening? Randy-There is a dispute on the money involved in this transaction. My wife wants to give Mary half of the purchase price and the other half upon completion of your inspection. Mary agreed to that, but her boyfriend Tom does not. He actually has nothing to do with this transaction. Mary is listening to him. This is the dispute.

Mary also agreed to work with my wife for 1 week. Again, her boyfriend does not want her to do that. This is the problem. If you're not able to put this on hold, then proceed as planned. I will let you know when my wife officially takes over the business. As she has not done so at this time. Your thoughts please. Darin-Standby Randy-Darren, My wife and Mary have resolved the dispute. Please proceed.. Darin-Ok
Follow-up 03/26/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Text sent by Randy: Darin, Good morning. Trying to get an idea of the protocol for this inspection. I know it is a random inspection. I'm just trying to figure out the time frame involved. Are we talking a couple of weeks a couple of months whatever you want? Is there any protocol for this? My wife is anxiously awaiting your arrival. Thanks Randy Follow-up 03/28/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Text message between me and Randy: Darin-I've been extremely busy. I was planning on doing massage inspections today, however my coworker did not come in to work today. It'll probably be 3 weeks or more. Randy-Ok thanks for the update.

Outgoing phone call 05/06/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
I called and spoke to Randy the husband of the owner Dong, Li Bin. I explained to him of my inspection on 5/2/25. I told him prior to opening I told him to read City Of Fairfield Municipal Code Chapter 10A. I then told him they were allowed to open in order to establish the log book. I told him we were met by Diana. She was the sole occupant. I told him he is required to notify me of anyone he brings in, in which he failed to do. I told him there were towels being displayed in a basket and not in closed cabinet as required. I told him while I was looking at the log book noticing information was not obtained such as the time, first and last names and full addresses were missing. I told him Diana squeezed by me and the wall to close a drawer. I told him I opened the drawer and found credit card receipts. Of the credit card receipts, none of the names were listed in the log book for the corresponding date. I told him since this was a new owner inspection in which they failed, I am denying the massage permit. I told him they must close. I told him if they're open for business, I will issue a citation. He stated he understood. I told him I will send him a letter in the mail in which he is allowed to appeal. 450 Outgoing phone call 05/06/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Notified the property owner and Randy about the denial of the massage application. Told both parties they will receive a copy of the denial letter via USPS. 450
Inspection 05/06/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
On 5/2/25, Officer Figueroa and I arrived to conduct an inspection. This was a follow up inspection. I had allowed them to open in order to establish a log book. I told them I would come at a later date to make sure the log book was being filled out correctly. We were met by Diana Hua He who was later identified during the inspection. She was the sole employee on scene. I noticed the log book was missing critical information. I noticed in some of the entries, the time, first and last

names and addresses were missing. While I was looking at the log book Diana Hua He squeezed between me and the wall to get in front of me. She closed a drawer that was in front of me. I opened the drawer and found several credit card receipts. Of the 4 credit card receipts, none of the names were listed in the log book under the date authorized. The charges ran from $62 to $186. I have uploaded photos of the log book and receipts to case. In addition we found towels were being stored in the laundry room in a basket. Per Officer Figueroa, lighting, lots of personal items and it appears they are living on the premises. 450
Inspection 05/07/2025 Officer Figueroa
On May 2, 2025, I accompanied Officer Eltringham to conducted a routine inspection at the above-referenced address.

Upon entering the premises, we were greeted by Ms. Diana Hua, who acknowledged the reason for our visit. During the inspection, multiple conditions were observed that raised significant concerns related to health, safety, sanitation, and potential zoning violations. One of the initial issues noted was the lighting within the massage rooms. Each room was inadequately lit due to the use of incorrect light bulbs, specifically those not meeting the minimum 40-watt requirement.

This resulted in dimly lit rooms that significantly reduced visibility, potentially creating an unsafe environment for both clients and staff. Further examination revealed misuse of storage intended for patron use. Lockers or drawer compartments designated for client valuables were instead being utilized to store business-related and personal items, rendering them non-functional for their intended purpose and compromising client security. Sanitation deficiencies were also noted. Clean linens were being stored out in the open rather than in enclosed storage such as drawers or closets, suggesting substandard hygiene practices. Additionally, personal items were observed throughout the facility in various rooms, including the massage areas and employee spaces. These conditions not only raise sanitation concerns but also reflect a lack of professionalism and organization within the business. Massage chairs were observed being used by staff members for napping or reclining. At the time of inspection, two peeled apples were seen on a plate, left out in the open.

The refrigerator in the employee room was filled with perishable food items in both the refrigerator and freezer compartments. Multiple shelves of non-perishable food were also present. These observations strongly suggest that the premises may be used for residential purposes, which would be inconsistent with the property's zoning designation. Taken collectively, the conditions observed during this inspection reflect a pattern of use that is incompatible with commercial zoning and operational codes. The presence of sleeping furniture, personal effects, improper lighting, and poor sanitary practices may indicate unauthorized residential use of the facility—an apparent violation of municipal code. body-worn camera was activated for the duration of the inspection. Based on the number and severity of observed violations, follow- up action is warranted to ensure full code compliance. 1702 Follow-up 05/22/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
After reviewing my Axon footage of the incident, I observed there were two females inside the establishment with 1 being the owner. I have closed violation section 10A.11b. 450 Follow-up 07/03/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
On 7/1/25, City of Fairfield City Council voted to provide them 60 days extension. A inspection will be done and if they pass it, they will get the Massage Permit. 450
Follow-up 07/03/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
On 7/3/25 I received documentation in which in which new employees were starting here. Chen, Weihui U0212431 has been hired as the new Assistant Manager and Guanghui Zhang Certificate #18916 was hired to be a new Massage Therapist. Documents scanned into case. 450
E-Mail 07/03/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
I'm looking for any disciplinary action taken against Guanghui Zhang Certificate #18916. She is to start work at Miracle Massage, 1328 W Texas St, Fairfield CA 94533. Thank you, Darin D. Eltringham/Code Enforcement E-Mail 07/03/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Dear Officer Eltringham Thank you for the inquiry, there have been no complaints, notifications or disciplinary actions taken against the certificate holder. BRD Liaison  California Massage Therapy Council  [email protected] www.camtc.org
Inspection 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
On 8/13/25, Officer Figueroa and I arrived to conduct a follow up re-inspection after the City of Fairfield City Council provided them with a 60 day extension. We both entered the establishment with both of our Axon cameras activated.

Officer Figueroa went in to conduct the inspection, while I stayed up front verifying the CAMTC Certificates. I observed a copy of the CAMTC Certificate for Guanghui Zhang was displayed and not the original was required. I asked to see the log book. She provided me this booklet that had several individual pages. On top of the pages it said Miracle Massage - Customer sign in sheet. Date of appointment, time of arrival, massage therapists name, customer full name, customer address, massage duration check boxes for 30 minutes and 1 hour, tip and customer signature. I was told this is what is

being used to keep trach of the customers. I saw customers address was missing, some of the check boxes were not checked, no tip was indicated and illegible. I found the old log book that was being used by them after the City of Fairfield City Council hearing. Several of the entries only had the first name and several of them the addresses were not listed.

Very vague information was being written down. I found a price list inside being displayed. They had additional options other than a 30 min/1 hour massage, however that was not indicated on the customer information page. I found 1 credit card receipt inside for $110. I did not find any log book entry for that amount. While inside I found a piece of mail addressed to Rainbow Massage at the same address. I have not been notified of any name change. Uploading photos from my inspection. 450
Re-Inspection 08/13/2025 Officer Figueroa
On August 13, 2025, I accompanied Officer Eltringham to conduct a follow-up massage inspection after the City of Fairfield City Council voted to provide the establishment a 60-day extension to establish a proper log book and correct any violations. During the visit, Officer Eltringham requested to review the business's log book while I conducted a walk- through inspection of the premises. Upon entering the customer area, I immediately observed that the massage chairs were being used by staff to relax or lie down during slow business periods. In the employee room located in the back, I observed numerous personal belongings, including clothing and beauty supplies, as well as some food stored in the refrigerator and pantry, though notably less than in previous visits. The rooms appeared clean, and lighting levels were appropriate. While inspecting, I encountered a woman in one of the massage rooms preparing to receive a massage. I informed her that it was fine for her to proceed and that we were conducting a routine inspection. At the time, there were three employees present in the establishment. Continuing into another massage room, I inspected a drawer and observed an object rolled up in a napkin, placed toward the rear of the drawer behind a pack of wipes. I pulled the napkin out, unrolled it, and found a black spandex material pair of boxer-style shorts. The garment had visible stains and emitted a very strong, potent odor resembling fish. I placed the garment on top of the drawer to further examine it, then returned it to the drawer. I immediately notified Officer Eltringham of my findings. I documented the discovery with photographs and had my body-worn camera activated for the duration of the inspection. Officer Eltringham informed the owner that the log book was once again incomplete, thereby failing to meet the compliance requirements. 1702 Re-Inspection 08/13/2025 Officer Figueroa
On August 13, 2025, I accompanied Officer Eltringham to conduct a follow-up massage inspection after the City of Fairfield City Council voted to provide the establishment a 60-day extension to establish a proper log book and correct any violations. During the visit, Officer Eltringham requested to review the business's log book while I conducted a walk- through inspection of the premises. Upon entering the customer area, I immediately observed that the massage chairs were being used by staff to relax or lie down during slow business periods. In the employee room located in the back, I observed numerous personal belongings, including clothing and beauty supplies, as well as some food stored in the refrigerator and pantry, though notably less than in previous visits. The rooms appeared clean, and lighting levels were appropriate. While inspecting, I encountered a woman in one of the massage rooms preparing to receive a massage. I informed her that it was fine for her to proceed and that we were conducting a routine inspection. At the time, there were three employees present in the establishment. Continuing into another massage room, I inspected a drawer and observed an object rolled up in a napkin, placed toward the rear of the drawer behind a pack of wipes. I pulled the napkin out, unrolled it, and found a black spandex material pair of boxer-style shorts. The garment had visible stains and emitted a very strong, potent odor resembling fish. I placed the garment on top of the drawer to further examine it, then returned it to the drawer. I immediately notified Officer Eltringham of my findings. I documented the discovery with photographs and had my body-worn camera activated for the duration of the inspection. Officer Eltringham informed the owner that the log book was once again incomplete, thereby failing to meet the compliance requirements. 1702 Follow-up 09/05/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Per CAMTC Rules and Regulations: The original CAMTC certificate must be displayed at the location where massage services are performed.

Re-Inspection 10/22/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Officer Figueroa and I arrived to conduct a follow up re-inspection. I was met by Miracle Massage owner Li Bin Dong in the front lobby. We informed her we were there for an inspection. Officer Figueroa walked further into the business to conduct her inspection while I stayed in the front with LI Bin Dong. I asked if Yuena Zhang was present. She kept stating will be here in 5 minutes. When I first heard her say that I wasn't sure what she was talking about. I asked her once again if Yuena Zhang was present and if so could I get her CAMTC ID card. She once again stated will be here in 5 minutes.

She mumbled that several times. As I was looking over the log book, I saw each sheet providing customer information had either a credit card receipt attached or a hand written receipt. On the sheet it indicated a tip was provided, however the receipt did not indicate a tip was given. It only showed the amount for the type of massage purchased. As I was in the front Officer Figueroa informed me of another lady on the premises and also informed me there was a customer present. I walked towards the back of the business where I made contact with the other female. I asked if she provided massage.

She stated "no. She is the cleaning lady". I then opened the ajar door to the massage room in which I asked the client. "were you getting a massage"? He stated he "was but only for about two minutes before we walked in". While we were there, there was no license masseuse on scene. We had our Axon body cameras activated during the inspection. After wePage 285 of 305 left and got into our department vehicle, Li Bin Dong came up to Officer Figueroa's window. She had her husband Randy on the phone speaker. I said hello. He asked if they log book was okay. I told him there was an issue with the tip amount not being recorded. The transaction does not show a tip was provided. It only indicates a tip was given on the client sheet.

I told him there was a bigger issue. That being there was no license masseuse on site while there was a customer inside getting a massage. I told him my Manager Jeremy Profitt will reach out to him to provide an update. We then disconnected. This conversation was recorded on Officer Figueroa's Axon body camera. 450 Re-Inspection 10/22/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Officer Figueroa and I arrived to conduct a follow up re-inspection. I was met by Miracle Massage owner Li Bin Dong in the front lobby. We informed her we were there for an inspection. Officer Figueroa walked further into the business to conduct her inspection while I stayed in the front with LI Bin Dong. I asked if Yuena Zhang was present. She kept stating will be here in 5 minutes. When I first heard her say that I wasn't sure what she was talking about. I asked her once again if Yuena Zhang was present and if so could I get her CAMTC ID card. She once again stated will be here in 5 minutes.

She mumbled that several times. As I was looking over the log book, I saw each sheet providing customer information had either a credit card receipt attached or a hand written receipt. On the sheet it indicated a tip was provided, however the receipt did not indicate a tip was given. It only showed the amount for the type of massage purchased. As I was in the front Officer Figueroa informed me of another lady on the premises and also informed me there was a customer present. I walked towards the back of the business where I made contact with the other female. I asked if she provided massage.

She stated "no. She is the cleaning lady". I then opened the ajar door to the massage room in which I asked the client. "were you getting a massage"? He stated he "was but only for about two minutes before we walked in". While we were there, there was no license masseuse on scene. We had our Axon body cameras activated during the inspection. After we left and got into our department vehicle, Li Bin Dong came up to Officer Figueroa's window. She had her husband Randy on the phone speaker. I said hello. He asked if they log book was okay. I told him there was an issue with the tip amount not being recorded. The transaction does not show a tip was provided. It only indicates a tip was given on the client sheet.

I told him there was a bigger issue. That being there was no license masseuse on site while there was a customer inside getting a massage. I told him my Manager Jeremy Profitt will reach out to him to provide an update. We then disconnected. This conversation was recorded on Officer Figueroa's Axon body camera. 450 Re-Inspection 10/22/2025 Officer Figueroa
On October 22, 2025, I accompanied Officer Eltringham to conduct a follow-up massage inspection. Upon arrival, we were met in the front lobby by business owner Li Bin Dong. We identified ourselves and informed her we were there to perform an inspection. Officer Eltringham requested to review the business's massage log book while I proceeded to conduct a walk-through inspection of the premises. During my walk-through, I observed that one of the massage room doors was closed. I asked the owner if there were any customers. The owner initially responded "yes," then "no," and finally confirmed there was one client in the room. To verify, I opened the door and observed a male subject lying face down on the massage bed, covered only by a towel around the buttocks area. I then continued conducting a full inspection of the remainder of the premises. While I was inspecting, I overheard Officer Eltringham ask the owner whether the massage therapist listed on the business's permit was on site. I informed Officer Eltringham that another female individual was also present in the back area and reiterated that there was a customer in one of the rooms. I questioned the owner regarding the whereabouts of the licensed massage therapist. The owner stated that the therapist would be arriving in "five minutes." I then asked her who was providing the massage to the customer currently in the room. The owner replied that no massage was taking place and that the client was "just waiting." Officer Eltringham proceeded to the back of the business and made contact with the second female subject present. When asked if she was providing massage services, she replied, "No, I'm the cleaning lady." Officer Eltringham then approached the partially open massage room door and asked the client directly, "Were you getting a massage?" The client responded, "Yes, but only for about two minutes before you guys walked in." At that time, there was no licensed massage therapist present on site, despite the fact that a customer was observed receiving or having recently received a massage. The owner continued to claim that the therapist would arrive in five minutes. After concluding the inspection, Officer Eltringham and I returned to our department vehicle. Shortly thereafter, the owner exited the business and approached the vehicle with her phone in hand, stating that her husband, Randy, was on the line and wished to speak with us. I took the phone and handed it to Officer Eltringham, then asked the owner to move to the driver's side of the vehicle during the conversation. During the phone conversation, Randy asked whether there were any issues with the log book. Officer Eltringham advised him that there was an issue regarding tip reporting, the transaction record did not indicate a tip had been provided, though a tip was recorded on the client sheet.

Officer Eltringham further informed Randy that the more significant issue was the fact that there was no licensed massage therapist present at the business while a customer was inside receiving a massage. Randy was advised that our Manager Jeremy Profitt would be contacting him to provide an update and discuss the next steps. My BWC was on for the duration of inspection and for the phone call. 1702
Re-Inspection 10/22/2025 Officer Figueroa
On October 22, 2025, I accompanied Officer Eltringham to conduct a follow-up massage inspection. Upon arrival, we were met in the front lobby by business owner Li Bin Dong. We identified ourselves and informed her we were there to perform an inspection. Officer Eltringham requested to review the business's massage log book while I proceeded to conduct a walk-through inspection of the premises. During my walk-through, I observed that one of the massage room doors was

closed. I asked the owner if there were any customers. The owner initially responded "yes," then "no," and finally confirmed there was one client in the room. To verify, I opened the door and observed a male subject lying face down on the massage bed, covered only by a towel around the buttocks area. I then continued conducting a full inspection of the remainder of the premises. While I was inspecting, I overheard Officer Eltringham ask the owner whether the massage therapist listed on the business's permit was on site. I informed Officer Eltringham that another female individual was also present in the back area and reiterated that there was a customer in one of the rooms. I questioned the owner regarding the whereabouts of the licensed massage therapist. The owner stated that the therapist would be arriving in "five minutes." I then asked her who was providing the massage to the customer currently in the room. The owner replied that no massage was taking place and that the client was "just waiting." Officer Eltringham proceeded to the back of the business and made contact with the second female subject present. When asked if she was providing massage services, she replied, "No, I'm the cleaning lady." Officer Eltringham then approached the partially open massage room door and asked the client directly, "Were you getting a massage?" The client responded, "Yes, but only for about two minutes before you guys walked in." At that time, there was no licensed massage therapist present on site, despite the fact that a customer was observed receiving or having recently received a massage. The owner continued to claim that the therapist would arrive in five minutes. After concluding the inspection, Officer Eltringham and I returned to our department vehicle. Shortly thereafter, the owner exited the business and approached the vehicle with her phone in hand, stating that her husband, Randy, was on the line and wished to speak with us. I took the phone and handed it to Officer Eltringham, then asked the owner to move to the driver's side of the vehicle during the conversation. During the phone conversation, Randy asked whether there were any issues with the log book. Officer Eltringham advised him that there was an issue regarding tip reporting, the transaction record did not indicate a tip had been provided, though a tip was recorded on the client sheet.

Officer Eltringham further informed Randy that the more significant issue was the fact that there was no licensed massage therapist present at the business while a customer was inside receiving a massage. Randy was advised that our Manager Jeremy Profitt would be contacting him to provide an update and discuss the next steps. My BWC was on for the duration of inspection and for the phone call. 1702
Certified mail sent 11/19/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Sent denial letter dated 11/19/25 Certified Mail to Li Bin Dong's address in Vallejo CA. 9489009000276645929603 Follow-up 11/20/2025 Officer D. Eltringham
Drop off the denial letter to Li Bin Dong at Miracle Massage. 450 Front door was locked. Put letter through mail slot of the front door. 450

VIOLATIONS

VIOLATION STATUSDATES COMMENTS
10A.11 B -

SUPERVISION

REQUIRED
Closed Open Date:
05/06/2025
Close
Date:05/22/2025
Every holder of a permit for a massage establishment shall exercise close supervision over the acts of massage therapists or other persons employed on the premises, including independent contractors. The acts of massage therapists or other employees or independent contractors, when in violation of this chapter or any conditions of a permit issued hereunder, may constitute grounds for revocation or suspension of the massage establishment permit.
10A.6 - Record of
Treatment
Open Open Date:
05/06/2025
Close Date:

The log book was missing time, first and last names, full address. In addition credit card receipts were found in drawer. None of the names of the credit cards or amounts were listed in the log book for the corresponding date.
10A.5 (D) - Closed
cabinets
Open Open Date:
05/06/2025
Close Date:

All towels and linens must be kept in a closed cabinet

27.401(r) FCC -
Violation of any city
code
Open Open Date:
05/06/2025
Close Date:
10A.5 (a) -
Inadequate lighting
Open Open Date:
05/06/2025
Close Date:

All rooms must contain a 40 watt bulb. At no time are you allowed to place towels or linens on lights to dim the room.

25.22.2 FCC -
Allowed Land Uses
and Permit
Requirements
Open Open Date:
05/06/2025
Close Date:

Lots of personal items and it appears they are sleeping on the premises.

DOCUMENTS

SOURCE DOCUMENT NAME DATE CREATED BY
Case Photo 2025_02_28_08_35_55.pdf 02/28/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 050225.1.jpg 05/02/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 050225.2.jpg 05/02/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 050225.3.jpg 05/02/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 050225.4.jpg 05/02/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 050225.5.jpg 05/02/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 050225.6.png 05/02/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 050225.7.jpg 05/02/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 050225.8.jpg 05/02/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 050225.9.jpg 05/02/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 050225.10.jpg 05/02/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 050225.11.jpg 05/02/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 050225.12.jpg 05/02/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 2025_05_06_12_33_36.pdf 05/06/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 2025_05_13_09_29_32.pdf 05/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo New Employees 070325.pdf 07/03/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.1.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.2.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.3.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.4.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.5.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.6.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.7.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.8.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.9.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.10.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.11.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.12.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.13.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.14.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.15.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.16.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.17.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.18.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.19.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.20.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.21.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.22.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.23.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.24.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.25.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.26.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.27.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.28.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.29.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 081325.30.jpg 08/13/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 102225.1.jpg 10/22/2025 Officer D. Eltringham

Case Photo 102225.2.jpg 10/22/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 102225.3.jpg 10/22/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 102225.4.jpg 10/22/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 102225.5.jpg 10/22/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 102225.6.jpg 10/22/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo 102225.7.jpg 10/22/2025 Officer D. Eltringham Case Photo Denial Letter 111925.pdf 11/19/2025 Officer D. Eltringham PHOTOS

1 David G. Lim
From: Profitt, Jeremy <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2025 5:45 PM
To: David G. Lim; Gassaway, David; Marshall, Daniel
Cc: Eltringham, Darin; Figueroa, Minerva
Subject: RE: Follow up: Miracle massage. Permanent massage permit. 1328 W TEXAS Importance: High
David L. we continue to have issues with Miracle. I had a conversation with Mr. Davis today, and will email my decision to deny the permit based on the following:

On September 10, 2025, I sent an email to Mr. Davis (husband of the owner, Ms. Li Bin Dong) summarizing our previous inspection conducted on September 5, 2025. (This was after the public hearing and another failed logbook) Mr. Davis and his wife have been in the massage business for some time, and these are very basic askes and reasonable.

That correspondence outlined the continued noncompliance related to:

1. Failure to maintain a proper massage service logbook, and

2. Failure to display valid CAMTC certificates for all massage therapists on duty.

In recognition of this ongoing issue, I extended an additional opportunity for your Mr. Davis’ wife to bring the logbook into compliance. During our discussion, I emphasized that owning and operating a business comes with many responsibilities and suggested it may be worthwhile for you or your wife to consider investing in administrative or recordkeeping support to ensure requirements are consistently met.

We agreed to remove the requirement to record the customer’s home address; however, your logbook must still include the following:

“You shall maintain a record of the date and hours of each treatment, the name of the patron, the amount paid for the treatment including gratuity, the name of the manager on duty, and the therapist administering the treatment. Records must be completed in a legible manner with supporting transaction receipts. For example, if the logbook shows four massages in a day, there must be four corresponding receipts to verify the entries.”

In addition to the logbook requirement, we also discussed the proper display of massage licenses for all employees providing massage services to the public. As I explained, much like when visiting a hair salon, those licensed to cut hair are required to display their original state license at all times while working. The same standard applies here.

It is essential that these conditions are fully met during the next thirty days (and moving forward), from September 15, 2025, through October 15, 2025. At no point during an inspection should there be any deviation from what we have agreed upon. Please note, if during any inspection we find violations as outlined in our municipal code, Miracle Massage will not be granted a business license.

2 Prior to the final inspection, I received two phone calls from Mr. Davis inquiring about the next inspection date. I informed him that inspections were slightly delayed due to staffing shortages. He mentioned they were having difficulty keeping the business staffed and that they were not consistently open.

Final Inspection – October 22, 2025

Present:
 Officer Eltringham
 Officer Figueroa
 Owner: Li Bin Dong
 One customer and one additional female employee

Upon arrival, Officers Eltringham and Figueroa identified themselves and explained they were there for a re-inspection. When asked if Yuena Zhang (a certified massage therapist) was present, Ms.

Dong repeatedly stated that “she will be here in five minutes,” but never produced her or her CAMTC ID during the inspection.

Logbook Review:
 The logbook contained client information with attached receipts.  Each log entry listed a tip amount, but the corresponding receipts did not show any gratuity.  This inconsistency suggests incomplete or inaccurate recordkeeping.

On-Site Observations:
 Officer Figueroa reported another woman present, whom was identified as a “cleaning lady.”  A male customer was located inside a massage room. When asked, he stated he “was getting a massage about two minutes before officers entered the room. That customer got dressed and left the business as he couldn’t recall who gave him the massage because he was face down while receiving the massage. The customer also left without paying. It should be noted this business only has one way in and out. Code Enforcement Officers did not see staff arrive or leave the business during this inspection.
 No licensed massage therapist was on site at the time of the inspection and the customer admitted to receiving a message just minutes before code enforcement arrived.

Both officers’ Axon body cameras were activated throughout the inspection.

After leaving the business, Ms. Dong approached Officer Figueroa’s vehicle with her husband, Mr.

Davis, on speakerphone. Mr. Davis inquired about the logbook. I informed him that:
 There were discrepancies with the recording of gratuities.  More significantly, there was no licensed massage therapist on the premises while a massage service was being performed, constituting a direct violation of municipal code.

Officer Eltringham informed him that his manager, Jeremy Profitt, would follow up regarding the next steps. This conversation was also captured on Officer Figueroa’s body camera.

Despite multiple warnings and opportunities for correction, Miracle Massage continues to operate in violation of city regulations. The most recent inspection confirms:
 Failure to have a licensed massage therapist present while providing services.  Continued discrepancies in the logbook records.
 Failure to comply with previously issued directives.

3 Given the repeated and willful nature of these violations, I recommend we deny their business license.

I spoke with Mr. Davis at approximately 4:45 p.m. today regarding the violations, concerns, and recommended actions outlined above. He asked whether he should close the business immediately. I informed him that I would first consult with you before providing any further direction.

Mr. Davis was not present during the inspection; however, he claimed, based on his wife’s statement, that the customer had not received a massage. When I asked him whether he believed the observed violations were acceptable, given his experience in the business, he did not provide a response.

Code Enforcement has been very reasonable throughout this process and has provided multiple opportunities, a second, third, and even fourth chance, for the business to correct its ongoing compliance issues.

Jeremy Profitt Police Support Manager
Community Engagement Division
[email protected]
Phone: 707.428.7709
Cell: 707. 366.5404
JoinFFPD.com

“Advancing safety, service and the quality of life in Fairfield”

From: Profitt, Jeremy
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 1:11 PM
To: David G. Lim <[email protected]>; Gassaway, David <[email protected]>; Marshall, Daniel <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Follow up: Miracle massage. Permanent massage permit.

Yes, thank you.

Jeremy Profitt Police Support Manager
Community Engagement Division
[email protected]
Phone: 707.428.7709
Cell: 707. 366.5404
JoinFFPD.com

4 “Advancing safety, service and the quality of life in Fairfield”

From: David G. Lim <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 1:10 PM
To: Profitt, Jeremy <[email protected]>; Gassaway, David <[email protected]>; Marshall, Daniel <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Follow up: Miracle massage. Permanent massage permit.

Jeremy,

This all sounds good to me. Can you please memorialize everything in writing to Mr. Davis and his wife and cc me a copy in case we need to move to revoke in 60 days? Thanks,

David G. Lim (He/Him/His)
Fairfield City Attorney

RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON
One Sansome Street, Suite 2850
San Francisco, California 94104
T: 415.421.8484
E: [email protected]
W: rwglaw.com

From: Profitt, Jeremy <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 12:51 PM
To: David G. Lim <[email protected]>; Gassaway, David <[email protected]>; Marshall, Daniel <[email protected]>
Subject: Follow up: Miracle massage. Permanent massage permit.

Importance: High

5 I spoke with Mr. Davis yesterday. He mentioned that his wife is still not complying with the logbook requirements as documented in our last code enforcement inspection, citing her language barrier as the reason. I explained that owning a business comes with many responsibilities and suggested that it may be worthwhile for them to invest in administrative or recordkeeping support.

Next Wednesday, I’ll meet with Mr. Davis and Miracle Massage to establish the following guidelines:

After reviewing practices from six different cities, I found a range of recordkeeping requirements.

While I strongly support thorough documentation, I also recognize that codes can become outdated.

Moving forward, here’s the draft language I’m considering for all massage establishments:

“You shall maintain a record of the date and hours of each treatment, the name of the patron, the amount paid for the treatment including gratuity, the name of the manager on duty, and the therapist administering the treatment. Records must be completed in a legible manner with supporting transaction receipts. For example, if the logbook shows four massages in a day, there must be four corresponding receipts to verify the entries.”

This will eventually need to be formalized as a code amendment. For now, I plan to remove the home address requirement, refine the language, and add the amendment to my to-do list for a future City Council meeting.

When I meet with Miracle Massage, I’ll present these adjustments and extend the compliance window by 60 days. If the requirements are still not followed, I will move forward with recommending denial of the business license.

Any thoughts or feedback?

Jeremy Profitt Police Support Manager
Community Engagement Division
[email protected]
Phone: 707.428.7709
Cell: 707. 366.5404
JoinFFPD.com

“Advancing safety, service and the quality of life in Fairfield”

From: David G. Lim <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 12:35 PM
To: Profitt, Jeremy <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Miracle massage. Permanent massage permit.

Okay, I’ll leave it in your capable hands. 

6 David G. Lim (He/Him/His)
Fairfield City Attorney

RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON
One Sansome Street, Suite 2850
San Francisco, California 94104
T: 415.421.8484
E: [email protected]
W: rwglaw.com

From: Profitt, Jeremy <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 12:28 PM
To: David G. Lim <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Miracle massage. Permanent massage permit.

They are still not completing the log book. I have to think about this. I will call him. I’m trying to make this work. But they are a pain.

Jeremy Profitt Police Support Manager
Community Engagement Division
[email protected]
Phone: 707.428.7709
Cell: 707. 366.5404

“Advancing safety, service and the quality of life in Fairfield”

Sent from iPhone

On Sep 4, 2025, at 12:23 PM, David G. Lim <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jeremy,

I received a phone call and email from Mr. Davis regarding his wife’s business at Miracle Massage. The 60 days of the temporary permit has run. Can you let me know if you plan to issue a permanent permit to Miracle Massage or if we need to take further action on the property? Let me know, thanks!

David G. Lim (He/Him/His)
Fairfield City Attorney
<image001.jpg>

7 RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON
One Sansome Street, Suite 2850
San Francisco, California 94104
T: 415.421.8484
E: [email protected]
W: rwglaw.com

From: randy davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, September 4, 2025 9:57 AM
To: David G. Lim <[email protected]>
Subject: Miracle massage. Permanent massage permit.

Good morning, David,
As per our phone conversation, please check with Mr Profitt to see if we can proceed with a permanent massage permit?

Thank you.

George Davis.

NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.

Miracle MassageDenial Of Permanent Permit and Business LicenseJeremy Profitt, Police Support ManagerJoanne Tran, Attorney for City Staff

FMC 10B.33– Appeal to City Council For Denial of Business LicenseAny person aggrieved by any decision of the collector with respect to the issuance or denial of a license… mayappeal to the council by filing a notice of appeal with the collector within fifteen days of such decision. Thenotice of appeal shall describe the reason hy the decision of the collector should be reversed or modified…. If atimely appeal is filed, the effect of the decision of the collector shall be stayed until the appeal is decided bythe council. The findings of the council shall be final and conclusive and shall be served upon the applicant inthe manner prescribed above for service of notice of hearing.10B.32 Grounds for denial or revocation of business license.Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a business license may be denied or revoked upon one or more ofthe following grounds:(a) The applicant has failed to complete the application for a business license or renewal as prescribed inthis chapter; or(b) The applicant has knowingly made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement of material fact in theapplication for the business license or in any report or statement required to be filed with the city; or(c) The business or the activities or conduct of the business at the proposed location is prohibited by any provision of this code or any local, state, or federal law, statute, rule, or regulation; or(d) The building, structure, premises, or the equipment used to conduct the business activity fails to complywith all applicable health, zoning, fire, building, and safety laws of the city or state; or(e) The prescribed taxes for the business have not been paid.

FMC Chapter 10A – Massage Therapy Regulations10A.4 CAMTC certification required.(b) It shall be unlawful for a massage establishment to employ or retain any person to practice massage therapy forcompensation, or to allow any person to perform massage therapy for compensation on the premises of a massageestablishment, unless that person is a CAMTC certified massage professional. (Ord. No. 2015-14. §2.)10A.11 Conditions of massage establishment permit generally.(a) Every holder of a permit for a massage establishment shall have the responsibility to ensure that each individualproviding massage at the establishment, including independent contractors, is a CAMTC certified massage professional.10A.15 Required.(b) It is unlawful for a massage establishment to employ or retain any person to practice massage therapy forcompensation, or to allow any person to perform massage therapy for compensation on the premises of a massageestablishment, unless that person is listed on the massage establishment permit issued pursuant to this chapter .10A.6 Records of treatment.Every person owning or operating a massage establishment under the provisions of this chapter shall maintain a record ofthe date and hour of each treatment, the name and address of the patron, the amount paid for the treatment including anygratuity, and the name of the massage therapist administering such treatment…10A.20 Grant or denial of permit.(a) The city manager or designee shall review the application, investigation reports and recommendations and shall denythe permit if he finds any of the following to be true:(4) The massage establishment would not comply with the requirements of this chapter or other applicable law, rule orregulation, including, but not limited to any local or state building, fire, zoning, and health regulations.(11) Any other unprofessional conduct or violation of any applicable law, rule or regulation that is substantially related tothe functions of a massage establishment business or providing massage therapy.