5fb47a0d-1.a-update-to-park-impact-fee-programs-and-nexus-study

____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting:

Disposition:

Agenda Item No: 1.a
Meeting Date: June 15, 2026

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community & Economic Development
Prepared by: Micah Hinkle,
Director of Community &
Economic Development
Catherine Quffa,
Director of Library and Recreation
Sullina D. Smith,
Senior Management Analyst II
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: UPDATE TO PARK IMPACT FEE PROGRAMS AND NEXUS STUDY SUBJECT: CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 3.24, ENTITLED “PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES FEE,” AND CHAPTER 15.09, ENTITLED “PARK DEDICATION AND IN-LIEU FEES,” OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE; CEQA DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21065 AND CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15378, 15262, 15273, AND 15061(b)(3), AND

RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PARK NEXUS STUDY AND ASSOCIATED PARK AND

RECREATION FACILITIES PROJECT LIST, ADOPTING UPDATED CHARGES FOR

THE PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES FEE, AND ADOPTING UPDATED PARK DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS AND PARK DEDICATION AND IN-LIEU FEES; CEQA DETERMINATION: NOT A PROJECT PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21065; CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15378 AND EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15262, 15273, AND 15061(b)(3)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

1. Public Hearing to introduce an Ordinance amending Chapter 3.24, entitled “Park and Recreation Facilities Fee,” and Chapter 15.09, entitled “Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees,” of the San Rafael Municipal Code, waive further reading of the Ordinance and refer to it by title only; and

2. Adopt a Resolution Adopting the Park Nexus Study and Associated Park and Recreation Facilities Project List, Adopting Updated Charges for the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee, and Adopting Updated Park Dedication Requirements and Park Dedication and In-lieu Fees.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
BACKGROUND:

On May 18, 2026, the City Council conducted a public hearing regarding proposed updates to the City’s Park and Recreation Facilities Fee and Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fee programs, including related ordinance amendments and adoption of the Draft Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee and Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (Nexus Study). Following public testimony and City Council discussion, the City Council continued the public hearing to June 15, 2026, at 6:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter could be heard. Additional background and analysis are available in the May 18, 2026 City Council staff report, which is available on the City’s website.

The proposed fee updates are intended to ensure that new residential development contributes its proportionate share toward parkland acquisition and recreation facility improvements needed to serve future growth. The Nexus Study, prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA), establishes the legal and technical basis for the proposed fee structure and complies with applicable requirements under the Mitigation Fee Act and Assembly Bill 602. The overarching objective of the fee update is to establish a fair, transparent, and legally defensible fee structure that ensures growth pays for growth while supporting the community’s long-term quality of life.

ANALYSIS:

Prior to and during the May 18, 2026 public hearing, the City received public comment, correspondence, and inquiries regarding the proposed fee updates. The primary themes raised included questions regarding the Parks Development Impact Fee Project List (CIP), impacts on housing feasibility and development, potential alternative fee structures for specific housing types, and phased implementation approaches.

Staff reviewed these comments and inquiries and developed a comprehensive response, included as Attachment 5. A summary of the key themes, staff recommendations, and alternatives for Council to consider are outlined below.

Parks Development Impact Fee Project List (CIP)
The fees in the Nexus Study have been calculated using the “existing inventory” methodology described in the impact fee nexus study templates prepared by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley for the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD Model Nexus Study”). This is the most commonly used methodology for calculating park impact fees. Under this approach, the fees are calculated by determining the City’s existing inventory of parkland and facilities and calculating the cost of maintaining those standards for new development.

Since the Nexus Study utilizes the existing inventory method, the project costs in the Nexus Study CIP were not used to calculate the fees, nor do they determine the amount of the fees. Rather, the fees were calculated solely by determining the costs necessary to maintain the City’s existing level of service for park and recreation land and facilities. The Nexus Study CIP lists land and facilities costs that could be funded by fee revenues, but it does not utilize those costs to calculate the fees. Accordingly, it was appropriate for the City to include all park and recreation facilities costs in the Nexus Study CIP, even though only a portion of those costs will likely be funded by impact fee revenues in the future.

While the City maintains that the projects identified in the draft Nexus Study CIP dated August 18, 2025 were appropriately included, staff have revised the CIP in response to public comment to provide additional clarity regarding project eligibility and cost allocation assumptions. The revised CIP results in a more conservative allocation of costs eligible to be funded with impact fee revenues. Additional details, as well as the methodology for allocating costs eligible for impact fee funding, is included in the updated Nexus Study (Exhibit A to the Resolution) and in the Response to Comments (Attachment 5).

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
The Nexus Study with the revised CIP was publicly available and posted on the City’s website on May 29, 2026, more than the 14-days before the June 15, 2026 continued public hearing, as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

Impact on Housing Development
There are many factors that impact the development of new housing, and impact fees are only one small component. Through the market analysis, included in the May 18, 2026 staff report and updated below, the City has demonstrated that the proposed fees remain generally competitive with comparable jurisdictions in Marin County and the broader Bay Area. Staff also recommends reduced fees for 100% Affordable Housing projects and Accessory Dwelling Units in order to promote more affordable housing.

Since the City adopted the 2040 General Plan in 2021, there has been a significant increase in residential development activity. Applications that have established vested rights through an approved vesting tentative map or pursuant to Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) will remain subject to the fee schedules in effect at the time those rights were established and would not be subject to the proposed park impact fee increases.

Table 1 provides a summary of the multifamily residential projects in San Rafael that have been submitted or built since the General Plan 2040 was adopted in 2021, as well as their estimated impact on population.

These projects will not be required to pay the proposed park impact fees. The population estimates utilize an average multifamily household size of 2.32 individuals per unit.

TABLE 1: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN SAN RAFAEL Preliminary
Review
Formally
Submitted Entitled Under Construction Built TOTAL
Units 767 387 1,945 368 241 3,708
Estimated
Population 1,779 898 4,512 854 559 8,603
As is demonstrated in the table above, if all housing that has already locked in the current impact fee rates is developed, the City can expect an increase of approximately 8,600 new residents.

Alternative Fee Structures by Housing Type
Prior to and during the public hearing on May 18, 2026, both the public and Council asked for further information on options that might be available related to setting impact fees for different types of residential housing projects. In particular, questions were raised related to affordable housing, senior housing, and ADUs.

Affordable Housing
As presented on May 18, 2026, staff recommend adopting a reduced fee for projects that are 100% affordable, set at 25% of the maximum fee. In addition, staff is developing a fee waiver process for an additional fee waiver allowance up to 100% of applied development impact fees on a case-by-case basis, along with a residual receipts loan program. This will be brought forward for Council consideration in a future agenda, as staff is currently engaging the affordable housing development community and establishing waiver guidelines.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
Council also asked about options for differentiating between low and very low-income units as well as projects that have affordable units within a market rate project. Staff recommends that these factors be evaluated in the development of a waiver policy and guidelines.

Senior Housing
Community and Council comment at the May 18, 2026 public hearing raised the question of alternative fee levels for senior housing. There was a community comment made about whether senior housing should be set at a lower rate, as there is an assumption that senior units typically have a lower occupancy rate. Staff investigated this question and determined that there is insufficient data available to calculate a standalone senior housing fee specific to San Rafael. A more comprehensive response to this issue is provided in Attachment 5.

Council also asked if it would be possible to set a lower rate for senior housing at a policy level. While this is a legally defensible approach, staff do not recommend it. A primary concern voiced by Council is that current residents on a fixed income are being priced out of the area as they age. San Rafael has seen a number of senior housing projects in recent years, most of which provide market rate housing that would not address this concern. Any senior housing projects that are 100% affordable would be eligible for the recommended reduced affordable housing fee rate.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
As presented on May 18, 2026, staff recommend adopting a reduced fee for Accessory Dwelling Units, set at 25% of the maximum fee. Council expressed a concern that many ADUs are being used for personal or short-term rental use and are not adding to the housing stock. A question was raised if the City could differentiate impact fees for ADUs based on intended use. Staff investigated this question and determined that there is no legally defensible mechanism to make such a distinction in the fee structure.

Phased Implementation Option
Staff recommend that the City implement the maximum allowable fee, which would come into effect 60 days after final adoption. Adopting fees below the maximum would result in a funding gap between the cost of park infrastructure needed to serve new development and the revenue generated by the fee program, effectively requiring subsidy from existing residents or resulting in reduced service levels.

Additionally, as is discussed above, San Rafael has a significant number of proposed housing projects already in the pipeline that will not be subject to this fee. Further delay in implementation will increase the burden on existing residents.

However, should Council wish to pursue a phased implementation, staff have developed an option for a three-year phased-in approach. The table below outlines a three-year phasing option, with 50% of maximum implemented in year one, 75% of maximum in year two, and 100% of maximum in year three.

If Council adopts the full fee levels immediately or implements a phased approach, the fees would remain subject to the annual adjustment provisions established in the ordinance and resolution. Beginning July 1, 2027, and annually thereafter, the fees would be adjusted based on the percentage change, if greater than zero, in the Engineering News-Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index. Under a phased implementation approach, the annual ENR adjustment would be applied to the phased fee schedules in effect at the time of the adjustment. As a result, the fee amounts shown below are in current dollars and would be subject to future ENR adjustments.

If Council elects to phase in the fees, the proposed reduced fees for Accessory Dwelling Units and 100% Affordable Housing projects would also be phased in proportionately.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
TABLE 2: ALTERNATIVE THREE-YEAR PHASED IMPLEMENTATION FOR PARK IMPACT FEES Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Residential Subdivision Units Percentage Year
Single Family
Detached
Fee per Sq. Ft.

Multi-Family
Fee per Sq. Ft.
50% Effective 60 days
after adoption $2.25 $4.18
75% July 1, 2027 $3.38 $6.26
100% July 1, 2028 $4.50 $8.35
Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Non-Subdivision Units Percentage Year Single Family Detached
Fee per Sq. Ft.

Multi-Family
Fee per Sq. Ft.
50% Effective 60 days
after adoption $4.99 $9.25
75% July 1, 2027 $7.49 $13.88
100% July 1, 2028 $9.98 $18.50
Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fees for Residential Subdivision Units Percentage Year
Single Family
Detached
Fee per Unit
Multi-Family
Fee per Unit
50% Effective 60 days
after adoption $6,298 $5,641
75% July 1, 2027 $9,447 $8,462
100% July 1, 2028 $12,596 $11,282
Revised Market Analysis – with Recommended Transportation Impact Fee Update To provide additional context regarding the cumulative impact of development fees, staff updated the market analysis comparison to incorporate the proposed Park Impact Fee and Transportation Mitigation Fee updates as well as the suspension of the Construction Vehicle Impact fee, which the City Council will also consider at this June 15, 2026 meeting. The analysis evaluates the total fee burden for representative residential projects and compares San Rafael to peer jurisdictions in Marin County and the broader Bay Area. Attachment 4 shows the estimated per unit total fee burden for two sample residential projects, a townhome ownership/subdivision project and an 8-story rental/non-subdivision project.

The revised analysis indicates that, with the adoption of both the Park Impact and Transportation Mitigation fees, San Rafael’s total fee burden for non-subdivision projects would drop to 3% below the market analysis average (prior analysis without the proposed Transportation Mitigation Fee showed it at the average), while subdivision projects would be approximately 13% above the average (prior analysis was at 12% above the average). If the maximum rates for the Park Impact and Transportation Mitigation Fees are adopted, San Rafael remains within the range of comparable jurisdictions included in the analysis and below the highest-fee jurisdictions.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
Based on the revised market analysis, staff continues to recommend adopting the fee levels supported by the Park Impact Fee Nexus Study to ensure that new development contributes its proportionate share toward the transportation, park, and recreation infrastructure needed to serve future residents.

Recommended Fee Levels
Staff continues to recommend adoption of the full fee levels supported by the Nexus Study, together with proposed reduced fee schedules for 100% Affordable Housing projects and Accessory Dwelling Units.

As discussed in the May 18, 2026 staff report, the recommended fees are legally supported by the Nexus Study methodology and remain generally competitive within the regional market context.

TABLE 3: RECOMMENDED PARK DEDICATION AND IN-LIEU FEES
Recommended Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fees for Residential Subdivision Units Single Family Detached
Fee per Unit
Multi-Family
Fee per Unit
$12,596 $11,282
(Recommended fees include a 2% administrative allowance.) Recommended Parkland Dedication Requirements for Residential Subdivision Units Avg. Household
Size
Quimby Standard
(Acres per 1,000 pop.)
Sq. Ft. of Park Land per
Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Detached Units 2.59 1.824 206 (205.78)
Multi-Family Units 2.32 1.824 184 (184.33)
Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fees for One Hundred Percent (100%) Affordable Housing Projects Single Family Detached
Fee per Unit
Multi-Family
Fee per Unit
$3,149 $2,820.50
TABLE 4: RECOMMENDED PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES FEE Recommended Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Residential Subdivision Units Single Family Detached
Fee per Sq. Ft.

Multi-Family
Fee per Sq. Ft.
$4.50 $8.35
(Recommended fees include a 2% administrative allowance.) Recommended Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Non-Subdivision Units
Single Family Detached
Fee per Sq. Ft.

Multi-Family
Fee per Sq. Ft.
$9.98 $18.50
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7
(Recommended fees include a 2% administrative allowance.) Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units Single Family Detached
Fee per Sq. Ft.
$2.50
Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Residential Subdivision Units for One Hundred Percent (100%) Affordable Housing Projects
Single Family Detached
Fee per Sq. Ft.

Multi-Family
Fee per Sq. Ft.
$1.13 $2.09
Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Non-Subdivision Units for One Hundred Percent (100%) Affordable Housing Projects
Single Family Detached
Fee per Sq. Ft.

Multi-Family
Fee per Sq. Ft.
$2.50 $4.63
The proposed fee updates establish a legally defensible framework to ensure that new residential development contributes proportionately toward parkland acquisition and recreation facility improvements needed to serve future residents.

As discussed elsewhere, setting fees below the maximum would result in a measurable amount of foregone revenue that would otherwise offset the cost of these improvements. This shortfall would effectively shift a portion of the cost burden from new development to the City, requiring either General Fund subsidy, reliance on other discretionary funding sources, or a reduction in the overall service level the City is able to provide to the community. In the absence of such funding, reduced fee levels could limit the scope, timing, or delivery of planned park and recreation improvements. Additionally, the market analysis shows that this approach places San Rafael at or near the regional average for total fee burden for non-subdivision projects and maintains competitiveness for subdivision projects, while ensuring that new development fully mitigates its impact on the City’s park and recreation system.

Summary of Policy Considerations
The public comments received prior to and during the May 18, 2026 public hearing raised several policy considerations for City Council. Table 1 summarizes the primary issues, staff recommendations, and alternative approaches available for Council consideration.

Policy Issue Staff Recommendation Alternative(s) for Council Consideration
Affordable Housing Projects Adopt a fee equal to 25% of the standard fees for 100%
affordable housing projects.

Eliminate fees for 100%
affordable housing projects.

Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs)
Adopt a fee equal to 25% of the
standard fees for ADUs.

Establish a different reduced
fee level for ADUs.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 8
Senior Housing Apply the standard fee
structure, with 100% affordable
senior projects receiving the
lower fee level
Establish a reduced fee as a
policy decision.

Fee Level Implementation Implement the full fee levels 60 days after adoption.

Phase in fees over three years
at 50%, 75%, and 100% of the
adopted fee levels.

Staff’s recommendation is intended to ensure that new development contributes proportionately toward the cost of parkland acquisition and recreation facilities needed to serve future residents while maintaining a legally defensible fee structure supported by the Nexus Study.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH:

The City complied with all legal requirements by publishing public hearing notices in the Marin Independent Journal on April 17 and April 24, 2026. These notices informed the public of the upcoming San Rafael City Council public hearing scheduled for Monday, May 18, 2026, regarding the proposed park impact fee updates and the adoption of the Nexus Study. The notices included details such as the meeting time and location, contact information for City staff for those wishing to obtain additional information about the data supporting the fees, and instructions on how to submit public comments.

In advance of the May 18, 2026 public hearing, staff conducted outreach regarding the proposed fee updates and Nexus Study through the City’s Development Impact Fee Project webpage, stakeholder meetings, and targeted email notifications to interested parties, including developers, project applicants, and community organizations.

Following the May 18, 2026 public hearing and continuation of the item, revisions were made to the Capital Improvement Program and associated project list included in the Nexus Study. Consistent with Government Code section 66019, the updated Nexus Study was republished on the City’s website at least 14 days prior to the continued public hearing.

In addition, although not legally required, notice of the continued public hearing scheduled for June 15, 2026, was published in the Marin Independent Journal on June 5, 2026, informing the public that the hearing had been continued and providing information on how to participate and submit comments.

The May 18, 2026 staff report, updated Nexus Study, and supporting materials remain available on the City’s website for continued public review.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Adopting the updated Park and Recreation Facilities Fees and Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fees will provide a dedicated revenue source to fund park and recreation capital improvements directly related to new residential development.

Over the 15-year planning horizon identified in the Nexus Study, the proposed Park and Recreation Facilities Fees are estimated to generate approximately $63.3 million in revenue at the maximum allowable rate established by the Nexus Study. These funds will be used exclusively for the acquisition, development, and improvements of parkland and recreation facilities, consistent with the Park Impact Fee Project List and applicable state law.

The Nexus Study identifies approximately $113 million in park capital improvement projects, with roughly $69 million eligible for impact fee funding. The Study establishes maximum legally defensible fee levels SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 9
and staff recommends adopting these maximum rates to ensure new development funds its proportional share of growth-related improvements.

As stated earlier, setting fees below the maximum would result in a measurable amount of foregone revenue that would otherwise offset the cost of these improvements. This shortfall would effectively shift a portion of the cost burden from new development to the City, requiring either General Fund subsidy, reliance on other discretionary funding sources, or a reduction in the overall service level the City is able to provide to the community. In the absence of such funding, reduced fee levels could limit the scope, timing, or delivery of planned park and recreation improvements. No alternative funding has been identified in the current budget to address this potential gap.

OPTIONS:

The City Council has the following options to consider on this matter:

1. Conduct the continued public hearing, introduce the ordinance, waive further reading of the ordinance, and refer to it by title only.

2. Conduct the continued public hearing, introduce the ordinance with modifications, waive further reading of the ordinance, and refer to it by title only.

3. Adopt the resolution with Exhibits B and C (Attachment 2 [representing staff’s recommendation]) or with Exhibit B2 and Exhibit C2 (Attachment 3 [three-year phased implementation]).

4. Direct staff to return with more information.

5. Take no action.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council:

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance amending SRMC Chapter 3.24 entitled “Park and Recreation Facilities Fee” and Chapter 15.09 entitled “Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees”

2. Resolution (includes Exhibits A, B and C)

3. Alternative Exhibits B2 and C2 Phased Fee Table for Resolution

4. Revised Market Comparison of Development Impact Fees for Residential Development

5. Response to Comments on Proposed Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee and Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Nexus Study

6. Written Comments on Proposed Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee and Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
1 ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING CHAPTER 3.24, ENTITLED “PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES FEE,” AND CHAPTER 15.09, ENTITLED “PARK DEDICATION AND IN-LIEU FEES,” OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

DIVISION 1. FINDINGS.

WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael (“City”) desires to update the San Rafael Municipal Code (“SRMC”) provisions regarding the City’s Park and Recreation Facilities Fee and Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees; and
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act, contained in Government Code section 66000 et seq., permits the City to impose development impact fees on new development for the purposes of funding the public facilities necessary to serve that new development; and WHEREAS, the City’s current Park and Recreation Facilities Fee requirements are contained in SRMC, Chapter 3.24, entitled “Park and Recreation Facilities Fee”; and WHEREAS, SRMC Section 3.24.040 sets forth a fee program to fund the costs associated with increased demand for community and neighborhood parks and recreational facilities created by new development. New development will increase the need for such park and recreation facilities within the City; and WHEREAS, the City desires to begin imposing a Park and Recreation Facilities Fee, consistent with the updated fee program set forth in SRMC Section 3.24.040, on new development to fund the costs associated with constructing and expanding park and recreation facilities and to update the fee to bring it in line with current City objectives; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 66477 (the “Quimby Act”) allows legislative bodies of cities to adopt an ordinance requiring the dedication of land or to impose fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park or recreation purposes, as a condition of approval of a tentative map or parcel map; and WHEREAS, the City’s current Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees requirements are contained in SRMC, Chapter 15.09, entitled “Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees”; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the City’s existing ordinance regarding the dedication of parkland and the payment of in-lieu fees to update the Parkland Dedication and In-Lieu Fees Ordinance consistent with state law. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

DIVISION 2. AMENDMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE. Chapter 3.24 of Title 3 of the Municipal Code of the City of San Rafael is hereby amended to repeal and replace the chapter with the following:

Chapter 3.24 – PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES FEE
Section 3.24.010 – Findings and intent.

The City Council hereby finds and declares that:
(a) New development increases demand on existing park and recreation facilities and creates the need for expanded or new facilities to serve new development. The purpose of this chapter is to enable the collection of mitigation fees to be used for the purpose of developing new or expanding existing park and recreation facilities.
(b) It is the City’s intent and desire to require that new development contribute its fair share toward the purchase, development and/or improvement of park and recreation facilities.
(c) The imposition of impact fees is one of the customary methods of ensuring that development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital facilities necessary to accommodate such development in order to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare.
(d) The provisions of this chapter are consistent with the City of San Rafael general plan and enacted pursuant to Section 66000 et seq. of the California Government Code (the “Mitigation Fee Act”).
(e) This fee shall be known as the “Park and Recreation Facilities Fee for the City of San Rafael.”
Section 3.24.020 – Purpose.

The purpose of the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee is to fund the creation and improvement of park and recreation facilities, including, but not limited to, the planning, designing, developing, and improving of existing and newly acquired park and recreation facilities related to new development and ensure that new development pays for its fair share of park and recreational facilities.

Section 3.24.030 – Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall be defined as follows:
3 (a) “Building permit” includes full structural building permits as well as partial permits such as foundation-only permits or tenant improvements. (b) “Certificate of occupancy” as used in this chapter, has the same meaning as in California Government Code Section 66007(e).
(c) “New development” shall mean all new residential building construction that intensifies existing park facilities demands, creates additional impacts on park facilities, and creates one or more new residential units. (d) “Park and Recreation Facilities Fee” shall mean the mitigation fee imposed on new development for the purpose of funding park and recreational facilities related to new development, including funding projects on the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee Project List.
(e) “Project List” shall mean a list of the park facilities funded in part or in whole by the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee. The Project List shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council and may be amended from time to time pursuant to Government Code section 66002.
(f) “Park facilities” shall mean any public improvements deemed necessary by the City to develop, improve or expand land and facilities for park and recreational purposes. Such improvements may include, but are not limited to: grading; landscaped areas for active and passive recreational use, trails and sports fields; irrigation and drainage systems; lawn, shrubs and trees; facilities for recreational community gardening; walkways; bicycle facilities and park lighting; playground or other recreational equipment; picnic facilities; community center or other buildings, swimming pools; volleyball, basketball, tennis, racquetball and other courts; vehicle driveways and parking areas and any other facilities which may hereafter be authorized by state law or approved by the City.

Section 3.24.040 – Establishment of a park facilities and recreation impact fee.

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, developers of new development shall pay a Park and Recreation Facilities Fee in an amount established by resolution of the City Council in accordance with a nexus study that demonstrates the reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee will be imposed and demonstrates the reasonable relationship between the need for park facilities and the type of development projects on which the fee will be imposed.

Section 3.24.050 – Exemptions.

The following types of development shall not be required to pay a park facilities and recreation fee:
4 (a) Alterations, renovations or expansion of an existing building or structure that do not add new dwelling units.
(b) Replacement of building square footage or dwelling units on the same lot that does not add new dwelling units.
(c) The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed or damaged building or structure that does not add new dwelling units.

Section 3.24.060 – Determination of required fees.
(a) The community development director, or the director’s designee, shall be responsible for determining the fees required by this chapter. This determination shall be made at the time of application for the building permit, unless otherwise required by law.
(b) The park facilities and recreation fee may be modified automatically on an annual basis in accordance with the change in the Engineering News-Record (“ENR”) Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco area. This adjustment shall not require any action of the City Council.

Section 3.24.070 – Payment of fees.
(a) The fees required by this chapter from new development shall be paid at the time the City issues a building permit for each new development project.

Unless otherwise required by law, the amount of the fees to be paid under this chapter shall be in the amount of the fee in effect at the time the fee is paid. (b) Notwithstanding the foregoing, payment of the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee may be deferred to the date of approval of the first temporary certificate of occupancy, the final building inspection, or the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first, provided the owner, or lessee if the lessee’s interest appears of record, of the real property for which the fees are required enters into a recordable agreement with the City prior to issuance of the building permit for the development, which shall constitute a lien on the property from the date of recordation and shall be enforceable against successors in interest to the property owner or lessee. The agreement shall provide that approval of the first temporary certificate of occupancy, final building inspection, or final certificate of occupancy for each separate building (if there are multiple buildings) shall not be granted until the impact fees are paid for that building. The agreement shall also provide that, in any action to collect the impact fee or any portion thereof, the City shall be entitled to all of its costs of enforcement and collection, including reasonable attorney’s fees.

The City Manager may execute such agreements on behalf of the City in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
5 (c) If new development adds additional square footage or dwelling units to a parcel with an existing building, which requires the payment of a new or additional Park and Recreation Facilities Fee, the fee amount associated with the existing use on the project site shall be credited against the new total fee due, as determined by the community development director; provided, however, that in no event shall the City refund the fees previously paid. (1) The fee credit only applies if the existing use on the project site has been active within 8 years prior to the application being filed.

Section 3.24.080 – Park and Recreation Facilities Fee Fund and Accounting. (a) Park and Recreation Facilities Fee Fund. Fees collected pursuant to this chapter shall be deposited in a newly established Park and Recreation Facilities Fee Fund, and shall be segregated and used and expended for the creation of park facilities related to new development, including the acquisition of land, and the improvement and expansion of park and recreation facilities.

Any interest accrued by the account shall be used solely for the purpose of funding park facilities.
(b) Park and Recreation Facilities Fee Accounting. The City shall maintain accounts and prepare reports in accordance with California Government Code Section 66001 et seq.

Section 3.24.090 – Fee adjustments.

Any person subject to a fee required by this chapter may apply to the City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, for a reduction, adjustment or waiver of that fee based upon the applicant’s contention that (1) the amount of the fee is not reasonably related to the impacts of the applicant’s development project on park and recreation facilities; (2) the fee is not roughly proportionate to the development’s impact on the need for park and recreation facilities; or (3) the fee requires the developer to pay more than is necessary to address the impacts of the new development on park and recreation facilities. (a) Application. An applicant shall file a written request to adjust fees with the community development director, not later than ten days after the City notifies the developer of the amount of the fee to be charged. Additional time, as determined by the community development director, or the director’s designee, will be allowed when significant additional information is required of the developer. The application shall provide evidence illustrating that the payment of the fee authorized by this chapter and imposed by implementing resolution bears no reasonable relationship or nexus with the impact of the development on the need for park facilities within the City and state in detail the factual basis for the request for reduction, adjustment or waiver. If an 6 applicant desires to receive a building permit prior to the completion of the appeal process, applicant shall deposit the fee being appealed with the application. Such fee or portion thereof will be refunded if the appeal is successful.
(b) Decision of the Community Development Director. The community development director, or the director’s designee, shall issue a decision on the application within thirty days after the application is filed with the community development department. The community development director’s, or the director’s designee’s, decision shall state his or her determination regarding the amount of the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee that may reasonably be imposed on the new development and include a brief description of the basis for the director’s decision.
(c) Appeal of the Decision of the Community Development Director. Decisions of the community development director, or the director’s designee, may be appealed to the City manager. Appeals must be filed within ten days of the community development director’s, or the director’s designee’s decision. The City manager shall review the application and evidence presented to the community development director and issue a decision within fifteen days. The decision of the City manager is final and may be protested pursuant to Government Code Section 66020.

Section 3.24.100 – Fee refunds.

Upon application, fees collected by the City pursuant to this chapter shall be refunded under the following circumstances:
(a) Fees collected pursuant to this chapter are erroneously or illegally collected. (b) The building permit expires, and no extension has been granted, for the development project upon which fees were imposed pursuant to this chapter.

An application for refund pursuant to this subsection shall be filed with the community development director no later than ninety days after expiration of the building permit. The amount of refund shall be reduced by an amount to cover the cost to the City for processing the refund.

Section 3.24.110 - Credit for dedication of land.

At the option of the parks and recreation commission and the City Council, land or parks and recreation facilities may be dedicated to the City for park purposes in lieu of the fees designated in this chapter. The amount of land to be dedicated and the amount of credit to be given, if any, shall be at the discretion of the parks and recreation commission and the City Council.
7 DIVISION 2. AMENDMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE. Chapter 15.09 of Title 15 of the Municipal Code of the City of San Rafael is hereby amended to repeal and replace the chapter with the following:

Chapter 15.09 - PARK DEDICATION AND IN-LIEU FEES
Section 15.09.010 – Purpose.

This chapter is enacted pursuant to Section 66477 of the Subdivision Map Act (“Quimby Act”) and the general police power of the City of San Rafael. The park and recreational facilities for which dedication of land and/or payment of a fee is required by this chapter are consistent with the San Rafael general plan.

Section 15.09.020 – Dedication Requirements.
(a) Dedication of Park Land. As a condition of approval of a tentative or final subdivision map or parcel map, the subdivider shall dedicate land for park or recreational purposes, pay a fee for such purposes, or both, according to the standards and formulas contained in this chapter and as set by resolution. (b) Purpose of Land Dedication. Land dedicated to the City for park or recreational purposes shall advance the goals and objectives of the recreation element of the San Rafael General Plan and be improved to all applicable local, state, and federal standards.
(c) Standard for Parkland Dedication. The amount of land dedicated or fees paid shall be based upon the residential density, which shall be determined on the basis of the approved or conditionally approved tentative map or parcel map and the average number of persons per household. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the average number of persons per household by units in a structure is the same as that disclosed by the most recent available federal census or a census taken pursuant to Chapter 17 (commencing with Section 40200) of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 4. However, the standard for the dedication of land, or the payment of fees, or both, shall not exceed the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area per 1,000 persons currently residing in the City or the City’s adopted park land standards. (1) The park area per 1,000 members of the population of the city, county, or local public agency shall be derived from the ratio that the amount of neighborhood and community park acreage bears to the total population of the city, county, or local public agency as shown in the most recent available federal census. The amount of neighborhood and community park acreage shall be the actual acreage of existing 8 neighborhood and community parks of the city, county, or local public agency as shown on its records, plans, recreational element, maps, or reports as of the date of the most recent available federal census. (2) The City Council shall, by resolution, establish the requirement for parkland dedication in accordance with the foregoing and the requirements of the Quimby Act.
(d) Amount of Fee Required. Where a fee is required or proposed to be paid in lieu of land dedication, the amount of the fee shall be established by City Council resolution and shall be based upon the fair market value of the amount of land which would otherwise be required to be dedicated.

Section 15.09.030 – Determination of Dedication of Land or Payment of Fee. (a) Procedure. The procedure for determining whether the subdivider is to dedicate land, pay a fee, or both, shall be as follows:
(1) Subdivider.
(A) At the time of filing a tentative map for approval, the owner of the property shall, as a part of the filing, indicate whether the owner desires to dedicate property for park and recreational purposes or desires to pay a fee in lieu of dedication. (B) If the owner desires to dedicate land for this purpose, the owner, with the concurrence of the director, shall designate the area on the tentative map as filed.
(2) Action of City. If dedication of land is proposed, the tentative map will be referred to the City Council for approval, conditional approval or denial. The City Council shall consider the land dedication as part of the public hearing on the tentative map and shall determine whether to require a dedication of land within the subdivision, payment of a fee in lieu of dedication, or a combination of both.
(3) Prerequisites for Approval of Final Map.
(A) Where dedication is required, it shall be accomplished in compliance with Government Code Section 66477.
(B) Where fees are required, the same shall be deposited with the City before building permit issuance, unless otherwise required by law.
(C)Open space covenants for private park or recreational facilities shall be submitted to the City before approval of the final map and shall be recorded concurrently with the final map.
(b) Determination.
9 (1) Whether the City Council accepts the land dedication or elects to require the payment of a fee in lieu of dedication, or a combination of both, shall be determined by consideration of all of the following:
(A) The compatibility of the land dedication with the San Rafael general plan;
(B) The natural features, access, and location of land in the subdivision available for dedication;
(C)The size and shape of the subdivision and land available for dedication;
(D)The feasibility of dedication; and
(E) The location of and proximity to existing and proposed park sites and trailways.
(2) The determination of the City Council as to whether land shall be dedicated or whether a fee shall be charged, or a combination thereof, shall be final and conclusive.
(3) On subdivisions involving 50 parcels or fewer, only the payment of fees shall be required; however, land may be accepted upon agreement of the subdivider and the City Council.
(A) This limitation does not apply to condominium projects, stock cooperative, or community apartment projects, as those terms are defined in Sections 4105, 4125, and 4190 of the Civil Code, when such projects exceed 50 dwelling units even though the number of parcels may be less than 50.
(c) Requirements for Dedicated Land. The subdivider shall, without credit:
(1) Provide full street improvements and utility connections including, but not limited to, curbs, gutters, street paving, traffic control devices, street trees, and sidewalks to land which is dedicated pursuant to this section; (2) Provide for fencing along the property line of that portion of the subdivision contiguous to the dedicated land;
(3) Provide improved drainage through the dedicated land; and (4) Provide other minimal improvements including, but not limited to removal of debris, clearing of the site and temporary hydro-seeding, which the library and recreation director determines to be essential to the acceptance of the land for recreational purposes.
(5) The location, size and configuration of the land to be dedicated and the improvements to be made pursuant to this section shall be reviewed by the city’s park and recreation commission and approved by the library and recreation director.
(d) Limitations on the Use of Land and Fees. Unless otherwise authorized by Government Code Section 66477, the land and fees received in compliance 10 with this section shall be used only for the purpose of providing park and recreational facilities to serve the subdivision for which received, and the location of the land and amount of fees shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park and recreational facilities by the future inhabitants of the subdivision.

Section 15.09.040 – Credit for private recreation facility.

Credit may be given for private recreation facilities or common, open area in the subdivision only as hereinafter provided. When private recreation facilities and common open areas designed to be usable for active recreational purposes are provided in a proposed planned development, real estate development, stock cooperative, or community apartment project, as defined in Sections 11003, 11003.1, 11003.2, 11003.4 and 11004, respectively, of the Business and Professions Code, or condominiums, as defined in Section 783 of the Civil Code, partial credit, not to exceed fifty percent (50%), may be given against the requirement of land dedication or payment of fees in lieu thereof if the City finds that it is in the public interest to do so and that the following standards are met:
(a) Yards adjacent to each residential unit, setbacks, and other open areas required by the zoning and building ordinances and regulations shall not be included in the computation of such private recreation area; and (b) Private park and recreation facilities shall be owned by a homeowners’ association composed of all property owners in the subdivision and being an incorporated nonprofit organization capable of dissolution only by a one hundred percent affirmative vote of the membership, operated under recorded land agreements through which each lot owner in the neighborhood is automatically a member, and each lot is subject to a charge for a proportionate share of expenses for maintaining the facilities, or subject to a covenant running with the land requiring continued operation by the developer or owner; and
(c) Use of the private park and recreation facilities are restricted for park and recreation purposes by recorded covenant which runs with the land in favor of the future owners of the property and which cannot be defeated or eliminated without the consent of the City or its successors; and (d) The proposed private park and recreational facilities are designed for active use, and are reasonably adaptable for use for park and recreation purposes, including recreational community gardening, children’s play apparatus areas, picnic areas, hiking, jogging, and bicycle trails and paths, or landscaped exercise areas, taking into consideration such factors as size, shape, topography, geology, access, and location; and
11 (e) The facilities that are proposed are in substantial accordance with the provisions of the recreation element of the San Rafael general plan; and (f) Open space land intended for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas or to protect views and ridgetops or hillside areas not suitable for active recreation use shall not be credited, regardless if passive recreation use (trails, pedestrian access) is allowed in these areas; and (g) The private facilities for which credit may be given must be a minimum of one acre and with at least three (3) of the local park basic elements listed below, or a combination of such and other recreation improvements that will meet the specific recreation needs of future residents of the area:

Elements Acres

1. Children’s play apparatus
area
.50 to .75

2. Landscape park-like with
quiet areas
.50 to 1.00

3. Family picnic area .25 to .75

4. Game court area (tennis,
badminton, basketball, etc.)
.25 to .50

5. Turf playfield (< 5% slope) 1.00 to 3.00

6. Swimming pool (with
adjacent deck and lawn
areas)
.25 to .50

7. Recreation center building .15 to .25
Before credit is given, the City shall make written findings that the above standards are met. (h) The determination of the City as to whether credit shall be given and the amount of credit shall be final and conclusive.

Section 15.09.050 – Disposition of fees.
(a) Fees determined pursuant to Section 15.09.030 and by City Council resolution shall be paid to the City and shall be deposited into the Parkland Dedication Fund, or its successor. Money in the fund, including accrued 12 interest, shall be expended solely for acquisition, development, or rehabilitation of park land, or improvements related thereto. (b) The City shall develop and maintain a schedule specifying where, when and how it will use the dedicated land, in-lieu fees or both to develop park and recreational facilities to serve the residents of the subdivision. (c) Collected fees shall be committed within five (5) years of receipt of payments or within five (5) years after the issuance of building permits on one half of the lots created by the subdivision, whichever occurs later. If such fees are not committed, these fees, less an administrative charge, shall be distributed and paid to the then record owners of the subdivision in the same proportion that the size of their lot bears to the total area of all lots in the subdivision.

Section 15.09.060 – Exemptions.

The following are exempted from the provisions of this chapter:
(a) Subdivisions containing four (4) or fewer parcels or lots that are not used for residential purposes; provided, however, that a condition shall be placed on the approval of such tentative map that if a building permit is requested for construction of a residential structure or dwelling units on one or more of the parcels or lots, the in-lieu fee shall be required to be paid by the property owner of each such parcel or lot, as a condition to the issuance of such permit; (b) Commercial or industrial subdivisions;
(c) Condominium projects or stock cooperatives which consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment building which is more than five (5) years old and no new dwelling units are added.

Section 15.09.070 – Subdivider provided park and recreation improvements.

The value of any park and recreational improvements to the dedicated land shall be credited against the fees and/or dedication of land required by this chapter provided that:
(a) The subdivider shall apply to the community services director for permission to construct such improvements;
(b) If permission is granted, the community services director, in consultation with the department of public works, shall determine the dollar value of the improvements.

Section 15.09.080 – Access.

All land offered for dedication for public park or recreational purposes, shall have access to at least one existing or proposed public street. This requirement may be waived by the City 13 Council if the City Council determines that public street access is unnecessary for the maintenance of the park area or use thereof by residents.

Section 15.09.090 – Development agreement.

Except as expressly prohibited by Section 66477 of the Subdivision Map Act, the terms and procedures contained in this chapter may be waived or modified by a development agreement adopted pursuant to Section 65864 et seq. of the California Government Code.

DIVISION 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).

The City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance does not constitute a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378 and is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15262, 15273, and 15061(b)(3), because the Ordinance establishes and updates funding mechanisms and policy provisions related to park impact fees and park dedication requirements and does not approve or authorize any specific physical development project.

DIVISION 4. SEVERABILITY.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of San Rafael hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases shall be declared invalid.

DIVISION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE; PUBLICATION.

A summary of this Ordinance shall be published and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five (5) days prior to the Council meeting at which it is adopted.

This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its final passage, and the summary of this Ordinance shall be published within fifteen (15) days after the adoption, together with the names of those Councilmembers voting for or against same, in the Marin Independent Journal, a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City of San Rafael, Marin County, State of California.

Within fifteen (15) days after adoption, the City Clerk shall also post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance, along with the names of those Councilmembers voting for or against the Ordinance. 14 THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was first read and introduced at a regular meeting of the San Rafael City Council on the 15th day of June 2026, and was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the San Rafael City Council on the 20th day of July 2026 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
_______________
KATE COLIN, Mayor
Attest:
______________________
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE PARK

NEXUS STUDY AND ASSOCIATED PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES

PROJECT LIST, ADOPTING UPDATED CHARGES FOR THE PARK AND

RECREATION FACILITIES FEE, AND ADOPTING UPDATED PARK DEDICATION

REQUIREMENTS AND PARK DEDICATION AND IN-LIEU FEES
WHEREAS, the San Rafael Municipal Code (“SRMC”) Chapter 3.24, entitled “Park and Recreation Facilities Fee,” imposes upon new development a requirement to pay a Park and Recreation Facilities Fee; and
WHEREAS, SRMC Section 3.24.040 empowers the City Council to establish the amount of the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee by resolution in accordance with a nexus study that demonstrates the reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee will be imposed and demonstrates the reasonable relationship between the need for park facilities and the type of development projects on which the fee will be imposed; and
WHEREAS, the SRMC Chapter 15.09, entitled “Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees,” imposes a park land dedication or in-lieu fee requirement as a condition of approval of a tentative map for a residential subdivision, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act; and WHEREAS, SRMC Section 15.09.040(e) empowers the City Council to establish the dedication requirements and the amount of the In-Lieu Fee by resolution in accordance with a nexus study that complies with the Quimby Act; and WHEREAS, new development projects attract new residents to the City, generating an increased demand for park, parkland, and parks and recreation facilities and impacting existing park and recreation facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the City requires a cost-effective and efficient way of serving future residents while maintaining existing levels of service; and WHEREAS, the City contracted with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (“KMA”) to perform a nexus study for a proposed Park and Recreation Facilities Fee update and Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees update; and
WHEREAS, KMA prepared and submitted a Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee and Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, dated August 18, 2025, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference (“Nexus Study”); and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study substantiates a methodology that will charge each new development project only for the costs necessary to mitigate the impacts expected to be caused by that development project; and
WHEREAS, there is a reasonable relationship and an essential nexus between the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee and the development projects on which the Fees will be imposed because the Fees will only fund costs necessitated by each new development; and
WHEREAS, there is a reasonable relationship and an essential nexus between the Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees and the development projects on which the Fees will be imposed because the Fees will only fund costs necessitated by each new development; and
WHEREAS, the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee does not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the land and facilities for which the Fee is imposed; and WHEREAS, the Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees do not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the land and facilities for which the Fees are imposed; and WHEREAS, the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee is not levied, collected, or imposed for general revenue purposes, but is levied specifically to fund facilities of the types set forth in the Nexus Study; and
WHEREAS, the Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees are not levied, collected, or imposed for general revenue purposes, but is levied specifically to fund facilities of the types set forth in the Nexus Study; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study establishes that the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee has an “essential nexus” to the City’s legitimate land use interest of providing park and recreation facilities necessary to serve new growth, and the amount of the Fee is roughly proportionate to the City’s costs of constructing park and recreation facilities to serve new development; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study establishes that the Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees have an “essential nexus” to the City’s legitimate land use interest of providing parkland and park and recreation facilities necessary to serve new growth, and the amount of the Fee is roughly proportionate to the City’s costs of acquiring new parkland and constructing park and recreation facilities to serve new development; and WHEREAS, the Nexus Study identifies the City’s existing level of service for parkland and park and recreation facilities, identifies the proposed new level of service, and includes an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate; and WHEREAS, the Nexus Study includes information that supports the City’s actions, as required by subdivision (a) of Section 66001 of the Government Code; and WHEREAS, the Nexus Study includes a Parks Development Impact Fee Project List (“Project List”), a list of park and recreation facilities funded in part or in whole by the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee, which serves as its capital improvement plan pursuant to subdivision (a)(6) of Section 66016.5 of the Government Code for the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study was presented to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the proposed Park and Recreation Facilities Fee program and fee amounts and the Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees requirements are consistent with the City’s General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City’s 2023-2031 Housing Element analyzes governmental constraints on housing production, including development fees; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element recognizes that development fees, including planning fees, building fees, and impact fees, can affect the financial feasibility of housing development throughout the Bay Area, while also explaining that development impact fees are used to cover the cost of capital improvements attributable to new projects and are necessary to equitably distribute the costs of growth to new development rather than to existing taxpayers (Housing Element, p. 5-44); and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element notes that the City’s General Plan 2040 recommends preparation of a nexus study to update the City’s parkland dedication fee and potentially collect the fee as an impact fee applicable to all residential units (Housing Element, p. 5- 47); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered whether the proposed Park and Recreation Facilities Fee and Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees would constitute an unreasonable constraint on housing production and finds that the Fees are supported by the Nexus Study and are calculated to recover only the proportionate costs of parkland and park and recreation facilities attributable to new development; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed Park and Recreation Facilities Fee and Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees are consistent with the Housing Element, including the Housing Element’s analysis of development fees and its discussion regarding preparation of a nexus study to update the City’s park fee program; and WHEREAS, the Housing Element identifies the preservation and production of affordable housing as a critical policy priority and includes goals, policies, and programs intended to encourage the development of housing affordable to lower-income households; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that adopting reduced development impact fees for one hundred percent (100%) affordable housing projects supports the City’s housing policies by reducing development costs for deed-restricted affordable housing and encouraging the construction of additional affordable housing units within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that adopting a reduced Park and Recreation Facilities Fee and reduced Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees for one hundred percent (100%) affordable housing projects serves an important public purpose by advancing housing affordability, promoting socioeconomic diversity, and supporting implementation of the City’s adopted Housing Element goals and programs; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Sections 66016, 66016.5, 66018, 66019, and 6062a, the City must adopt the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee and the Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees only after notice and public hearing; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Sections 66002, 66016.5, 66018, 66019, and 6062a, notice of a public hearing on the proposed fee schedule and the adoption of the Nexus Study was published on April 17 and April 24, 2026, in the Marin Independent Journal, a newspaper of general circulation, and following continuation of the public hearing, additional notice of the continued public hearing scheduled for June 15, 2026, was published on June 5, 2026; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Sections 66019 and 66016.5, notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matters to be considered and a statement that required data is available was mailed at least thirty (30) days prior to the meeting to those members of the public who filed a written request with the City; and
WHEREAS, at least fourteen (14) days prior to the public hearing referenced above, the City made available for public inspection information required under Government Code Section 66000, et seq.; and
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2026, the City Council held a noticed public hearing to consider the City’s proposed new Park and Recreation Facilities Fee and Park Dedication and InLieu Fees, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to comment; and
WHEREAS, on May 18, 2026, the City Council continued the public hearing to June 15, 2026, at which time all interested persons were given a second opportunity to comment; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 66019, the City Council has considered all information related to this matter, including any supporting reports by City Staff, any information provided by the public, prior to the close of the public hearing on June 15, 2026, and written comments provided by the public and the City’s responses to those comments.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby authorizes as follows:

1. Findings. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
a. The above recitals are correct and are material to this Resolution and are incorporated into this Resolution as findings of the City Council. b. The fees proposed bear a reasonable relationship to the need for park and recreation facilities by the future inhabitants of new development and are roughly proportionate to the impacts of new development.

2. Environmental Review. The City Council finds that adoption of the Nexus Study and the Parks and Recreation Facilities Project List (“Project List”), which serves as the Capital Improvement Program required by Government Code section 66016.5, does not constitute a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines section 15378. While CEQA requires environmental review to occur at the earliest feasible stage, CEQA does not require review of actions that are speculative, conceptual, or preliminary in nature and that do not commit the City to a definite course of action that may result in a physical change in the environment.

The Nexus Study and Project List are planning-level fiscal and policy documents that identify conceptual public facility needs and provide general cost estimates for long-range capital planning, budgeting, and rate-setting purposes only. Adoption of the Nexus Study and Project List do not approve, fund, or authorize construction of any specific capital improvement project; do not establish final project descriptions, locations, designs, construction methods, phasing, or schedules; and do not commit the City to proceed with any particular project identified in the Project List. The City retains full discretion to modify, defer, redesign, relocate, or decline to pursue any project listed in the Project List. Accordingly, adoption of the Project List does not represent a commitment to a definite course of action within the meaning of CEQA and does not result in any direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment.

Even if adoption of the Nexus Study, Project List, or fee amendments were considered a “project” for purposes of CEQA, then consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), adoption of the Project List and fee amendments constitutes the establishment of a government funding mechanism and long-range fiscal planning tool. Section 15378(b)(4) provides that a “project” does not include fiscal activities or administrative actions that do not involve any commitment to a specific project or physical development.

The Project List functions solely to inform budgeting, financial planning, and infrastructure funding decisions and does not authorize or entitle any physical development.

The Nexus Study and Project List also qualify as a feasibility and planning study that is exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines section 15262, as it evaluates potential public facility needs and funding strategies at a conceptual level, prior to the City’s approval, adoption, or funding of any specific capital improvement project. Environmental review at this stage would be premature and speculative, as the City lacks sufficient project-level detail to meaningfully analyze environmental impacts or alternatives.

In addition, because the Nexus Study and Project List are prepared in connection with the establishment and adjustment of fees and rates to finance public facilities, adoption of these documents and related fee amendments is exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15273. Section 15273 recognizes that public agencies must be able to engage in fiscal planning and establish funding mechanisms to meet infrastructure and capital financing needs without triggering CEQA review before any specific project has been approved or defined.

The City further finds that adoption of the Nexus Study and Project List expressly reserves full discretion to the City Council and other decision-making bodies to approve, deny, modify, or pursue alternatives for any individual capital project identified in the Project List, including alternative designs, locations, phasing, or funding approaches. No construction, ground-disturbing activity, or irreversible commitment of resources will occur unless and until the City takes separate future discretionary actions to approve a specific project, following appropriate environmental review under CEQA. Adoption of the Project List does not limit the range of alternatives available to the City or predetermine the outcome of any future CEQA analysis.

Finally, the City Council finds that the action is exempt under the common sense exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), because it can be seen with certainty that adoption of the Nexus Study, Project List, and related fee amendments, by themselves, have no possibility of resulting in a significant effect on the environment. Any future capital improvement projects would be subject to separate discretionary approvals and environmental review in accordance with CEQA and City practice. CEQA Determination: Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3).

3. Adoption of Nexus Study. The City Council finds and determines that the Nexus Study complies with California Government Code section 66000 et seq. and the Quimby Act and is consistent with the General Plan, including the Housing Element, and hereby approves and adopts the Nexus Study as shown in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference.

4. Adoption of the Project List. The City Council hereby finds that the Project List is consistent with the General Plan and approves and adopts the Project List, funded in part or in whole by the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee, as shown in Table 12 of the Nexus Study.

5. Rates for Park and Recreation Facilities Fee. The City Council hereby sets rates for the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee as shown in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. These rates will be incorporated into the Master Fee Schedule.

6. Requirements and Rates for Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees. The City Council hereby sets dedication requirements and in-lieu fee amounts for the Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees as shown in Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. These requirements and fees will be incorporated into the Master Fee Schedule.

7. Exemption. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66324(c)(1), the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee and the Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees shall not apply to accessory dwelling units of less than 750 square feet.

8. Severability. Should any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution be declared unconstitutional or invalid for any reason, such declaration shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this and each section, subsection, phrase, or clause thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, phrases, or clauses be declared unconstitutional on their face or as applied.

9. Effective Date. The Resolution shall take effect immediately. In accordance with Government Code Section 66017, the updated Park and Recreation Facilities Fee, set forth in Exhibit B, and the updated Park Dedication and InLieu Fees, set forth in Exhibit C, shall be in full force and effect 60 days after the adoption of this Resolution and shall be published or posted as required by law.

10.To the extent the provisions of this Resolution conflict with any prior resolutions, the conflicting provisions in this Resolution will supersede those prior resolutions.

I, LINDSAY LARA, Clerk of the City of San Rafael, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Rafael, held on Monday, the 15th day of June 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:
_________________
Lindsay Lara, City Clerk

EXHIBIT A

PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE AND PARKLAND AND RECREATION FACILITY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY, DATED AUGUST 18, 2025, AMENDED MAY 28, 2026

DRAFT PARKLAND DEDICATION IN-LIEU FEE AND

PARKLAND AND RECREATION FACILITY

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY
Prepared for:

City of San Rafael
Prepared by:

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

August 18, 2025
Amended May 28, 2026
May 28, 2026 Amendment:
“Table 12: Parks Development Impact Fee Project List” has been revised. The changes to the table and corresponding narrative changes on pages 21 and 23 are the only changes that have been made to the Nexus Study since it was presented to the City Council on May 18, 2026.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION, SUMMARY OF CURRENT PROGRAM AND FINDINGS OF STUDY..... 1 A. Summary of Current Program......................................................................................... 1 B. City’s Objectives for Updating its Parks Dedication and Fee Program ............................ 1 C. Report Background and Legal Context........................................................................... 2 D. Findings And Conclusions .............................................................................................. 7 II. DETERMINATION OF QUIMBY PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEES ................................................................................................................................... 9 III. MITIGATION FEE ACT NEXUS FINDINGS........................................................................11 A. Purpose.........................................................................................................................11 B. Use of Fee.....................................................................................................................11 C. Relationship ..................................................................................................................11 D. Need .............................................................................................................................11 E. Proportionality ...............................................................................................................12 IV. DEMAND FOR NEW PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES AND SUPPORTED IMPACT FEE AMOUNTS..................................................................................................................13 A. Population and Residential Demand for Park and Recreation Facilities.........................13 B. New Residential Development.......................................................................................13 C. Parks and Recreation Facility Inventory and Standards.................................................14 D. Existing Facilities Inventory Replacement Cost Method for Establishing Fee Amounts..15 E. Replacement Cost of Existing San Rafael Parks and Recreation Facilities....................15 F. Maximum Supported Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fees for Subdivision Projects that Do Not Dedicate Park Land...........................................................................................17 G. Maximum Supported Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Subdivision Units..............................................................................................................................18 H. Maximum Supported Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for All Non-Subdivision Units ...................................................................................................19 V. Estimated Range and Maximum Amount of Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Revenue through 2040 ...........................................................21 VI. USE OF FEE REVENUE.....................................................................................................23 VII.IMPACT FEES IN NEIGHBORING CITIES, MAXIMUM SUPPORTED FEES, AND RECOMMENDED FEES.....................................................................................................26 A. Park and Recreation Fees in Neighboring Jurisdictions.................................................26 Appendix A: Inventory of Parks from Citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Recent Residential Land Sales in San Rafael, and Parkland and Recreational Facility Construction Cost Estimates ...........................................................................................29 Appendix A Table 1. City Operated Parks by Type and Recreation Provided………… 30 Appendix A Table 2. Residential Land Sales - Marin County…………………………….. 31 Appendix A Table 3. Recreation Facility Construction Cost Estimates Prepared for Other Bay Area Park Development Impact Fee Nexus Studies………………………….. 32 Appendix A Table 4. American Community Survey, 2023: City of San Rafael Population, Household, Vacancy and Household Size Data………………………………33 List of Tables
Table 1. Parkland Dedication Requirements for Residential Subdivision Units.................. 7 Table 2. Maximum Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee for Residential Subdivision Units ..... 7 Table 3. Maximum Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Residential Subdivision Units..................................................................................................................... 8 Table 4. Maximum Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Non Subdivision Projects................................................................................................................ 8 Table 5. Quimby Land Dedication Requirement .................................................................... 9 Table 6. Maximum Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee for Residential Subdivisions Units....10 Table 7. Current and Projected San Rafael Population........................................................13 Table 8. Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Operated by the City of San Rafael........14 Table 9. Replacement Cost of Existing San Rafael Parks and Recreation Facilities - Existing Inventory Method .....................................................................................................16 Table 10A. Calculation of Maximum Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fees for Subdivision Units that Do Not Dedicate Land, to be Paid at Entitlements or Building Permit...............18 Table 10B. Calculation of Maximum Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for All Subdivision Units, to be Paid at Building Permit
Table 10C. Calculation of Maximum Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for All Non-Subdivision Units, to be Paid at Building Permit Table 11. Estimated Range of Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Revenue through Yr. 2040……………………………………………………………………………22 Table 12. Parks Development Impact Fee Project List.........................................................24 Table 13. Parkland Dedication and In-lieu Fee Requirements for Residential Subdivisions and Park Facility Impact Fees – Select Peer Jurisdictions ..................................................27 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 1
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
I. INTRODUCTION, SUMMARY OF CURRENT PROGRAM AND FINDINGS OF STUDY This Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee and Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (Report) provides the City of San Rafael (City) with the necessary technical documentation to support updating its current Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fee program for residential subdivision projects and to establish a Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee to fund parks and recreation capital facilities, including land acquisition, park improvements and recreation facilities. The study has been prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA).

A. Summary of Current Program
The City’s existing “Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fee” program is provided in Chapter 15.09 of the City’s municipal code. The program’s basic standard is that subdivision projects shall provide three (3) acres of land for each one thousand (1,000) residents, which translates into a dedication requirement of 300 square feet1 of parkland per each new residential unit that is built within a subdivision. At the City’s discretion, the code also provides provisions for the payment of a fee in lieu of dedicating land. The amount of the fee is determined by an appraisal of the property and the application of the appraised per square foot value to 300 square feet per residential unit.

The in-lieu fees are used to acquire land and construct park and trail improvements to meet the City’s per capita parks service standards, which are contained in the City’s General Plan 2040.

The General Plan 2040 establishes a standard of four (4) acres of parkland per 1,000 residents.

The amount of available vacant property suitable for subdivision in San Rafael is very limited, with most new developments being built on in-fill lots. The City’s current program does not apply to new residential construction that is not part of a subdivision, but the new non-subdivision units do increase the demand for park and recreation facilities.

B. City’s Objectives for Updating its Parks Dedication and Fee Program The City’s primary objectives for updating its Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fee program and adopting Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees are as follows:
 Require new non-subdivision residential development in the City to mitigate the demand that it generates for parkland and recreational facilities.  Ensure that residential development within subdivision projects pay an impact fee to construct facilities in addition to an in-lieu payment for land dedication. 1 Chapter 15.09 of the City of San Rafael Municipal Code.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 2
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
 Ensure that the impact fee requirements on non-subdivision projects are consistent with the provisions of the California Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600 et.seq.).  Ensure that the parkland dedication and in-lieu fee requirements for subdivision developments are consistent with the provisions of the Quimby Act (Section 66477 of the California Government Code).
 Revise the City’s current parkland dedication requirement and in-lieu fee option for new subdivision residential units to be based on maintaining the City’s current level of service of 1.824 acres of City-operated parks per 1,000 residents. The parkland dedication requirement and in-lieu fee option will be expressed in terms of number of square feet of land per new residential unit and in-lieu fee dollar amount per new residential unit, respectively.
 Establish a recreation facility development impact fee to apply to all new subdivision residential units. The amount of the impact fee will be based on the estimated cost to maintain the City’s current per capita service level of park facilities, recreation community center facilities, and cultural facilities. The fee amount will be expressed as a dollar per square foot of livable area of new residential units.  Establish a parkland and recreation facility development impact fee to apply to all new non-subdivision residential units. The amount of the impact fee will be based on the estimated cost to maintain the City’s current service levels of parkland, park facilities, recreation community center facilities and cultural facilities. • Establish a bifurcated parkland dedication, in-lieu fee, and development impact fee structure that differentiates between single family detached residential units and multifamily residential units (i.e., units in buildings with two or more units).  Establish fee levels that align with current land acquisition, park facility, and recreation community center development costs.

C. Report Background and Legal Context

1. Quimby Act (Section 66477 of the California Government Code) The City’s current program is based on the provisions of the Quimby Act. In summary, the Act requires residential projects that require approval of a tentative map or parcel map to either dedicate land, pay a fee in lieu of dedication, or both. The fees may be used to develop new or rehabilitate existing neighborhood or community parks or recreational facilities within the neighborhood that serves the project. The dedication of land, or the Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 3
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
payment of fees, or a combination of both, cannot exceed the proportionate amount necessary to provide three (3) acres of neighborhood and community park area per 1,000 persons to reside within the subdivision, unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area within the jurisdiction exceeds the limit, in which case the jurisdiction may adopt a higher standard not to exceed five (5) acres per 1,000 per thousand residents expected to reside within the subdivision. Given that the City of San Rafael currently provides approximately 1.824 acres of parks per 1,000 residents, the City of San Rafael intends to modify parkland dedication requirements for subdivision projects to be equivalent to the current level of service of 1.824 acres per 1,000 residents.

2. The California Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600)
The Mitigation Fee Act (Section 66000 – 66008 of the California Government Code) permits local jurisdictions to adopt parks and recreation development impact fees on new development to fund the associated, additional costs of providing parks and recreation capital facilities.

This Report provides the necessary technical analysis to support a schedule of fees to be established by an Impact Fee Ordinance and/or Resolution. The Mitigation Fee Act allows the City to adopt by Resolution a fee schedule consistent with the supporting technical analysis and findings provided in this Report. The Resolution’s approach to setting the fee allows periodic adjustments of the fee amount as may be necessary over time, without amending the enabling Ordinance.

The technical analysis in this Report estimates the parks and recreation facility fee schedule that will fund new development’s “fair share” contribution to future City investments in parks.

The key requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act that determine the structure, scope, and amount of the proposed fee program are as follows:
 Collected for Capital Facility and Infrastructure Improvements. Development impact fee revenue can be collected and used to cover the cost of capital facilities and infrastructure required to serve new development and growth in the City.

However, impact fee revenue cannot be used to cover the operation and maintenance costs of these or any other facilities and infrastructure.  Cannot Fund Existing Needs. Impact fee revenue cannot be collected or used to cover deficiencies in existing City capital equipment and facilities. The portion of capital costs required to meet the needs of the City’s existing population must be funded through other sources.
 Must be Based on a Rational Nexus. An impact fee must be based on a reasonable nexus, or connection, between new growth and development and the need for a new facility or improvement. As such, an impact fee must be supported by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 4
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
specific findings that explain or demonstrate this nexus. In addition, the impact fee amount must be structured such that the revenue generated does not exceed the cost of providing the facility or improvement for which the fee is imposed. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that the following requirements be satisfied when a public agency establishes, increases, or imposes a fee as a condition of approval of a development project:
a. Identify the purpose of the fee.
b. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified.
c. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. d. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. e. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.

The City can choose to charge parks and recreation development impact fees below the maximum, supportable fee schedule. Such downward adjustments in the fee schedule, if selected, are typically based on policy considerations related to considerations of development feasibility and fee levels in peer cities.

The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees comply with the Mitigation Fee Act.

3. Assembly Bill (AB) 602
Assembly Bill (AB) 602, enacted by the State of California in 2021, amended Sections 65940.1 and 66019 of, and added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code. AB 602 requires that if a local agency conducts and adopts an impact fee nexus study after January 1, 2022, the local agency shall follow all of the following standards and practices:
a. Before the adoption of a development fee, an impact fee nexus study shall be adopted.

The nexus study contained in this report meets this requirement. b. When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate. This nexus study identifies the City’s current level of park and recreation service at approximately 1.824 developed park acres per 1,000 residents, and three recreation community Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 5
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
centers, and one cultural center per 58,331 residents. The City of San Rafael will maintain this standard and apply it to future residential development. c. A nexus study shall include information that supports the local agency’s actions, as required by subdivision (a) of Section 66001 of the Government Code, which are listed above under the rational nexus requirement. This nexus study meets these requirements.
d. If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee. The City of San Rafael does not currently levy development impact fees for park and recreation improvements. The balance of collected parkland dedication in-lieu fees is insufficient to provide the parkland and facilities necessary to serve new development.
e. A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. A nexus study is not required to comply with the requirements to calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionally to the square footage of the proposed units if the local agency makes the following findings:
 An explanation as to why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees imposed on a housing development project.  An explanation that an alternative basis of calculating the fee bears a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.
 That other policies in the fee structure support smaller developments, or otherwise ensure that smaller developments are not charged disproportionate fees.
 The maximum fee amounts supported by this nexus study are calculated proportionally to the square footage of the proposed residential units.
f. Large jurisdictions (i.e., Counties with a minimum population of 250,000 residents and any jurisdictions within such a county) shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study. This study includes a Parks Development Impact Fee Project List attached as Table 12.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 6
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
g. All studies shall be adopted at a public hearing with at least 30 days’ notice, and the local agency shall notify any member of the public that requests notice of intent to begin an impact fee nexus study of the date of the hearing. h. Studies shall be updated at least every eight years, beginning on January 1, 2022. i. The local agency may use the impact fee nexus study template developed by the California Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50466.5 of the Health and Safety Code. This nexus study uses the template developed by the Terner Center for the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50466.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

This report demonstrates that all fee components comply with AB 602.

4. Existing Facilities Inventory Replacement Cost Method for Establishing Fee Amounts In accordance with the provisions of AB 602, this nexus study uses the “Existing Inventory Method” described in the “Impact Fee Nexus Study Templates” document that was prepared in 2023 by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley for the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Under this approach, the cost of facilities to serve new development is calculated based on the cost to replace the City’s existing inventory of park facilities and the City’s existing population. Dividing the replacement cost of existing inventory by the City’s population yields a park facility replacement per capita cost factor that can then be applied to the average household size of new development to generate a cost per unit. Per the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, the per unit cost estimate is converted into a fee per square foot of livable residential area by dividing the per unit cost by the average square footage of new residences.

The City’s inventory of parkland and recreational facilities is currently comprised of:
 106.41 acres of community, neighborhood, and special use parks2  Three recreation community centers; and
 One cultural center.

Per the US Census – American Community Survey published in 2023, the City of San Rafael’s population is 58,331. The City’s 106.41 acres of parks is equivalent to approximately 1.824 acres per 1,000 residents, which is significantly less than the General Plan 2040 service standard of 4 acres per 1,000 residents. The replacement cost of the City’s existing inventory of parkland and recreational facilities has been estimated based on cost estimates prepared by City staff, as well as generic community and neighborhood park improvement cost estimates prepared by architects for other cities.
2 The list of parks, park acreage, and facilities offered at each park is provided in Appendix A, Table 1.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 7
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
Under this methodology, new development will be required to fund park improvements at the same rate and service level (i.e., 1.824 acres per 1,000 residents) that existing development has provided to date. Thus, new development will not be funding any existing deficiency.

The City has identified the planned park improvements to potentially be funded by future park impact fee revenues (and other sources, as necessary) through the year 2040, which coincides with the time horizon of the City’s General Plan. The Parks Development Impact Fee Project List is provided as Table 12.

D. Findings And Conclusions

1. Quimby Parkland Dedication Requirements for Residential Subdivision Units Table 1 provides the parkland dedication requirements that will apply to all new residential units within subdivisions. As shown, developers will be required to dedicate 206 square feet of parkland per single family detached residential unit and 184 square feet of parkland per multifamily residential unit.

Table 1. Parkland Dedication Requirements for Residential Subdivision Units Sq. Ft. of Park Land per Dwelling Unit
Single Family Detached Units 206 (205.78)
Multi-family Units 184 (184.33)
See Table 5 for detailed calculations.

2. Maximum Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee for Residential Subdivision Units Table 2 shows the maximum supported parkland dedication in-lieu fee to apply to residential subdivision projects that do not dedicate improved parkland. The in-lieu fees will be collected at the time that a building permit is issued for the new units.

Table 2. Maximum Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee for Residential Subdivision Units Maximum Supported In-Lieu Fee, Per Unit
Single Family Detached Units $12,596
Multi-Family Units $11,282
See Table 10A for detailed calculations.

3. Maximum Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Residential Subdivision Units Table 3 shows the maximum supported recreation facility development impact fees to be levied on all residential units built within subdivisions. The maximum fee schedule is based on the cost to replace the City’s existing inventory of park improvements and facilities as quantified in this Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 8
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
Report. The impact fees will be collected at the time that building permits are issued for new development.

Table 3. Maximum Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Residential Subdivision Units

Maximum Supported Development Impact Fee,
Per Square Foot of Livable Area
Single Family Detached Units $4.50
Multi-Family Units (units in buildings with 2 or
more units) $8.35
See Table 10B for detailed calculations.

4. Maximum Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for All NonSubdivision Projects Table 4 shows the maximum supported parkland and recreation facility development impact fees to be levied on all non-subdivision residential developments. The maximum fee schedule is based on the nexus findings and technical analysis contained in this Report. The parkland and recreation facility development impact fees will apply to new residential development to fund a share of future parkland and recreation capital facilities investments throughout the City. The impact fees will be collected at the time that building permits are issued for new development.

The calculation of the fee is presented in Section IV of this report.

Table 4. Maximum Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Non Subdivision Projects

Maximum Supported
Development Impact Fee Per
Square Foot of Livable Area
Single Family Detached Units $9.98
Multi-Family Units (units in buildings with 2 or more units) $18.50 See Table 10C for detailed calculations.

5. Fee Indexing
Since land and construction costs continue to rise, it is important that the fees be indexed to inflation. The fee schedule should be adjusted annually by a construction cost index, such as the Engineering News Record. Per AB 602, the nexus analysis and fee calculations are required to be updated every eight years.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 9
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
II. DETERMINATION OF QUIMBY PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT AND IN-LIEU FEES
Under the Quimby Act, the dedication of land for parks, or the payment of fees, or a combination of both, cannot exceed the proportionate amount necessary to provide three (3) acres of neighborhood/community park area per 1,000 future residents of persons of the subdivision, unless the amount of existing neighborhood/community park area within the jurisdiction exceeds the limit, in which case the jurisdiction may adopt a higher standard not to exceed five (5) acres per 1,000 per thousand residents expected to reside within the subdivision. The dedication and fee amounts are to reflect the residential density of the subdivision and the average number of persons per household.

As detailed in Section IV, the City currently provides a service level of 1.824 acres of community, neighborhood, pocket, and special use parks per 1,000 residents. The average household size of single family detached occupied and total single family detached units in the City is 2.62 and

2.59, respectively. The average household size of multi-family occupied units and total multifamily units is 2.36 and 2.32, respectively. While the City currently requires subdivision projects to dedicate 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents or pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to the cost of dedication, the City has decided to modify the dedication requirement to mirror the level of park acreage that the City is currently providing to the residents of San Rafael, which is 1.824 acres.

The formula for calculating the required dedication of parkland square footage per residential unit is as follows:

Average household size times Quimby standard (acres per 1,000 residents) / 1,000 times 43,560 square feet
As shown in Table 5, under the City’s new policy, the land dedication requirement will be 206 square feet per single family detached unit and 184 square feet per multi-family unit.

Table 5. Quimby Land Dedication Requirement
Avg. Household
Size
Quimby Standard
(Acres per 1,000 pop.)
Sq. Ft. of Park Land
per Dwelling Unit
Calculation A B C= (A*B/1000)*43560
Single Family Detached Units 2.59 1.824 206 (205.78)
Multi-family Units 2.32 1.824 184 (184.33)
Note: Formulas may appear to yield slightly different figures than shown due to rounding.

As detailed in Section IV, the estimated cost of acquiring parkland is approximately $2.61 million per acre, or $60 per square foot of parkland. Given a dedication requirement of 206 square feet of parkland per single detached dwelling unit, the calculated maximum fee amount is $12,349 per single family detached unit. It is standard for adopted impact fees to include an allowance for administering impact fees. A typical allowance is 2%, which has been assumed in this Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 10
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
analysis. Including a 2% administrative fee allowance, the maximum in-lieu fee per single family detached residential unit is $12,596 per unit and the maximum in-lieu fee for multi-family units is $11,282 per unit.

Table 6. Maximum Parkland Dedication In-lieu Fee for Residential Subdivisions Units Sq. Ft. of Park
Land per
Dwelling Unit
Cost to acquire parkland per
square foot of parkland based
on existing level of service
Land Dedication InLieu Fee per
Dwelling Unit
Calculation C D E= (C * D)*1.02
Single Family
Detached Units 205.78 $60.00 $12,596
Multi-Family
Units 184.33 $60.00 $11,282
Note: Formulas may appear to yield slightly different figures than shown due to rounding. See Table 10A for detailed calculations.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 11
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
III. MITIGATION FEE ACT NEXUS FINDINGS
This chapter describes the necessary “nexus” between new development in the City of San Rafael and the proposed capital facilities investments, as required under the Mitigation Fee Act – Government Code Section 66000. The park and recreation development impact fees will fund investments in parks and recreation facilities, improvements, and land acquisitions required to maintain existing levels of park facilities in the City – the “fair share” contribution of new development.

Nexus findings address: (1) the purpose of the fee and a related description of the facility for which fee revenue will be used, (2) the specific use of fee revenue, 3) the relationship between the facility and the type of development, (4) the relationship between the need for the facility and the type of development, and (5) the relationship between the amount of the fee and the proportionality of cost specifically attributable to new development. The subsections below describe the nexus findings for the parks and recreation development impact fee.

A. Purpose
The fee will be used to expand the provision of parks and recreational facilities to maintain the current level of service and meet the future sport, health, and recreational needs of residents.

The fee will also ensure that parks and recreation capital facilities in San Rafael keep pace with new growth, while supporting significant accessibility improvements and rehabilitation to existing facilities.

B. Use of Fee
Fee revenue will be used to acquire land for parks and to construct/renovate improvements, such as playing fields, trails, basketball courts, restrooms, community centers, etc.

C. Relationship
New residential development in the City of San Rafael will increase the demand for and use of parks and recreation facilities. To address the impacts of new residential development, parks and recreation development impact fees will be levied on the square footage of additional residential development. Fee revenue will be used to help fund new parks and recreation facilities in response to the increased demand, as well as significant renovations to existing facilities to modernize and enhance accessibility.

D. Need
Each new development will bring new residents to the City and will generate incremental, new demand and use of the City’s parks and recreation facilities. New revenues to fund investments Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 12
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
in additional parks and recreation capital improvements are necessary to maintain the City’s parks and recreation capital facilities service standards and the current level of service.

Additionally, significant reinvestment is needed to existing facilities to enhance accessibility.

E. Proportionality
The maximum, supportable parks and recreation fee schedule has been based on the cost to maintain the current per capita inventory of parkland and recreation facilities. As a result, the fee program cost estimates are directly proportional to the relative increase in new development.

The fees comply with the essential nexus and rough proportionality requirements articulated in the U.S. Supreme Court case Sheetz because they are imposed for the legitimate government land use interest of providing park land and facilities to serve new development and the fees do not exceed the estimated costs of providing the land and facilities for that purpose.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 13
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
IV. DEMAND FOR NEW PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES AND SUPPORTED IMPACT

FEE AMOUNTS
A. Population and Residential Demand for Park and Recreation Facilities Based on the most recent available Census data as reported in the American Community Survey of 2023, approximately 58,331 people reside in San Rafael. Based on projections prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), the City anticipates that the City’s population will reach 66,880 by 2040, which reflects a population growth of 8,549 residents through 2040.

The City’s General Plan 2040 establishes a standard of four (4) acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, which reflects the current service level provided by a combination of regional parks, community and neighborhood parks located within the greater San Rafael Planning Area. The application of this service standard to a projected growth of 8,549 residents would indicate that an additional 34.2 acres of parkland would be needed by 2040 to serve the growth in population.

The City has elected to base the adoption of parkland and recreation facility development impact fees on a lower standard of 1.824 acres per 1,000 residents, which reflects the current inventory of parks that are operated by the City of San Rafael. Applying the reduced standard of 1.824 acres of parkland to a projected population growth of 8,549 residents would indicate that an additional 15.6 acres of parkland will be needed by 2040 to meet the needs of new residents.

In addition to parks, new residents also create more demand for recreation facilities that are provided by the City’s three community centers and a historic building that serves as a cultural center.

Table 7. Current and Projected San Rafael Population
2025 2040 Increase
Total Population 58,331 66,880 8,549
Additional Park Acres Needed based on Existing City
Level of Service of 1.824 Acres Per 1,000 Residents 15.6 acres Note: Formulas may appear to yield slightly different figures than shown due to rounding.

B. New Residential Development
Given the limited availability of undeveloped land, the majority of new residential development is occurring on infill sites. Ownership projects are generally comprised of townhomes and small scale condominiums, with a limited number of single family detached units. Unit sizes of new townhomes and condos range from 1,300 to 1,800 square feet per unit, with prices in the $1.1 million to $1.3 million range. Densities range from 10 units to 30 units per acre. There has been considerable activity in the rental market in San Rafael, with a number of applications by projects that are seeking density bonuses and stream-line processing through the provisions of Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 14
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
SB 330. Project heights range from 2 to 13 stories, with two projects at 7 to 8 stories. The average size of rental units is 800 to 900 square feet. The largest pipeline project is the redevelopment of the Northgate shopping center, which is slated to include over 1,400 rental apartments and townhomes. Other significant pending projects include a 210-unit apartment project and a 187-unit apartment project.

Based on the distribution of the City’s residential inventory between single family detached homes and multi-family homes, new development trends, and the sizes of new residential units, the calculation of park impact fees reflects the assumptions that new singe family detached units will average 2,300 square feet and that new multi-family units will average 1,111 square feet.

C. Parks and Recreation Facility Inventory and Standards In 2023, the City adopted a Citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The Master Plan provides a comprehensive assessment of the City’s park system, a needs assessment, goals, plans, and an action plan for undertaking priority projects. As summarized below in Table 8 and detailed in Appendix A, Table 1, the City has a total inventory of 106.41 acres of existing Cityoperated parks. Of the existing acreage, approximately 39% are neighborhood parks, 32% are community parks, and 26% are special use parks. Additionally, the City provides three community centers, including a recreational swim center, and one cultural center.

Table 8. Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Operated by the City of San Rafael Total Acres
Community Parks 33.81
Neighborhood Parks 41.33
Pocket Parks 3.27
Special Use Parks 28.0
All Parks 106.41
Albert J. Boro Community Center 1
San Rafael / Albert Park Community Center 1
Terra Linda Community Center 1
Falkirk Cultural Center 1
Detailed in Appendix A, Table 1 of this report and Tables 6 and 8 of the Citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan.

Per the City’s General Plan 2040, descriptions of these types of parks are as follows:
 Community Parks are typically 10 acres or larger and include a variety of facilities, such as recreation centers, swimming pools, tennis courts, and multi-use athletic fields. San Rafael’s community parks serve residents throughout the City and beyond.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 15
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
 Neighborhood Parks are typically between one and ten acres in size and include a range of facilities, such as softball fields, playgrounds, lawn areas, basketball courts, and picnic areas. They are within walking distance of many users.  Pocket Parks are less than an acre in size and draw from a small area, such as a one quarter mile radius. Facilities are limited to children’s play structures and lawn areas.  Special Use Parks include parks that serve a unique purpose or activity. Examples include Starkweather Park along the Bay, and community gardens.

The City’s inventory of 106.41 acres and population of 58,331 yields a level of service equal to

1.824 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. The Park and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee will be based on maintaining this current level of service. For consistency purposes, the parkland dedication requirement and in-lieu fee provisions for subdivision projects will be revised downward from the existing 3 acres per 1,000 residents to 1.824 acres per 1,000 residents.

D. Existing Facilities Inventory Replacement Cost Method for Establishing Fee Amounts In accordance with the provisions of AB 602, this nexus study uses the “Existing Inventory Method” described in the “Impact Fee Nexus Study Templates” document that was prepared in 2023 by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley for the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Under this approach, the cost of facilities to serve new development is calculated based on the cost to replace the City’s existing inventory of park facilities and the City’s existing population. Dividing the replacement cost of existing inventory by the City’s population yields a park facility replacement per capita cost factor that can then be applied to the average household size of new development to generate a cost per unit. Per the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, the per unit cost estimate is converted into a fee per square foot of livable residential area by dividing the per unit cost by the average square footage of new residences.

E. Replacement Cost of Existing San Rafael Parks and Recreation Facilities Table 9 provides an estimate of the value of the City’s current parks and facilities as measured by the estimated cost to replace the parks and facilities. Replacement costs include the cost to acquire the 106.4 acres of parkland, improve the land with park facilities, and rebuild the community centers. As shown on Table 9, the replacement cost of the City’s parkland and recreational facilities is estimated to total $506.82 million. The total replacement cost translates into a per capita value of $8,689, or $8,862 after inclusion of a 2% administration cost allowance.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 16
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
Table 9. Replacement Cost of Existing San Rafael Parks and Recreation Facilities - Existing Inventory Method
Community Center and Cultural Facilities
Estimated Replacement Cost Source
SF $/SF
San Rafael Community Center 17,500 $1,943 $34,002,500 City estimate Terra Linda Park and Community Center 5,552 $1,943 $10,787,536 City estimate Albert J. Boro Community Center 14,487 $1,943 $28,148,241 City estimate Falkirk Cultural Facility 5,500 $2,5261 $13,892,450 City estimate Total Replacement Cost of Three Community Centers and One Cultural Facility $86,830,700 Parks
Acres
Land Cost
Per Acre1
Imp. Cost
Per Acre2 Land Cost
Improvement
Costs3
Total Park
Replacement Cost
Community Parks 33.81 $2,613,600 $1,400,000 $88,365,816 $47,334,000 $135,699,800 Neighborhood Parks 42.33 $2,613,600 $1,320,000 $110,633,688 $55,875,600 $166,509,300 Pocket Parks 2.27 $2,613,600 $750,000 $5,932,872 $1,702,500 $7,635,400 Special Parks 28.00 $2,613,600 $1,320,000 $73,180,800 $36,960,000 $110,140,800 Total Replacement
Cost of Parks 106.41 $278,113,200 $141,872,100 $419,985,300 Replacement Cost of Total Inventory of Community Centers and Parks $506,816,000 Per Capita $8,689
Per Capita Replacement Cost With 2% Admin. Cost $8,862
1 Estimate reflects the base replacement cost estimate of $1,943 per square foot of building area plus a 30% premium to account for the additional cost associated with replacing an historical structure. 2 Based on recent land sales in Marin County for residential development with a downward adjustment to $60 per square foot to reflect discount for the variety of entitlement conditions, densities, and market conditions that impact the value of different properties given a range of circumstances. See Appendix A, Table 2. 3 Based on cost analyses prepared by architects for standard park facilities. See Appendix A, Table 3.

Parkland Acquisition Costs – The cost to acquire parkland has been estimated based on recent land sales for residential development in San Rafael and nearby communities. These sales are provided in Appendix A, Table 2. Ten of the thirteen sales were for sites of less than one acre. The remaining three sales included sales of 3.7 acres, 9.5 acres, and 23 acres. Most of the sales are for properties in Downtown San Rafael. The properties vary with respect to the quality of location, entitlements, usability, and other factors. As noted, the average price in 2024 dollars was $125 per square foot of land area, with prices ranging from a low of $15 per square foot to $191 per square foot. Given that the City’s parks are located throughout the City, for purposes of this analysis, a conservative average value of $60 per square foot has been selected for purposes of estimating the average value of city parkland. Applying $60 per square foot to the inventory of 106.41 acres yields an estimated value of $278.11 million for the City’s parkland.

Park Facilities Replacement Costs – The cost of developing park facilities varies significantly, depending on the nature of the facilities. Appendix A, Table 3 provides cost estimates for generic park improvements by type of park that were prepared by architects and engineers for Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 17
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
impact fee studies in other jurisdictions. Based on this information, an average improvement cost of $1.40 million per acre has been assumed for community parks, $1.32 million for neighborhood and special parks, and $750,000 per acre for pocket parks. Applying these replacement cost estimates to the City’s inventory of parks yields a value for city-wide park improvements of $141.87 million.

Community Center and Cultural Center Replacement Cost – The City of San Rafael intends to significantly renovate the San Rafael Community Center and the Terra Linda Park and Community Center over the next five to ten years and has prepared cost estimates for the renovations. Based on the renovation estimates and general construction cost information, the City has estimated replacement costs for each of the three community recreation centers and the Falkirk Cultural Facility, which is a historic complex. As shown on Table 9, the aggregate replacement cost of these facilities is estimated at $86.83 million.

F. Maximum Supported Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fees for Subdivision Projects that Do Not Dedicate Park Land
Table 10A provides the calculation of the Maximum Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee for subdivision projects that do not dedicate parkland based on the replacement cost data provided in Table 9. This fee may be paid at either the time that a final map is approved or when building permits are issued. Because the size of units may not be known at the final map stage, a fee paid at that time would be paid on a per unit basis. If the in-lieu fee is paid at the time of building permit, then it could be levied based on the number of livable square feet. The maximum supported parkland dedication in-lieu fee for subdivision units that do not dedicate parkland is $12,596 per single family detached unit and $11,282 per multi-family unit. The maximum fee includes an allowance for a 2% administration fee.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 18
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
Table 10A. Calculation of Maximum Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fees for Subdivision Units that Do Not Dedicate Land, to be Paid at Entitlements or Building Permit Land
Total Value of City Inventory of Parks and Park Facilities $278,113,200 Population of City of San Rafael (ACS 2023) 58,331
Per Capita Parks and Facilities Replacement cost $4,767.85 Avg. Unit Population, accounting for vacancy (ACS 2023) Single Family Detached Units 2.59
Multi-Family Units (bldgs. with 2+ units) 2.32
Per Dwelling SF Parks and Facilities Replacement Cost
Avg. Unit Livable
SF
Single Family Detached Units 2,300
Multi Family Units 1,111
Maximum Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee for Subdivision Units that Do Not Dedicate Land, Paid at Building Permit Single Family Units in Multi Family
Detached Units Bldgs. 2+DU
Total Value of City Inventory of Parkland $278,113,200 $278,113,200 Population of City of San Rafael (ACS 2023) 58,331 58,331 Per Capita Parkland Replacement Cost $4,767.85 $4,767.85 Avg. hhld size 2.59 2.32
In-Lieu Fee Per Unit $12,348.72 $11,061.40
Max. Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee $12,349 $11,061
Max. Land Dedication In-Lieu Fee with 2% Admin. Allowance $12,596 $11,282 G. Maximum Supported Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Subdivision Units
Table 10B provides the calculation of the Maximum Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee for subdivision projects. This fee covers only the cost of park improvements and recreation facilities. This fee will be collected at the time that the units pay building permit fees. The maximum supported recreation facility development impact fee for subdivision projects is $4.50 per square foot of livable area for single family detached units and $8.35 per square foot for multi-family units.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 19
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
Table 10B. Calculation of Maximum Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for All Subdivision Units, to be Paid at Building Permit
Facilities
Total Value of City Inventory of Parks and Park Facilities $228,702,800 Population of City of San Rafael (ACS 2023) 58,331
Per Capita Facilities Replacement cost $3,920.78
Avg. Unit Population, accounting for vacancy (ACS 2023) Single Family Detached Units 2.59
Multi-Family Units (bldgs. with 2+ units) 2.32
Per Dwelling SF Parks and Facilities Replacement Cost Avg. Unit Livable SF Single Family Detached Units 2,300
Multi Family Units 1,111
Maximum Recreation Facility Impact Fee for All Subdivision Units, to be Paid at Building Permit Single Family Units in Multi Family
Detached Units Bldgs. 2+DU
Total Value of City Inventory of Park Facilities $228,702,800 $228,702,800 Population of City of San Rafael (ACS 2023) 58,331 58,331 Per Capita Facilities Replacement cost $3,920.78 $3,920.78 Avg. hhld size 2.59 2.32
Fee Per Unit $10,154.81 $9,096.20
Avg. Unit Livable SF 2,300 1,111
Max. Facility Impact Fee, per Livable SF before Admin. $4.42 $8.19 Max. Facility Impact Fee, per Livable SF with 2% Admin. Allowance $4.50 $8.35 H. Maximum Supported Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for All Non-Subdivision Units
Table 10C provides the calculation of the Maximum Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee for all non-subdivision projects. The maximum fee covers the demand for both parkland and recreation facility improvements that are generated by new development.

This fee will be collected at the time that building permit fees are paid, unless later payment is required by law. The maximum supported parkland and recreation facility development impact fee for all non-subdivision units is $9.98 per square foot of livable area for single family detached units and $18.50 per square foot for multi-family units.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 20
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
Table 10C. Calculation of Maximum Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for All Non-Subdivision Units, to be Paid at Building Permit Land Facilities
Land and
Facilities
Total Value of City Inventory
of Parks and Park Facilities $278,113,200 $228,702,800 $506,816,000 Population of City of San
Rafael (ACS 2023) 58,331 58,331 58,331
Per Capita Parks and
Facilities Replacement cost $4,767.85 $3,920.78 $8,688.62 Avg. Unit Population, accounting for vacancy (ACS 2023) Single Family Detached Units 2.59
Multi-Family Units (bldgs. with 2+ units) 2.32
Per Dwelling SF Parks and Facilities Replacement Cost Avg. Unit Livable SF Single Family Detached Units 2,300
Multi Family Units 1,111
Maximum Parkland and Recreation Facility Impact Fee for All Non-Subdivision Units - to be Paid at Building Permit Single Family Detached Units Multi Family (Bldgs. 2+ units) Land Facilities Total Land Facilities Total
Total Value of City Inventory of
Parkland and Facilities $278,113,200 $228,702,800 $506,816,000 $278,113,200 $228,702,800 $506,816,000 Population of City of San
Rafael (ACS 2023) 58,331 58,331 58,331 58,331 58,331 58,331 Per Capita Total Inventory
Replacement Cost $4,767.85 $3,920.78 $8,688.62 $4,767.85 $3,920.78 $8,688.62 Avg. hhld size (ACS 2023) 2.59 2.59 2.59 2.32 2.32 2.32 Fee Per Unit $12,348.72 $10,154.81 $22,503.53 $11,061.40 $9,096.20 $20,157.60 Avg. Unit Livable SF (New
Units) 2,300 2,300 2,300 1,111 1,111 1,111
Max. Parkland and Facility
Impact Fee, per Livable SF,
before Admin. $5.37 $4.42 $9.78 $9.95 $8.19 $18.14
Max. Facility Impact Fee, per
Livable SF, with 2% Admin.

Allowance $5.48 $4.50 $9.98 $10.15 $8.35 $18.50
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 21
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
V. Estimated Range and Maximum Amount of Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Revenue through 2040
The maximum amount of revenue that would be generated by the adoption of the maximum parkland and recreation facility development impact fees through year 2040 has been estimated. The estimates have been calculated under the assumption that the City’s population increases by 8,549 over the period and that household sizes remain at 2.59 for single family detached units and 2.32 for multi-family units. The maximum revenue scenario reflects the assumption that 100% of new residential units are not located within subdivisions and they pay full fees for both acquiring parkland and building park facilities (including community centers).

The minimum revenue scenario reflects the assumption that 100% of new residential units are located within subdivisions and that the units pay only park facility impact fees. Both scenarios reflect the assumption that all residential units will be subject to recreation facility development impact fees. However, the City may elect to exempt individual homeowner projects or small projects with fewer units than a threshold to be selected, which would reduce the estimated maximum amount of achievable revenue.

As shown in Table 11, under the maximum revenue scenario, it is estimated that approximately $75.8 million of parkland and recreation facility impact fee revenue would be generated by new development through the year 2040. The minimum amount of impact fee revenue is estimated to be $34.2 million. Based on development trends, it is expected that fee revenue will be in the range of $59.1 million to $67.5 million, which yields an average projection of $63.3 million, or $7,403 per new resident, which is less than the per capita cost to replace the existing inventory of parkland and facilities and maintain the existing level of service.

As discussed in Section VI, the City has prepared a “Parks Development Impact Fee Project List (Table 12). It is estimated that the cost of undertaking the improvements eligible to be funded with development impact fees is approximately $69.0 million, which exceeds the estimated maximum amount of impact fee revenue that could be generated by the adoption of the maximum fee amounts supported by this nexus study.

Therefore, the maximum fee levels established by this nexus analysis are consistent with the requirements of the AB 602 and the California Mitigation Fee Act.

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 22
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
Table 11. Estimated Range of Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Revenue through Yr. 2040
100% Non-Subdivision - Land and Facility Fee
100% Subdivision - Land Dedication; Facility Fee
Only
SF,
Detached Multifamily
SF,
Detached Multifamily
SF,
Detached Multifamily
SF,
Detached Multifamily
Population
Growth – 2040 8,549 0 0 8,549 8,549 0 0 8,549
Household Size 2.59 2.32 2.59 2.32 2.59 2.32 2.59 2.32
Units 3,301 0 0 3,685 3,301 0 0 3,685
s.f./ unit 2,300 1,111 2,300 1,111 2,300 1,111 2,300 1,111 Total s.f. 7,591,776 0 0 4,095,052 7,591,776 0 0 4,095,052 Per SF Fee $9.98 $18.50 $9.98 $18.50 $4.50 $8.35 $4.50 $8.35 Implied Revenue
(100%) $75,764,609 $0 $0 $75,764,609 $34,189,091 $0 $0 $34,189,091 Subdivision/ Non Subdivision Scenarios
Max Fee Scenario Min. Fee Scenario
% Of Units that Are Not
Within Subdivision and
Pay Full Impact Fees
% of Total Units That are
within Subdivisions with
Land Dedication
Total
Revenue
Expected
Range
Per New
Resident
100% 0% $75,765,000 $8,862
90% 10% $71,607,000 $8,376
80% 20% $67,450,000
$63,292,000
$7,890
70% 30% $63,292,000 $7,403
60% 40% $59,134,000 $6,917
50% 50% $54,977,000 $6,431
40% 60% $50,819,000 $5,944
30% 70% $46,662,000 $5,458
20% 80% $42,504,000 $4,972
10% 90% $38,347,000 $4,486
0% 100% $34,189,000 $3,999
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 23
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
VI. USE OF FEE REVENUE
The City plans to use parkland and recreation facility development impact fee revenue to 1) acquire parkland and construct new facilities to maintain the current level of service; and 2) undertake significant reinvestment in existing facilities to expand and modernize facilities to best meet the needs of the community. The Parks Development Impact Fee Project List, which identifies planned capital investment to be undertaken during the next 15 years, is provided in Table 12. As shown, the list includes:
 Park and Community Center Renovation Projects;
 New Amenity Projects;
 Improvements to existing Amenities; and
 Land Acquisition and Development of New Parks
The Parks Development Impact Fee Project List identifies the location of planned improvements, the anticipated schedule, the estimated total cost of each improvement, and the portion of each improvement’s total cost that is eligible to be funded by parkland and park facility development impact fee revenues. As shown, the portion of total CIP project costs that are eligible to be funded by park impact fees is estimated to total $69.0 million, which exceeds the total revenues projected to be collected from the park impact fees and parkland dedication in-lieu fees. As such, the City’s Parks Development Impact Fee Project List demonstrates that the City has eligible projects on which to spend the fee revenues. The City will annually review and update the Parks Development Impact Fee Project List, in accordance with Government Code section 66002, to ensure that it continues to reflect the City’s parkland and facilities needs.

Table 12 - REVISED May 2026
Land or Development Size Total Cost
Est. of Cost Eligible for
Impact Fee Funding Timing Location
Community Center Renovation
Terra Linda Community Center Renovation Development
11,500 sq ft
proposed $21,000,000 $11,446,700 5 years Terra Linda Community Center Sub-total $21,000,000 $11,446,700
Park Capacity Expansion
Terra Linda Park Renovation Development existing $5,000,000 $1,414,000 5 years Terra Linda Park Terra Linda Community Garden Renovation Development existing $1,600,000 $904,000 5 years Terra Linda Community
Garden
Sub-total $6,600,000 $2,318,000
New Amenity
Freitas Park North Parcel Development 0.34 acres $644,500 $644,500 5 years Freitas Park Bernard Hoffman Play Area and Pathway Improvement Development 0.32 acres $500,000 $195,500 10 years Bernard Hoffman Park Starkweather Park Boat ramp Development 0.30 acres $1,275,000 $1,275,000 15 years Jean & John Starkweather
Park
Sub-total $2,419,500 $2,115,000
Amenity Improvements
Gerstle Park lower play area improvement project Development existing $1,600,000 $208,000 5 years Gerstle Park Oleander Park playground and pathway improvements Development existing $300,000 $39,000 5 years Oleander Park Gerstle Park Pathway Improvements Development existing $700,000 $91,000 5 years Gerstle Park Santa Margarita tennis court, basketball court, play area and pathway improvements Development existing $1,600,000 $208,000 5 years Santa Margarita Park Riviera Park Play Area and Pathway Improvement Development existing $400,000 $52,000 10 years Riviera Park Oliver Hartzell Park Play Area and Pathway
Improvement Development existing $300,000 $39,000 10 years Oliver Hartzell Park Gerstle Park Tennis Court Improvements Development existing $500,000 $65,000 10 years Gerstle Park Boyd Park Tennis Court Improvements Development existing $700,000 $91,000 10 years Boyd Park Albert Park Field & Stadium Renovation* Development existing $4,500,000 $585,000 10 years Albert Park Falkirk Cultural Center Accessibility Improvements Development existing $5,500,000 $715,000 10 years Falkirk Cultural Center Starkweather Park Trail Improvements Development existing $750,000 $97,500 15 years Jean & John Starkweather
Park
Bret Harte Sports Court and Pathway Improvement Development existing $200,000 $26,000 15 years Bret Harte Park Bret Harte Park Play Area Improvement Development existing $500,000 $65,000 15 years Bret Harte Park Victor Jones Sports Court Improvement Development existing $600,000 $78,000 15 years Victor Jones Park Sub-total $18,150,000 $2,359,500
Land Acquisition and Development
new park
land
Canal Boatyard Development 1.65 $4,126,850 $3,229,260 5 years 620 Canal Street Montecito/Dominican Neighborhood Land 1 $2,613,600 $2,045,142 5 years Montecito/Dominican Development $1,289,000 $1,008,643 5 years
Winward Way Development 6.22 $10,017,580 $7,838,756 10 years Winward Way West End/Fairhills Neighborhood Land 2 $5,227,200 $4,090,284 10 years West End/Fairhills Development $2,578,000 $2,017,285 10 years
Lincoln/San Rafael Hill Neighborhood Land 2 $5,227,200 $4,090,284 10 years Lincoln/San Rafael Hill Development $2,578,000 $2,017,285 10 years
Contempo/Deer Park Neighborhood Land 4 $10,454,400 $8,180,568 15 years Contempo/Deer Park Development $5,156,000 $4,034,570 15 years
Northbridge/Marin Lagoon Neighborhood Land 4 $10,454,400 $8,180,568 15 years Northbridge/Marin Lagoon Development $5,156,000 $4,034,570 15 years
Sub-total $64,878,230 $50,767,215

SUMMARY
Center $21,000,000 $11,446,700
Park Capacity Expansion Projects $6,600,000 $2,318,000
New Amenity Projects $2,419,500 $2,115,000
Amenity Improvement Projects $18,150,000 $2,359,500
Land Acquisition and Development $64,878,230 $50,767,215 TOTAL $113,047,730 $69,006,415

20.87 Parks Development Impact Fee Project List
*Measure P funding can only be used for building a new library and community center at Albert Park. The projects proposed on this list are not eligible for Measure P funding.

TOTAL NEW ACREAGE
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\Revised CIP Table Table 12-05 27 26; 5/28/2026

Page 24 ends

Impact Fee Eligibility Methodology
For the Community Center Renovation project, the City has calculated the current square footage of community center per resident. With the population growth expected by 2040, the City will need an additional 5,502 square feet of community center space to maintain the current per resident square footage. The revised CIP allocates the full cost of the additional square footage plus the pro rata share of population growth (13%) for the remainder of the project to the costs eligible for impact fee funding.

For Park Capacity Expansion projects and New Amenity projects, these projects have a quantifiable increase in the City’s capacity to serve the community. For these projects, the cost of the increased capacity plus the pro rata share of population growth for the remainder of the project has been allocated to the costs eligible for impact fee funding. The below provides an explanation for how each allocation was calculated:
- Terra Linda Park Renovation: This project proposes a full demolition and rebuild of the Terra Linda Park to increase capacity in a limited footprint. The project includes increasing the playground square footage by 42%. 42% of the cost of the playground phase of the project and 13% of the remainder of the project costs have been allocated as eligible for impact fee funding. - Terra Linda Community Garden Renovation: This project proposes to double the number of plots at the Terra Linda Community garden, thereby doubling the capacity. As such, 50% plus 13% of the remainder of the project costs have been identified as eligible for impact fee funding. - Freitas Park North Parcel: This project proposes adding recreation amenities to the parcel north of Freitas Park and Montecillo Road, which is currently unmaintained grass. This would be a new recreation amenity, and has been fully allocated as eligible for impact fee funding. - Bernard Hoffman Play Area and Pathway Improvement: This project proposes a new playground and pathway improvements at Bernard Hoffman Park. The full cost of the new playground and 13% of the remaining costs are allocated as eligible for impact fee funding. - Starkweather Park Boat Ramp: This proposed project is a new amenity and has been fully allocated as eligible for impact fee funding.

For Amenity Improvement projects, the pro rata share of population growth (13%) has been allocated to the costs eligible for impact fee funding.

This represents 75% of the total acreage identified in the CIP. The full costs of the 15.59 acres are allocated to new development because that is the amount of park land required to maintain the City’s parkland service levels as new development adds additional residents. The remaining 25% of anticipated park acquisition would serve both existing residents and future residents. Accordingly, the City updated the CIP to allocate 13% of the remaining 25% as eligible for funding with Fee revenues paid by new development (i.e. pro rata share of population growth).

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\Revised CIP Table Table 12-05 27 26; 5/28/2026 Page 25 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 26
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
VII.IMPACT FEES IN NEIGHBORING CITIES, MAXIMUM SUPPORTED FEES, AND

RECOMMENDED FEES
A. Park and Recreation Fees in Neighboring Jurisdictions KMA surveyed the park impact fees levied by the cities within Marin County and other Bay Area jurisdictions. The park and recreation development impact fees of peer jurisdictions are summarized in Table 13. The requirement that can most appropriately be compared across jurisdictions is the “Park Development Impact Fee Amount,” which applies to all nonsubdivision units and funds both parkland acquisition and park facilities. As shown on Table 13, the park impact fee amounts of the selected peer jurisdictions are as follows:

Single Family Detached Multi-Family
Novato $10,354 per DU $10,354 Per DU
Santa Rosa $14,890 to $17,314 per DU $11,169 to $14,415 per DU Vallejo $14,315 per DU $9,808 to $12,907 per DU
San Ramon $23,951 per DU $14,371 per DU
Concord $11,910 to $16,691 per DU $7,055 to $11,470 per DU Table 13. Parkland Dedication and In-lieu Fee Requirements for Residential Subdivisions and Park Facility Impact Fees Select Peer Jurisdictions
Novato Petaluma Santa Rosa 1 Napa Vallejo San Ramon Concord General Plan Parkland
Dedication Standard,
Residential Subdivisions

4.5 acres per 1,000 residents 3.4 acres per 1,000
residents

3.0 acres per 1,000 residents;
Land dedication is required if
GP designates a park within the
proposed subdivision.

2.5 acres per 1,000 residents 4.25 acres per 1,000 residents 4.91 acres per 1,000 residents 5 acres per 1,000 residents Acreage Dedication
Requirements per
Residential Unit,
Subdivision units
SF detached = .0124
SF attached = .0102
Duplex = .0113
Apts. 3 to 4 Du= .0107
Apts. 5+ DU = .0101
SF = .0099
MF = .0067
ADUs = .0034
SF detached = .00825
SF attached = .00813
Duplex = .00798
MF = .00657
Moblie Homes = .00492
SF detached = .007175
SF attached = .00515
Duplex = .005325
MF = .004575
Moblie Homes = .003775
ADU = .0025
SF detached = .01296
SF attached = .01169
Duplex = .01058
MF = .00889
Moblie Homes = .00778
SF = .01577
MF = .01035
VL Density = 0.016000
Low Density = 0.13933
Med. Density = 0.01010
High Density = 0.00950
Downtown, seniors, special needs
= 0.00700
Land Improvements
Required with Land
Dedication (Subdivisions)
Full street imps. , utiliity
connections. drainage, and
fencing.

Required to construct all
public improvements
slated for park and to be
reimbursed for costs
from in-lieu fees.

Full street imps. , utiliity
connections. drainage, and
fencing.

Not specified.

Shall have access to
streets.

In-Lieu Fee Conditions
(Subdivisions)
If no park facility designated in
GP for the property; or if
subdivision has 50 or less
parcels
Payment of fee is at
election of applicant if
subdivision contains
less than 50 lots.

All development must pay park
impact fee. If land is dedicated,
a credit is received equal to the
value of the land (as
established by a City
ordinance).

It is at the City's discretion if
land dedication, an in-lieu
fee, or a combination are
required
It is at the City's discretion if land
dedication, an in-lieu fee, or a
combination are required
If no park facility designated in
GP for the property; or if
subdivision has 50 or less
parcelsor if city determines
dedication is not appropriate.

It is at the City's discretion if land
dedication, an in-lieu fee, or a
combination are required
In-Lieu Fee Amount
(Subdivision units)
Required dedicated acreage
per unit times the fair market
value of buildable land.

Equal to park land
acquisition fees
adopted for non-Quimby
Act developments.

All development must pay park
impact fee. If land is dedicated,
a credit is received equal to the
value of the land (as
established by a City
ordinance).

Value of land to be dedicated
+ 20% towards the costs of
all off-site improvements,
whch would have been
dedicated.

In 2009, the in-lieu fee amount reflected
a land value cost of $526,918 per acre.

The 2009 in-lieu fees were as follows:

SF detached = $6,829 per du
SF attached = $6,157 per du
Duplex = $5,575 per du;
MF = $4,680 per du
Mobile home = $4,097 per du. Per
municipal code, in-lieu fees scheduld to
increase annually based on the
engineering News Record Construction
Cost index.

Appraised value of land
dedication requirement
times a factor of 1.02
Set by resolution, varies by
zipcode.

VL /Low Density = $11,910 to
$16,691 per du
Med. Density = $8,170 to $11,470
per du
High Density = $7,055 to $9,914
per du
Dwntn, Senior, SN + $5,233/du to
$7,304 per du
ADU = $4,508 to $8,345 per du
https://netorg850508-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jfranklin_keysermarston_com/Documents/Desktop/Summary of Park Requirements of Select Jurisdictions 04 3 25; 8/11/2025 Page 27 Table 13. Parkland Dedication and In-lieu Fee Requirements for Residential Subdivisions and Park Facility Impact Fees Select Peer Jurisdictions
Novato Petaluma Santa Rosa 1 Napa Vallejo San Ramon Concord Park Development Impact
Fee Amount
Novato levies a fee for
Recreation and Cultural
Facilites.

SF unit = $10,354.03 per du;
MF unit = $10, 354.68 per du
ADU = $5,17.34 per du.

Need to clarify fee obligation
for Subdivision projects.

Fee Amount varies by location
SF detached = $14,890 to
$17,314
SF attached = $13,011 to
$14,415
Duplex = $12,843 to $14,230
MF = $11,169 to $12,375
ADUs > 750 sf / MHs = $8,877 to
$9,939
SF detached = $14,315
SF attached = $12,907
Duplex = $11,686
MF = $9,808
Mobile Homes = $8,588
Developers who dedicate land or pay an
in-lieu fee receive a credit against the
park impact fees
Facility Fees:

Subdiv. SF = $5,300 per du
Subdiv. MF = $3,421.63 per
du
Non Subdiv. SF =
$23,951.43 per du
Non Subdiv. MF =
$14,370.86 per du
Set by resolution, varies by
zipcode.

VL /Low Density = $11,910 to
$16,691 per du
Med. Density = $8,170 to $11,470
per du
High Density = $7,055 to $9,914
per du
Dwntn, Senior, SN + $5,233/du to
$7,304 per du
Park Land Acqusition Fee
SF unit = $2,293 per du;
MF unit = $1,551 per du
ADU = $787per du.

Part of Park Develoment Impact
Fee Amount.

All projects:

SF detached = $6,581
SF attached = $4,723
Duplex = $4,884
MF = $4,196
Mobile Homes = $3,462
ADU = $2,293
Land Dedication In-lieu Fee
for Subdivision projects:

SF = Appraised value of 687
sf of land X 1.02
MF = appraised value of 451
sf of land X 1.02
Park Land development
Impact Fee (Applied to All
Residential Development)
SF unit = $7,585 per du;
MF unit = $5,107 per du
ADU = $2,601 per du.

See Park Development Impact
Fee
All projects:

SF detached = $1,003
SF attached = $720
Duplex = $744
MF = $639
Mobile Homes = $528
Commercial Park Land
Acquisition and
Development Impact Fee,
Per 1,000 SF of Gross
Building Area
Commercial = $1,872
Office = $1,789
Industrial = $1,140
1) All residential developments are required to pay the Park Development Impact Fee. If a project dedicates land, the developer receives a partial credit equal to the value of the dedicated land. The per acre land value credit is established by City Ordinance.
https://netorg850508-my.sharepoint.com/personal/jfranklin_keysermarston_com/Documents/Desktop/Summary of Park Requirements of Select Jurisdictions 04 3 25; 8/11/2025 Page 28 Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 29
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\001-004.docx
Appendix A:

Inventory of Parks from Citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Recent Residential Land Sales in San Rafael, and
Parkland and Recreational Facility Construction Cost Estimates Appendix A Table 1: City Operated Parks by Type and Recreation Provided Park Name
SizeBallfieldBasketball CourtBocce FacilitiesHandball CourtMulti-Use Turf Field (soccer/foot-ball)Par CoursePlaygroundPoolReservablePicnic AreaRestroomTennis CourtWater Feature Community Park
Albert Park 13.34 x x x x
Pickleweed Park 17.60 x x x x x
Terra Linda Park 2.87 x x x x x
Neighborhood Park
Bernard Hoffman Field 3.80 x
Bret Harte Park 0.46 x x x
Freitas Park 2.69 x x x x x
Gerstle Park 6.00 x x x x x
Loch Lomond 3.00 x x
Los Ranchitos Park 3.00 x x x x
Oleander Park 2.28 x
Peacock Gap Park 4.14 x x x x
Santa Margarita Park 5.00 x x x x x
Sun Valley Park 5.00 x x x x
Victor Jones Park 5.96 x x x x x
Pocket Park
Arbor Park 0.30
Beach Park 0.44 x
Hillview Park 0.26
Munson Park 1.46
Oliver Hartzell Park 0.54 x
Riviera Park 0.27 x
Special Use Park
Boyd Memorial Park 1.75 x x
Falkirk Cultural Center Grounds 3.60
Jean and John Starkweather Shoreline Park 21.30 x
Special Use Park - Community Garden
Canal Community Garden 0.35
Terra Linda Community Garden 1.00
Total 106.41 4 7 2 1 1 1 16 1 7 12 6 1
Source: Citywide Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Tables 6 and 8

Page 30 ends

Appendix A Table 2
Residential Land Sales - Marin County
April 2020 - April 2025; Source: CoStar
Property Address Property City Sale Price Sale Date
Est. 2024 price @3
% per year
Land SF
Gross
2024
Price per
SF Transaction Notes
1515 4th Street San Rafael $4,244,799 11/23/2020 $4,638,406 38,981 $119 Project has been approved for 183 independent living, assisted living and memory care units. 930 Irwin / 543 4th St. San Rafael $2,254,073 4/1/2022 $2,391,346 21,963 $109 Proposed 8-story project with 210 units. SB 330 application. Bankruptcy sale. Site is currently improved with a 11,000 sf office building.
815 B Street San Rafael $4,057,560 23,623 $172 41 unit project completed in 2021. 2024 Assessed land value. Avg. unit size is 856 sf. 1230 5th Avenue San Rafael $6,100,000 7/28/2020 $4,350,920 28,358 $153 SB 330 application for 187 residential units. 12 stories. Property is currently improved with a 11,000 sf building. Value reflects 2024 assessed land value.
555 Northgate Drive San Rafael $8,100,000 3/7/2024 $8,100,000 96,703 $84 Property improved with 23,100 sf office building. Max. permitted density is 43.6 du/acre. Application for 250 units due to density bonus
1580 Lincoln Avenue San Rafael $1,150,000 11/3/2020 $1,256,636 18,391 $68 use at time of sale was a retail garden center. Permitted density of 43.6 units per acre.

Loch Lomond Dr San Rafael $24,950,000 4/15/2021 $27,263,539 159,865 $171 The parties involved in this deal could not be reached for comment.

Per public record, this is the sale of 37 residential lots for $24.95 million or about $674k per lot. Part of the Village at Loch Lomond Marina, News reports that 18 detached homes, 14 townhouses and five condominiums will be built. All will be offered for sale at full market value, not low-income. Permit ready.
1010 Grand Ave (Part of
a 2 Property Sale) San Rafael $1,925,000 10/16/2020 $2,166,604 28,314 $77 The 0.65 Acre land was sold for $1,925,000. The property highlights 3 unique property offering represents several opportunities for either owner
users, value add investors or a possible total redevelopment. Very conveniently located just 3 blocks from the San Rafael Transit (Smart Station) and Highway 101 with just a short walk to all amenities and transportation.
508 3rd Street San Rafael $1,850,000 1//2020 $2,082,191 11,974 $174 Purchased for use as a parking lot. 21 G Street San Rafael $1,425,000 4/1/2018 $1,701,525 10,454 $163 Purchased for development of eight townhomes. 1203 Lincoln Avenue San Rafael $5,000,000 3/1/2017 $6,149,369 32,234 $191 Purchased for developmen tof 36 townhomes. Resold in 2018 for $9.375 million for development of senior care home.

Lucas Valley Rd San Rafael $5,600,000 6/30/2021 $6,119,271 417,305 $15 This land in San Rafael, CA was sold on 6/30/2021 by Bacciocco Enterprises LLC for $5.6M, which is $584,551.15 per acre, to The Oak Senior Living LLC. This land had been designated for an assisted living facility with 126 units for senior living and 5 affordable housing units on the almost 9.6 acres along Highway 101. The Oaks Senior Living Community had been approved by the Marin County Board of Supervisors in 2018. All information for this report was provided by public record at the time of this recording.
14 Skylark Dr Larkspur $126,000,000 2/9/2022 $133,673,400 1,022,095 $131 Confirmed by the seller, this is the sale of the leased fee interest in the property.

The seller retains the lease hold interest.

Average $125
Average, weighted by acreage $107
Median $131
Value Used for Calculating Maximum Fee $60
Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\Report Tables 08 18 25; SR APX tbl 2; 8/18/2025 Page 31 Appendix A Table 3
Recreation Facility Construction Cost Estimates Prepared for Other Bay Area Park Development Impact Fee Nexus Studies Year of Study Hhld size Regional Reg. Rec Community Neigh Sources Sonoma County Parks Fee 2020 2.3 15 5 2.5 2.5
Regional Rec. Area improvements $93,700
Community Parks $283,000
Neighborhood parks NA
Regional Rec. Area improvements $137,000
Community Parks $413,000
City of Tracy 2024
15-acre Community Park $1,324,887 3.5 - SF 1 3
5-acre Neighborhood Park $1,251,114 2.8 - 2 to 4
15-acre Community Park $1,400,000
5-acre Neighborhood Park $1,320,000
City of South San Francisco 2015
$981,250
$1,650,000 3.45 - SF

2.98 - 2 to 4

2.53 - 5 to 19

2.04 - 20 to 49
50+ - 1.78
mH - 2.65
Inflated to 2025$
Inflated to 2025$
Inflated to 2025$
3 Improvement
Cost per Acre
Improvements based on recommendations
from Group 4 Architect.

Estimates based on recent park construction
and anticipated costs.

Park Acres Standard Per 1,000 Residents
WRT + 10% design and planning, 10%
construction mgmt. and 15% contingency.

Improvement costs are based on cost of 5
parks (26 acres).

Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
\\file1\Sites\Berkeley\SFWP\19\19089\002\Report Tables 08 18 25; SR APX tbl 3; 8/19/2025 Page 32 Appendix A Table 4
American Community Survey, 2023: City of San Rafael Population, Household, Vacancy and Household Size Data San Rafael
Housing Units Population
Avg. hhld size,
Occupied Units
Total Unit
Suppy
Vacant
Units
Vacancy
Rate
Check
Occ
Avg. hhld size
with vacancy
Total 23,250 58,331 2.51 24,212 2.41
Owner Occ 12,042 28,551 2.37 12,151 109.36 0.90% 12042.00 2.35 1 unit 10,464 25,366 2.42 10,559 95.03 0.90% 10464.00 2.40 2 units to 4 282 656 2.33 285 2.56 0.90% 282.00 2.31
5 or more 920 1,599 1.74 928 8.36 0.90% 920.00 1.72
mobile home 326 829 2.54 329 2.96 0.90% 326.00 2.52
Boat/RV, Van, etc. 50 101 2.02 50 0.45 0.90% 50.00 2.00 Ex. Boat, MH 11,666 27,621 2.37 11,772 105.95 0.90% 11666.00 2.35 Renter Occ. 11,208 29,780 2.66 11,460 252.12 2.20% 11208.00 2.60 1 unit 2,425 8,371 3.45 2,480 54.55 2.20% 2425.00 3.38
2 to 4 units 2,452 5,599 2.28 2,507 55.16 2.20% 2452.00 2.23 5 or more 6,274 15,618 2.49 6,415 141.13 2.20% 6274.00 2.43 mobile home 37 79 2.14 38 0.83 2.20% 37.00 2.09
Boat/RV, Van, etc. 20 113 5.65 20 0.45 2.20% 20.00 5.53 Ex, Boat, MH 11,151 29,588 2.65 11,402 250.84 2.20% 11151.00 2.60 Ttl, Ex. B & MH 22,817 57,209 2.51 23,174 357 22,817 2.47 Occupied Owner and Renter Units Owner and Renter With Vacant Units Supply Pop. hhld size Supply Pop. hhld size
23,250 58,331 2.51 23,611 58,331 2.47
1 unit 12,889 33,737 2.62 13,039 33,737 2.59
2 to 4 units 2,734 6,255 2.29 2,792 6,255 2.24
5 or more 7,194 17,217 2.39 7,343 17,217 2.34
mobile 363 908 2.50 367 908 2.48
Boat 70 214 3.06 71 214 3.02
Total, Ex. B & MH 22,817 57,209 2.51 23,174 57,209 2.47 2+ units 9,928 23,472 2.36 10,135 23,472 2.32

Page 33 ends

EXHIBIT B

PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES FEE
Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Residential Subdivision Units Single Family Detached
Fee per Sq. Ft.

Multi-Family
Fee per Sq. Ft.
$4.50 $8.35
Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Non-Subdivision Units
Single Family Detached
Fee per Sq. Ft.

Multi-Family
Fee per Sq. Ft.
$9.98 $18.50
Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units
The below fee shall apply only to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and is based upon the square footage shown in the adopted fee schedules.

Exemption. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66324(c)(1), the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee and the Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees shall not apply to accessory dwelling units of less than 750 square feet.

Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units
Single Family Detached
Fee per Sq. Ft.
$2.50
Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for One Hundred Percent (100%) Affordable Housing Projects
The below fees shall apply only to residential developments in which all dwelling units, excluding any manager’s units, are subject to recorded affordability restrictions approved by the City and restricted to occupancy by lower-income households in accordance with applicable state law.

Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Residential Subdivision Units for One Hundred Percent (100%) Affordable Housing Projects Single Family Detached
Fee per Sq. Ft.

Multi-Family
Fee per Sq. Ft.
$1.13 $2.09
Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for NonSubdivision Units for One Hundred Percent (100%) Affordable Housing Projects
Single Family Detached
Fee per Sq. Ft.

Multi-Family
Fee per Sq. Ft.
$2.50 $4.63
Annual Adjustment
Beginning July 1, 2027, and on July 1 of each year thereafter, the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee shall be adjusted to equal the base amounts set forth in the adopted fee schedules, as modified by the percentage change, if greater than zero, in the Engineering News-Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index for the twelve-month period from May to May immediately preceding the date of the adjustment.

EXHIBIT C

PARK DEDICATION AND IN-LIEU FEES
Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fees for Residential Subdivision Units Single Family Detached
Fee per Unit
Multi-Family
Fee per Unit
$12,596 $11,282
Parkland Dedication Requirements for Residential Subdivision Units Avg. Household
Size
Quimby Standard
(Acres per 1,000 pop.)
Sq. Ft. of Park Land
per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Detached Units 2.59 1.824 206 (205.78)
Multi-Family
Units 2.32 1.824 184 (184.33)
Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fees for One Hundred Percent (100%) Affordable Housing Projects
The below fee shall apply only to residential developments in which all dwelling units, excluding any manager’s units, are subject to recorded affordability restrictions approved by the City and restricted to occupancy by lower-income households in accordance with applicable state law.

Single Family Detached
Fee per Unit
Multi-Family
Fee per Unit
$3,149 $2,820.50
Annual Adjustment
Beginning July 1, 2027, and on July 1 of each year thereafter, the Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees shall be adjusted to equal the base amounts set forth in the adopted fee schedules, as modified by the percentage change, if greater than zero, in the Engineering News-Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index for the twelve-month period from November to November immediately preceding the date of the adjustment.

EXHIBIT B2

PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES FEE
Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Residential Subdivision Units Percentage Year
Single Family
Detached
Fee per Sq. Ft.

Multi-Family
Fee per Sq. Ft.
50% Effective 60 days
after adoption $2.25 $4.18
75% July 1, 2027 $3.38 $6.26
100% July 1, 2028 $4.50 $8.35
Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Non-Subdivision Units
Percentage Year
Single Family
Detached
Fee per Sq. Ft.

Multi-Family
Fee per Sq. Ft.
50% Effective 60 days
after adoption $4.99 $9.25
75% July 1, 2027 $7.49 $13.88
100% July 1, 2028 $9.98 $18.50
Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units
The below fee shall apply only to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and is based upon the square footage shown in the adopted fee schedules.

Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units
Percentage Year Single Family Detached
Fee per Sq. Ft.
50% Effective 60 days after
adoption $1.25
75% July 1, 2027 $1.88
100% July 1, 2028 $2.50
Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for One Hundred Percent (100%) Affordable Housing Projects
The below fees shall apply only to residential developments in which all dwelling units, excluding any manager’s units, are subject to recorded affordability restrictions approved by the City and restricted to occupancy by lower-income households in accordance with applicable state law.

Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for Residential Subdivision Units for One Hundred Percent (100%) Affordable Housing Projects Percentage Year
Single Family
Detached
Fee per Sq. Ft.

Multi-Family
Fee per Sq. Ft.
50% Effective 60 days
after adoption $0.57 $1.05
75% July 1, 2027 $0.85 $1.57
100% July 1, 2028 $1.13 $2.09
Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fees for NonSubdivision Units for One Hundred Percent (100%) Affordable Housing Projects
Percentage Year
Single Family
Detached
Fee per Sq. Ft.

Multi-Family
Fee per Sq. Ft.
50% Effective 60 days
after adoption $1.25 $2.32
75% July 1, 2027 $1.88 $3.47
100% July 1, 2028 $2.50 $4.63
Annual Adjustment
Beginning July 1, 2027, and on July 1 of each year thereafter, the Park and Recreation Facilities Fee shall be adjusted to equal the base amounts set forth in the adopted fee schedules, as modified by the percentage change, if greater than zero, in the Engineering News-Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index for the twelve-month period from May to May immediately preceding the date of the adjustment.

EXHIBIT C2

PARK DEDICATION AND IN-LIEU FEES
Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fees for Residential Subdivision Units Percentage Year
Single Family
Detached
Fee per Unit
Multi-Family
Fee per Unit
50% Effective 60 days
after adoption $6,298 $5,641
75% July 1, 2027 $9,447 $8,462
100% July 1, 2028 $12,596 $11,282
Parkland Dedication Requirements for Residential Subdivision Units Avg. Household
Size
Quimby Standard
(Acres per 1,000 pop.)
Sq. Ft. of Park Land
per Dwelling Unit
Single Family
Detached Units 2.59 1.824 206 (205.78)
Multi-Family
Units 2.32 1.824 184 (184.33)
Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fees for One Hundred Percent (100%) Affordable Housing Projects
The below fee shall apply only to residential developments in which all dwelling units, excluding any manager’s units, are subject to recorded affordability restrictions approved by the City and restricted to occupancy by lower-income households in accordance with applicable state law.

Percentage Year
Single Family
Detached
Fee per Unit
Multi-Family
Fee per Unit
50%
Effective 60
days after
adoption
$1,574.50 $1,410.25
75% July 1, 2027 $2,361.75 $2,115.38
100% July 1, 2028 $3,149 $2,820.50
Annual Adjustment
Beginning July 1, 2027, and on July 1 of each year thereafter, the Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees shall be adjusted to equal the base amounts set forth in the adopted fee schedules, as modified by the percentage change, if greater than zero, in the Engineering News-Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index for the twelve-month period from May to May immediately preceding the date of the adjustment.

Attachment 5
Market Comparison of Development Impact Fees for Residential Development City of San Rafael, CA
Does not include planning and permitting fees.

Townhome 8-story Downtown Source
Tenure Ownership Rental
Density 20 235
Average Unit Size 1,250 813
Estimate Average Number of BRs 2.50 1.75
Number of Units in Project 45 200
Estimated Building Permit Value $277,778 $310,223
Appraised Value of Land Per Acre $2,613,600 $2,613,600
Bldg. Permit Fee, San Rafael (Estimated) $12,997 $7,177 Peak Hour Trips Generated/Unit 0.93 0.61
Percent of Site Impervious Surface 70% 90%
Meter Size (Unless specified) 5/8" 5/8"

FEE TYPE
Per Unit San Rafael
(current)
San Rafael
(future w/ max TMF
and Park fees)
Concord Novato Petaluma San Ramon Santa Rosa
1a. Transportation Mitigation Fee $6,941 $10,125 $2,624 $5,537 $12,222 $11,257 $6,821 1b. Construction Vehicle Impact Fee** $2,678 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2. Parks, Open Space and Recreation Fees** $7,050 $21,720 $9,820 $16,928 $7,250 $31,172 $14,053

3. Sewer and Water Connection Fees $23,216 $23,216 $36,548 $32,672 $11,979 $28,786 $9,842

4. Public Facilities/Safety Fees $0 $0 $3,719 $1,925 $5,285 $0 $0

5. School Fees $6,463 $6,463 $6,463 $6,463 $6,463 $6,463 $6,463

6. Other Impact Fees $0 $0 $0 $1,614 $0 $3,295 $0

7. Technology Fees $650 $650 $1,365 $1,300 $0 $876 $56

8. General Plan/Zoning/Other Cost Recovery
Fees $4,549 $4,549 $1,389 $1,300 $0 $1,917 $111
Total, Per Unit $51,545 $66,722 $61,927 $67,738 $43,199 $83,765 $37,345 Average, Per Unit
(excluding San Rafael) $58,795
Strategic Economics (SE)
Strategic Economics (SE)
TOWNHOMES (OWNERSHIP/SUBDIVISION*)
City of San Rafael
KMA, Parks Nexus Study, City of San Rafael
City of San Rafael
City of San Rafael
User's Guide for the California
Impervious Surface Coefficients
Strategic Economics (SE)
KMA estimate based on SE sample projects
KMA estimate based on SE sample projects
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

FEE TYPE
Per Unit San Rafael
(current)
San Rafael
(future w/ max TMF
and Park fees)
Concord Novato Petaluma San Ramon Santa Rosa
1a. Transportation Mitigation Fee $4,552 $5,138 $2,624 $5,537 $12,222 $11,257 $6,821 1b. Construction Vehicle Impact Fee** $3,002 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

2. Parks, Open Space and Recreation Fees** $131 $15,041 $6,269 $17,175 $7,250 $31,172 $11,944

3. Sewer and Water Connection Fees $23,216 $23,216 $35,302 $26,672 $11,773 $21,896 $8,527

4. Public Facilities/Safety Fees $0 $0 $3,719 $1,896 $5,285 $0 $0

5. School Fees $4,203 $4,203 $4,203 $4,203 $4,203 $4,203 $4,203

6. Other Impact Fees $0 $0 $0 $1,469 $0 $3,619 $0

7. Technology Fees $359 $359 $754 $718 $0 $640 $13

8. General Plan/Zoning/Other Cost Recovery
Fees $2,512 $2,512 $1,551 $718 $0 $2,141 $25
Total, Per Unit $37,976 $50,469 $54,421 $58,387 $40,733 $74,928 $31,532 Average, Per Unit
(excluding San Rafael) $52,001
Fees in BLUE are charged by the City of San Rafael
*For the San Rafael rates, the townhome project assumes a subdivision. For agencies that do not have subdivision specific fees, their other park impact fees were applied. **The San Rafael future fees column assumes that the parks fee is adopted at the maximum level and the construction vehicle impact fee is suspended as recommended by staff at the June 15, 2026 City Council meeting. 8-STORY DOWNTOWN (RENTAL/NON-SUBDIVISION)
Fees in RED are charged by other agencies
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.

Page 1 of 18 ends

ATTACHMENT 5 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
June 10, 2026
Subject: Response to Comments on Proposed Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee and Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Nexus Study
COMMENTS RECEIVED:

The City received the following written comments prior to the agenda being posted for the public hearing continued to June 15, 2026.

1. Call Marin Home and the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce, May 14, 2026

2. California Housing Defense Fund (CHDF), May 15, 2026

3. Monahan Pacific Corporation, May 18, 2026

4. Ronald Brown, Marin Organizing Committee, May 18, 2026

5. Kevin Hagerty, League of Women Voters, June 1, 2026
These written comments are attached to the staff report for the Proposed Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee and Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee as Attachment 6.

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS:

The City thanks the commenters for providing feedback on the City’s proposed Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee and Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Nexus Study. We greatly appreciate the commenter’s dedication to the City, efforts to support residential housing development, and thoughtful comments on the report.

City staff have reviewed the comments in detail and respond below to the issues and concerns raised in each comment letter. Responses have been numbered corresponding to the comment being responded to and the bracketed numbers printed on the comment letters. Responses are provided to address issues raised in the comments concerning the adequacy of the Nexus Study and/or the legality of the Park Dedication In-Lieu Fee or Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee (collectively referred to as “Fees”). Where the same comment has been made more than once, a response may direct the reader to another numbered comment and response. All of the comments responded to in this document are formally acknowledged for the record and will be forwarded to the decision-making body as part of its consideration in reviewing the proposed Fees.

Page 2 of 18 ends

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 1: CALL MARIN HOME AND SAN RAFAEL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE:

Response 1-I: This comment contends that the square-footage methodology fails to account for differences in housing type and park demand.

First, the proposed Fees comply with Government Code section 66016.5 by establishing different per square foot rates for single-family and multi-family development projects.

Government Code section 66016.5 requires fees imposed on housing development projects to be calculated proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units, subject to specified exceptions. A fee calculated on that basis is deemed to use a valid method for establishing a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. (Gov. Code, § 66016.5, subd. (a)(5)(A).) The statute further provides that this requirement “does not prohibit an agency from establishing different fees for different types of developments.” (Gov. Code, § 66016.5, subd. (a)(5)(C).)
Consistent with that statute, the Nexus Study calculates the park and recreation facility cost attributable to new residents based on the cost per resident and household size assumptions for single-family and multi-family units. The Nexus Study then converts the resulting cost for each development type into a per-square-foot fee based on the average square footage of singlefamily and multi-family units being proposed or built in the City. (Nexus Study, pp. 19-21, Tables 10B and 10C.) Examples of such projects include the 930 Irwin 210-unit apartment project, the 1230 Fifth Avenue 188-unit apartment project, and the Northgate Shopping Center project, consisting of over 1,400 rental apartments and townhomes. The resulting fees are therefore calculated proportionately to square footage while also reflecting the different population impacts associated with different types of residential development.

The fact that the multi-family per-square-foot rate is higher than the single-family per-squarefoot rate does not mean the Fees are not roughly proportionate to the impacts of new residential development. On average, multi-family units are half the square footage of single-family units (1,111 square ft. vs. 2,300 square feet), but they average only slight less people per unit (2.32 vs. 2.59). As a result, multi-family units house more people per square foot, on average, than single-family units, which is why the fee for multi-family units is higher on a per square foot basis. However, the total fee paid for an average sized multi-family unit will still be less than the total fee paid for an average size single-family unit. The amount of the fee therefore depends on the size and type of the proposed unit and the proportional impact identified in the Nexus Study.

Nor does AB 602 require the City to ignore differences in occupancy, household size, or facility demand between different residential development types. Rather, the Mitigation Fee Act continues to require a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. The City’s methodology satisfies that requirement by using populationbased demand assumptions to calculate the impact attributable to each development type and then expressing the resulting fee on a square-footage basis. The fee structure therefore remains consistent with AB 602’s square-footage framework while preserving the required nexus between the fee and the impacts of each type of development.

Second, the American Community Survey Census data does not include published data at the City level regarding the average size of households with Senior householders. Therefore, there is insufficient data available to calculate a standalone senior housing fee specific to San Rafael.

However, senior housing projects that are affordable will receive the same reduced fee level as all other affordable housing projects.

Page 3 of 18 ends

Finally, the Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Ordinance provides a process by which an applicant can seek an adjustment of the fees on the grounds “that (1) the amount of the fee is not reasonably related to the impacts of the applicant’s development project on park and recreation facilities; (2) the fee is not roughly proportionate to the development’s impact on the need for park and recreation facilities; or (3) the fee requires the developer to pay more than is necessary to address the impacts of the new development on park and recreation facilities.” (Proposed Ordinance Amending SRMC Chapter 3.24 entitled “Park and Recreation Facilities Fee”, Section 3.24.090.) Under this process, if an applicant believes that their project does not fit within the nexus provided for the multi-family or single-family fee categories, they can present evidence to the City and request an adjustment. Thus, while the City has utilized all available data to calculate reasonable and justified Fee categories, it has also provided a process that ensures that the Fees will be roughly proportional to the actual impacts of the specific development on which they are imposed, in compliance with Sheetz v. El Dorado County (2024) 601 US. 267.

Response 1-II: This comment contends that the Nexus Study CIP contains items with weak or no nexus to new growth.

The Fees are calculated using the “existing inventory” methodology described in the impact fee nexus study templates prepared by the Terner Center for the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD Model Nexus Study”). This is the most commonly used methodology for calculating park impact fees. Under this approach, the Fees are calculated by determining the City’s existing inventory of parkland and facilities and calculating the cost of maintaining those standards for new development. As stated in the Nexus Study:
“[T]he cost of facilities to serve new development is calculated based on the cost to replace the City’s existing inventory of park facilities and the City’s existing population. Dividing the replacement cost of existing inventory by the City’s population yields a park facility replacement per capita cost factor that can then be applied to the average household size of new development to generate a cost per unit. Per the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, the per unit cost estimate is converted into a fee per square foot of livable residential area by dividing the per unit cost by the average square footage of new residences.” (Nexus Study, p. 15.) In addition to being endorsed by the HCD Model Nexus Study, this methodology has been upheld by California courts. (See Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City of Lemoore (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 554, 563-64 [approving city’s method of calculating park impact fees based on existing ratio of community and recreation facility asset value to population].)
Since the Nexus Study utilizes the existing inventory method, the project costs in the Nexus Study CIP were not used to calculate the Fees and do not determine the amount of the Fees.

Rather, the Fees were calculated solely by determining the costs necessary to maintain the City’s existing level of service for park and recreation land and facilities. The Nexus Study CIP lists land and facilities costs that could be funded by Fee revenues, but it does not utilize those costs to calculate the Fees. Accordingly, it was appropriate for the City to include all park and recreation facilities costs in the Nexus Study CIP even though only a portion of those costs will likely be funded by impact fee revenues in the future.

The City compiled the projects and costs in the Nexus Study CIP to comply with Government Code section 66016.5, subdivision (a)(6). The project costs described as being allocated to new

Page 4 of 18 ends

development are simply eligible to be funded by Fee revenues. The CIP does not commit the City to acquiring any specific parkland or constructing any specific park facilities, and it does not appropriate Fee revenues for any particular land or facilities costs. Whether the City ultimately acquires any parkland or constructs any particular facility will depend on the amount and timing of future development and park impact fee revenues the City receives, which is highly uncertain.

Accordingly, the costs included in the CIP simply illustrate that, if all projected development occurs and the City collects the full projected Fee revenues, the City has potential land and facilities costs that it could fund with the Fee revenues.

Moreover, by using the existing inventory method to calculate the Fees, the Nexus Study ensured that the Fees are limited to the costs necessary to continue the City’s existing level of service and excluded any costs attributable to existing deficiencies in park land or facilities. In fact, the City’s General Plan establishes a level of service of 4.0 acres of improved park and recreation land per 1,000 residents, but the Nexus Study calculates the Fees based on the City’s existing level of service of 1.824 acres per 1,000 residents, which is lower than its adopted level of service. By using the actual level of service, the Nexus Study ensures that new development is not funding any existing deficiencies in the City’s park land and park and recreation facilities.

While the Fees should not include costs attributable to existing deficiencies in park land and parks and recreation facilities, it is appropriate for the City to include costs attributable to the increased demand for facilities reasonably related to the development project in order to refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service. (Gov. Code, § 66001(g).) As such, it is appropriate for the Nexus Study CIP to include costs of upgrading or refurbishing existing facilities.

Finally, despite maintaining that the projects identified in the draft Nexus Study CIP were appropriately included, the City revised the CIP in response to this comment to ensure that the CIP conservatively allocates costs to new development. Under the revised CIP, all costs associated with entirely new or expanded park and recreation facilities are allocated as eligible to be funded with Fee revenues, up to the amount necessary to maintain the City’s existing levels of service. In contrast, costs associated with improvements or refurbishment of existing facilities or costs associated with increasing the City’s existing level of service are allocated to new development on a proportionate basis reflecting new development’s share of the City’s future population growth. Based on the City’s projected growth estimates, new development is expected to account for approximately 13% of the City’s future population by 2040, and the revised CIP generally applies that proportional allocation to improvements that refurbish or upgrade existing facilities.

The revised Nexus Study CIP also distinguishes between acquisition of new parkland needed to maintain the City’s existing level of service and new parkland needed to increase the City’s existing level of service. The City estimates that approximately 15.59 acres of additional parkland will be needed to maintain the City’s current standard of 1.824 acres per 1,000 residents based on projected population growth. Because acquisition of this acreage is necessary to accommodate demand generated by future development, the revised CIP allocates the full cost of acquiring this parkland to new development. The CIP includes 20.87 acres of new park development, which is 5.28 acres more than is necessary to maintain the City’s current level of service. The additional 5.28 acres will help the City progress towards meeting its General Plan goal of 4.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The 5.28 additional acres are split proportionately between existing residents and new development. Thus, only 13% of the

Page 5 of 18 ends

costs associated with the additional 5.28 acres of potential park land acquisitions are allocated as eligible for being funded with Fee revenues.

Response 1-II-A: This comment contends that the Nexus Study CIP should not contain legally mandated improvements, such as improvements to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The City disagrees that ADA-related improvements are categorically ineligible for park impact fee funding simply because accessibility obligations may also exist independently of growth.

ADA and accessibility improvements enhance the usability and functional capacity of public facilities by making those facilities available to a broader range of users, including future residents generated by new development. To the extent such improvements expand, preserve, or make usable the capacity of parks and recreation facilities that serve the City’s future population, they may appropriately be included among the categories of improvements eligible for fee funding. (See Gov. Code, § 66001(g).)
However, as explained in response to Comment 1-II, the City revised the Nexus Study CIP to only allocate new development’s proportionate share of ADA-related facilities improvement costs as eligible for being funded with Fee revenues. Thus, only 13% of these costs may be funded with Fee revenues under the revised Nexus Study CIP.

Response 1-II-B: This comment contends that the Nexus Study CIP cannot include the Terra Linda Community Center Renovation because that project is necessary to address deferred maintenance.

The proposed renovation to the Terra Linda Community Center includes a full demolition and rebuild of an expanded facility, with the goal of serving a growing population in North San Rafael. The new facility proposes a total of 11,500 square feet, whereas the current facility is only 5,552 square feet.

As explained in response to Comment 1-II, the City has revised the Nexus Study CIP to allocate costs as being eligible for funding with Fee revenues based on whether the costs are expansion related and whether they are necessary to maintain the City’s existing level of service. The Terra Linda Community Center Renovation includes 6,000 square feet of new community center space. To maintain the City’s existing level of service for community centers with the population growth projected by 2040, the City will need an additional 5,502 square feet of community center space to maintain the current per resident square footage. As such, the revised CIP only allocates the full costs associated with the 5,502 square feet of new community center space and 13% of the remaining costs as being eligible for funding with Fee revenues. Based on that methodology, only $11,446,700 of the $21,000,000 in total costs for the Terra Linda Community Center Renovation project were considered eligible to be funded with Fee revenues. By using this methodology to determine park and recreation facilities costs that are eligible to be funded by new development, the City ensured that Fee revenues will not be used to correct existing system deficiencies and that development will not be disproportionately required to increase the City’s existing level of service.

Response 1-II-C: This comment contends that the Nexus Study CIP’s allocation of costs that are eligible to be funded with impact fee revenues was arbitrary and unexplained.

Page 6 of 18 ends

The City maintains that the land and facilities costs identified in the draft Nexus Study CIP were appropriately included. However, in response to this Comment, the City updated the cost allocations in the Nexus Study CIP as explained in response to Comment 1-II.

As explained in detail in response to Comment 1-II-B, for the Community Center Renovation project, the City has calculated the current square footage of community center per resident.

With the population growth expected by 2040, the City will need an additional 5,502 square feet of community center space to maintain the current per resident square footage. The revised CIP allocates the full cost of the additional square footage plus the pro rata share of population growth (13%) for the remainder of the project to the costs eligible for impact fee funding.

The Park Capacity Expansion projects and New Amenity projects have a quantifiable increase in the City’s capacity to serve the community. For these projects, the full cost of the new facility or the full costs of the facilities that create increased capacity are allocated as eligible for impact fee funding, but for the costs associated with rehabilitating existing facilities, only new growth’s pro rata share, based on future population, was allocated as eligible for impact fee funding. The below provides an explanation for how each allocation was calculated:
- Terra Linda Park Renovation: This project proposes a full demolition and rebuild of the Terra Linda Park to increase capacity in a limited footprint. The project includes increasing the playground square footage by 42%. As such, 42% of the cost of the playground phase of the project and 13% of the remainder of the project costs have been allocated as eligible for impact fee funding.
- Terra Linda Community Garden Renovation: This project proposes to double the number of plots at the Terra Linda Community garden, thereby doubling the capacity. As such, 50% plus 13% of the remainder of the project costs have been identified as eligible for impact fee funding.
- Freitas Park North Parcel: This project proposes adding recreation amenities to the parcel north of Freitas Park and Montecillo Road, which is currently unmaintained grass.

This would be a new recreation amenity and has been fully allocated as eligible for impact fee funding.
- Bernard Hoffman Play Area and Pathway Improvement: This project proposes a new playground and pathway improvements at Bernard Hoffman Park. The full cost of the new playground and 13% of the remaining costs are allocated as eligible for impact fee funding.
- Starkweather Park Boat Ramp: This proposed project is a new amenity and has been fully allocated as eligible for impact fee funding.

For Amenity Improvement projects, the pro rata share of population growth (13%) has been allocated to the costs eligible for impact fee funding.

For Land Acquisition and Development projects, the City estimates that 15.59 acres would need to be acquired to meet the demand of new development while maintaining the City’s existing level of service. This represents 75% of the total acreage identified in the CIP. The full costs of the 15.59 acres are allocated to new development because that is the amount of park land required to maintain the City’s park-land service levels as new development adds additional residents. The remaining 25% of anticipated park acquisition would serve both existing residents and future residents. Accordingly, the City updated the CIP to allocate 13% of the remaining 25% as eligible for funding with Fee revenues paid by new development (i.e. pro rata share of population growth).

Page 7 of 18 ends

With these adjustments, the total park and recreation facilities and anticipated land acquisition costs listed in the CIP that are eligible for funding from park impact fees is approximately $69M.

The park fee revenue projections provided in Table 11 of the Nexus Study reflect a combination of projected park impact fee revenues and Quimby park in-lieu fee payments. The $69M of CIP costs that are estimated to be eligible for park fees exceeds the projected $63.3 million of combined park impact and Quimby park in-lieu Fee revenue and the projected total of $44.3 million to be generated by park impact fee revenue, as opposed to Quimby park in-lieu fee revenues.

Moreover, the park fee revenue projections are based on ABAG population growth projections and reflect the assumption that all new development that occurs to meet population growth will be subject to the new park fees. However, and the City already has many development projects in the pipeline, which will not be subject to the proposed Fees. Since the current fees are far less than the proposed Fees, the actual amount of Fee revenues to be collected by the City will likely be significantly less than the projected total of $63.3 million and collected park impact fee revenues will be significantly less than the projected amount of $44.3 million. Thus, the Nexus Study CIP demonstrates that, if all projected development actually occurs and all new development pays the maximum calculated impact fees, the City has adequate land and facilities costs to fund with the Fee revenues.

Response 1-II-D: This comment contends that the Nexus Study does not demonstrate a “reasonable relationship” between the Fee and the City’s potential use of the Fee revenues because the park land and facilities listed in the Nexus Study CIP are not located near anticipated new growth areas and because the City did not consider capacity in existing facilities to serve new growth.

The City is not required to locate parks funded through development impact fees only in areas where new development is anticipated to occur. The City cannot know with certainty where new development is going to occur and therefore cannot be required to plan park projects solely based on the projected location of future development.

Additionally, the City operates a comprehensive, citywide system of parks and recreation facilities, and additional parkland and recreational facilities help maintain the City’s overall level of service on a citywide basis. While the Quimby Act requires fee revenues to be used to serve the subdivision that paid them, the Mitigation Fee Act imposes a broader reasonable relationship standard with no equivalent subdivision-specific geographic requirement. (See Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City of Lemoore (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 554, 567 [explaining that the Quimby Act “is designed to maintain and preserve open space for the recreational use of the residents of new subdivisions, not the city at large” and that park facilities “must be in sufficient proximity to the subdivision to serve those future residents,” citing Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek (1971) 4 Cal.3d 633, 637].) The Nexus Study CIP includes park land and facilities costs identified by the City’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan. These land acquisitions and park facilities were identified as being necessary to expand the City’s comprehensive, citywide system of parks and recreational facilities so that they can properly serve the City’s total projected population in 2040. In addition to identifying needed improvements at existing park and recreation facilities, both the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and the City’s General Plan 2040 identify neighborhoods in San Rafael that are “park deficient.” These neighborhoods either do not meet the standard of having a park within a 10-minute walk or have a higher need for park space. In particular, the Canal neighborhood consists of mostly multi-family housing without backyards, with a greater

Page 8 of 18 ends

associated need for outdoor public space. The recommendations from these planning documents have been incorporated into the Nexus Study’s Land Acquisition and Development project list.

Further, the City’s existing parkland inventory does not provide surplus capacity to accommodate new development under the City’s adopted parkland standard. The Nexus Study identifies the City’s existing 106.41 acres of parks as equivalent to approximately 1.824 acres per 1,000 residents, which is significantly less than the General Plan 2040 service standard of 4 acres per 1,000 residents. (Nexus Study, p. 6.) Accordingly, there is no capacity in the City’s existing facilities to serve new growth and additional parkland and facilities are necessary to maintain existing service levels as new development increases demand on the City’s park and recreation system.

Response 1-II-E: This comment contends that the scale of potential park land and facilities spending set forth in the Nexus Study CIP is greater than the City’s current parks budget.

The City currently has limited park funding and the amount of future Fee revenues are uncertain and depend on the extent and timing of new development. Accordingly, the Nexus Study CIP includes park and recreation land and facilities costs that are eligible to be funded with Fee revenues, to demonstrate that the City has potential projects to utilize projected Fee revenues, but it does not commit the City to acquiring any particular land or constructing any particular facility. The City will add park land and facilities costs to its annual CIP budget as they become feasible. Additionally, the Nexus Study and Nexus Study CIP cover a 20 year period, whereas the City’s parks expenditure budget is determined annually.

Response 1-III: This comment contends that the Nexus Study CIP does not account for potential funding from Measure P or Measure A revenues.

As explained above, the Fees are not calculated based on the costs included in the Nexus Study CIP, so the City did not need to reduce the costs of park land and facilities based on potential outside funding. However, to ensure that the Nexus Study CIP demonstrates that the City does have sufficient park land and facilities costs that it could fund with potential, future Fee revenues, in the event that all projected development occurs and pays the full Fees, the City has revised the Nexus Study CIP to indicate where costs may be funded by other sources.

Response 1-III-A: This comment contends that the Nexus Study CIP must account for Measure P revenues.

Measure P is restricted to building a new library and community center at Albert Park, with some limited outdoor improvements allowed in the area immediately surrounding the building. The improvements at Albert Park included in the Nexus Study CIP are solely for the Albert Park Stadium and Field. Those expenses cannot be funded through Measure P. Thus, the City is not including any facilities or land acquisition in its CIP that will be funded with Measure P revenues.

Response 1-III-B This comment contends that the Nexus Study CIP must account for Measure A revenues.

The City receives approximately $580,000 in Measure A funding annually, which can be used for park maintenance, planning, infrastructure, and other related expenses. Over the 20-year

Page 9 of 18 ends

CIP planning period, the City estimates that it will receive approximately $11,600,000 in Measure A funding, assuming that it continues to be renewed by voters (it expires in 2031). The City expects that much of the Measure A funds will be used to fund the $44.8M in the CIP’s project costs that are not identified as being eligible to be funded with Fee revenues, while some will also be needed to supplement ongoing maintenance and planning efforts.

Additionally, the City has removed improvements to the Freitas Park tennis courts from the CIP list, as that has been designated for Measure A funding in the time since the Nexus Study was prepared.

Response 1-IV: This comment asserts that the proposed Fees will negatively impact the City’s ability to meet its housing obligations under its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and that the Fees may make new housing projects infeasible.

First, the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s (“HCD”) nexus study templates do not require a local agency to prepare a project-specific feasibility analysis before adopting development impact fees. The templates also recognize that comparison to the fee levels charged by nearby jurisdictions is an acceptable method of evaluating the financial impacts of proposed fees. The City developed a comparison of its total impact fee burden, if the Fees are adopted at their fully justified rates, and determined that the City’s fees would still be comparable to other jurisdictions.

Second, the comment letter states that HCD had “specific concerns about fees” during the City’s Housing Element review process and that the proposed Fees may conflict with the City’s Housing Element. The City reviewed the relevant HCD correspondence and Housing Element provisions and found no such inconsistency.

The HCD comments referenced in the comment letter relate to Housing Element Program 44, which was added in response to HCD’s comments concerning delays between project entitlement and issuance of building permits. HCD Comment 31 addressed the statutory requirement that the Housing Element analyze potential and actual nongovernmental constraints on the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including the length of time between approval of a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits. (Responses to HCD Findings, April 19, 2023, p. B-12.) HCD requested additional information regarding permit approval timing, including whether delays between entitlement and building permit submittal hinder housing production. (Ibid.) As reflected in the City’s responses to HCD, the City addressed this comment by providing additional analysis and adding Program 44, which requires regular monitoring of entitled housing projects and outreach to developers regarding project status and potential impediments to construction. (Ibid.) The nongovernmental constraints analysis addresses factors that are generally market-driven and outside the City’s direct control, such as land costs, construction costs, and availability of financing. The purpose of that analysis is to identify constraints to housing production and adopt programs, where appropriate, to facilitate housing development. Program 44 implements that purpose by requiring post-entitlement outreach to developers before building permit issuance to discuss project status and determine whether the City can take actions to facilitate development. HCD’s comments referenced in the comment letter addressed permit approval timing and nongovernmental constraints on housing production; they did not identify park impact fees as inconsistent with State housing law or require the City to refrain from updating park fees supported by an appropriate nexus study.

Page 10 of 18 ends

The City’s approved Housing Element separately analyzes governmental and nongovernmental constraints on housing production. As part of that analysis, the Housing Element acknowledges that the City “has not increased its parkland dedication fee in many years” and states that an “action program in General Plan 2040 recommends a nexus study to update this fee and potentially collect it as an impact fee (for all residential units) rather than a Quimby Act fee (limited to subdivisions).” (Housing Element, p. 5-47.) The Housing Element further recognizes that the prior fee levels were “well below the fees collected in other Marin County jurisdictions and [did] not cover costs for parkland improvement or renovation.” (Ibid.) Accordingly, the proposed fee update is consistent with the Housing Element analysis and General Plan programs calling for periodic updates to park and recreation impact fees, including General Plan Policies PROS-1.2B, CSI-4.1B, CSI-4.2C, and LU-1.1A.

The City has also considered whether the Fees constitute an unreasonable constraint on housing production. The Nexus Study demonstrates the required reasonable relationship between new development and the need for additional parkland and recreational facilities. In addition, the City revised the CIP allocations so that costs associated with improvements to existing facilities are allocated to new development on a proportionate basis, while costs associated with new facilities or quantifiable increases in facility capacity necessary to accommodate growth are allocated to new development.

The Fees are therefore consistent with the Housing Element, supported by the Nexus Study, and reasonably related to the impacts of new development.

Response to Comment 1-V-A: This comment requests that the City delay adopting the proposed Fees until the City has permitted adequate units to meet its RHNA goals or has at least approved housing sufficient to bring its population back to its peak levels (2,000 more residents).

There are many factors that impact the development of new housing and impact fees are only one small component. The City has demonstrated that the proposed Fees are not greater than those imposed by comparable jurisdictions. City staff have also proposed reduced fees for 100% affordable housing projects and Accessory Dwelling Units in order to promote more affordable housing.

The below table provides a summary of the multifamily residential projects in San Rafael that have been submitted or built since the General Plan 2040 was completed in 2021, as well as their estimated impact on population. The population estimates utilize an average multifamily household size of 2.32 individuals per unit.

Page 11 of 18 ends

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN SAN RAFAEL
Preliminary
Review
Formally
Submitted Entitled Under Construction Built TOTAL
Units 767 387 1,945 368 241 3,708
Estimated
Population 1,779 898 4,512 854 559 8,603
As is demonstrated in the table above, if all housing that has already locked in the current impact fee rates is developed, the City can expect an increase of approximately 8,600 new residents.

Response to Comment 1-V-B: This comment requests that the City provide a transparent process for deferring payment of the Fees to Certificate of Occupancy.

Section 3.24.070 of the draft ordinance for the Parks and Recreation Facilities Fee program explains that fee payment can be delayed to the date of approval of the first temporary certificate of occupancy, the final building inspection, or issuance of a final certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.

Response to Comment 1-V-C: This comment requests that the City revise the fee schedule to differentiate between unit types within the multi-family category, at a minimum distinguishing senior restricted housing.

This comment was addressed above in response to Comment 1-I.

Response to Comment 1-V-D: This comment requests that the City review and revise the Nexus Study CIP.

As discussed in response to Comments 1-II and 1-II-A through 1-II-E, the City has revised the Nexus Study CIP’s allocation of costs that are eligible for impact fee revenues.

Response to Comment 1-V-E: This comment requests that the City provide a clear methodology supporting each attribution percentage on the project list As explained in detail in response to Comments 1-II and 1-II-C, the City has provided a clear methodology supporting each attribution percentage on the project list.

Response to Comment 1-V-F: This comment requests that the City reconcile the costs included in the Nexus Study CIP with the City’s proposed use of Measure P and Measure A revenues.

As explained in detail in response to Comments 1-III, 1-III-A, and 1-III-B, the City has ensured that the Nexus Study CIP does not allocate any costs as eligible for funding by Fee revenues that it anticipates funding with Measure P or Measure A revenues.

Response to Comment 1-V-G: This comment requests that the City consider a tiered fee structure that reflects actual park demand by housing type.

Page 12 of 18 ends

The Nexus analysis used population and housing unit data reported by the US Census (ACSDT5Y2023-B25032, ACSDT5Y2023-B25033, and ACSDP5Y2024-DP04) to derive estimates of the average household size for residential structures containing one unit (i.e. single family) and residential structures containing more than one unit (i.e multi-family). Per unit single family and multi-family fees were then calculated by multiplying the appropriate per capita replacement cost factor by the average household sizes. The per unit fee amounts were then converted into per square-foot fees in accordance with GC 66016.5. This process ensures that different sizes of housing units will pay fee amounts in accordance with the size of their unit.

Moreover, as explained in response to Comment 1-I, the City’s proposed Parks and Recreation Facilities Fee Ordinance includes a process by which a project applicant can request an adjustment to the fee for their project if they contend that it is not roughly proportionate to the impacts of their particular project. As such, the City’s fee program satisfies the proportionality requirements of Sheetz.

RESPONSE TO COMMENT LETTER 2: California Housing Defense Fund The City generally responds to Comment Letter 2 by stating that the City has conducted a Nexus Study that demonstrates that the Fees comply with the federal constitution’s essential nexus and rough proportionality requirements and the Mitigation Fee Act’s requirements that the Fees must be reasonably related to the City’s costs of providing facilities that serve new development.

Response to Comment 2-I: This Comment contends that the City must account for future tax revenue that may be generated by new development when calculating the Fees.

As an initial matter, the Fees are calculated only to include the costs of park and recreation facilities attributable to new development and do not include costs attributable to existing residents or the ongoing operation and maintenance costs associated with those facilities. The Fees therefore do not require new development to pay for the existing population’s share of park and recreation facilities.

The City disagrees that the Mitigation Fee Act or applicable constitutional standards require the City to reduce development impact fees based on potential future property tax, sales tax, or other General Fund revenues that may be generated by new development. Any future General Fund revenues generated by new development may be used for any lawful governmental purpose throughout the City, including police, fire, parks maintenance, street maintenance, and other general governmental services benefiting both existing and future residents. While the City has discretion to allocate General Fund revenues toward public facilities, those revenues are not legally restricted to the construction of park and recreation facilities needed to serve new development. By contrast, development impact fee revenues may only be used for the specific public facilities and facility costs identified in the Nexus Study and authorized under the Mitigation Fee Act.

Further, it is unlikely that the future facilities costs attributable to the City’s existing population will be funded solely through any incremental General Fund revenues generated by future residents and employees associated with new development. The City may instead utilize a variety of alternative funding sources for the portion of facility costs attributable to existing residents, including Measure P and Measure A funds, grants, bonds, or other legally available revenue sources. In addition, any increases in sales tax or property tax revenues generated by future development will primarily be used to fund existing municipal services and the ongoing operation and maintenance costs associated with existing and future public facilities.

Page 13 of 18 ends

The fact that new development may generate future property tax or sales tax revenues does not establish that the Fees result in a duplicative charge. General Fund tax revenues and development impact fee revenues serve different purposes and are subject to different legal restrictions. Indeed, Article XIII-C of the California Constitution expressly exempts charges imposed as a condition of property development from its definition of “tax.” (Cal. Const. Art. XIII C, section 1(e)(6).) General Fund revenues support ongoing municipal services and may be allocated at the City’s discretion, while impact fee revenues are restricted to the capital facilities needed to serve new development. Accordingly, California state law, including the Mitigation Fee Act, does not require the City to reduce the Fees based on assumptions regarding future discretionary General Fund revenues or expenditures that may be generated by future development.

The agenda report’s discussion of a potential funding gap reflects this same distinction. If the City adopts fees below the maximum amount supported by the Nexus Study, the difference between the cost of park infrastructure attributable to new development and the revenues generated by the fee program would need to be addressed through other funding sources or could result in reduced levels of service for facilities. Potential future General Fund tax revenues do not eliminate that gap because those revenues are not restricted to park capital facilities and may be needed to fund ongoing services and operations for both existing and future residents.

Finally, the Nexus Study demonstrates that the Fees are based on the proportionate share of parkland and recreational facility costs necessary to maintain the City’s existing level of service as population grows. The Fees therefore satisfy the reasonable relationship and rough proportionality requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act and applicable constitutional standards.

Response to Comment 2-II: 2. This comment contends that the Nexus Study CIP must identify the precise parcels that the City intends to acquire for new park land.

Government Code section 66001 requires the City to identify the public facilities to be funded by the Fees. (Gov. Code, § 66001, subd. (a)(2).) Government Code section 66002 requires the City’s capital improvement plan to indicate “the approximate location, size, time of availability, and estimates of cost for all facilities or improvements to be financed with the fees.” (Gov. Code, § 66002, subd. (a)(emphasis added).) Neither statute requires the City to identify every future park acquisition site as a specific parcel.

The Nexus Study identifies the proposed parkland acquisition and park improvement projects necessary to maintain the City’s existing level of service, including the approximate geographic areas in which future parkland acquisitions may occur. The City has identified the planned park improvements that may potentially be funded through park impact fee revenues through the year 2040. (Nexus Study, p. 7.) Given the long-term planning horizon covered by the Nexus Study, it would be impracticable and unreasonable to require the City to identify every parcel that may potentially become available for acquisition over the life of the fee program.

California courts have also recognized that development impact fees need not be tied to specifically identified projects in order to satisfy the Mitigation Fee Act. (See Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City of Lemoore (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 554, 564–565 [city adequately identified facilities to be funded by impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act by identifying examples of future facilities even though specific construction plans were not yet in place].) Consistent with that authority and Government Code sections 66015.6(a)(6), the Nexus Study CIP identifies areas where the City plans to acquire additional parkland, as Fee revenues accumulate and acquisition opportunities become available.

Page 14 of 18 ends

Nor do the Fees operate as a “blank check” or a “poll tax.” Park impact fee revenues may be used only for facilities and improvements identified in the Nexus Study and CIP and only in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act. The Fees are based on the proportionate cost of maintaining the City’s existing park and recreation service levels for new development, rather than solely on the acquisition of specifically identified parcels. Accordingly, the Nexus Study adequately identifies the public facilities and categories of improvements eligible for fee funding and satisfies the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

Finally, the Comment is incorrect in its assertion that the City will be collecting $64,878,230 in Fee revenues to fund the acquisition of parkland. While the Nexus Study CIP identifies approximately $65 million in land acquisition costs for park land that the City could potentially acquire with Fee revenues, as discussed in detail in response to Comment 1-II, the Fees are calculated based on the City’s costs to maintain the City’s existing park and recreation land and facilities levels of service, not based on the costs included in the Nexus Study CIP. The CIP simply demonstrates that the City has sufficient planned expenditures that are eligible to be funded with Fee revenues to spend all revenues that it could potentially collect under the proposed Fees. The actual amount of Fee revenues collected are estimated to be far less, even if all projected development occurs, which is highly uncertain.

Response to Comment 2-III: This comment contends that the City is making new growth pay for park land and facilities that are not necessary to serve new growth.

First, as explained in detail in response to Comment 1-II, the Fees were calculated based on the City’s costs of maintaining its existing level of service for parkland and park and recreational facilities. As such, the City is not imposing the costs included in the Nexus Study CIP on new development through the Fees. Rather, the CIP simply lists park and recreation land and facilities costs that are eligible to be funded with Fee revenues; it does not mean that each listed project will be funded entirely, or at all, with impact fee revenues. Whether particular projects are ultimately constructed, and what funding sources are used, will depend on future development activity, fee revenues actually collected, and the availability of other funding sources. Thus, while the original Nexus Study CIP indicated that approximately 97% of the project costs could be funded with impact fee revenues, it was not imposing those costs on new growth because those costs were not used to calculate the Fees or included in the Fees.

Second, contrary to the assertions in this comment, the City is not required to use the Fee revenues only for park and recreation facilities that will exclusively serve growth. The City’s existing residents have already funded a comprehensive system of park and recreational facilities that will be used by both existing residents and future growth. However, to maintain the City’s existing level of service as new growth adds residents to the City, the City must acquire new parkland, construct new amenities, expand existing amenities, and refurbish existing facilities. (See Gov. Code § 66001(g).) While all park and recreation facilities in the City will serve both existing and future residents, new growth is only being required to pay Fees based on the City’s costs to maintain its existing level of service.

Third, it is within the City’s discretion to determine the park and recreation facilities that will best serve the community and maintain the City’s level of service as new growth occurs. As held in Home Builders Assn. of Tulare/Kings Counties, Inc. v. City of Lemoore (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 554, the City is not required to use the Fee revenues to replicate the same type of facilities that it already has. (Id. At 565 (“It is logical to not duplicate existing facilities, but rather, to expand the recreational opportunities… Since the facilities are intended for city-wide use, it is reasonable to base the fee on the existing ratio of community and recreation facility asset value to population.”).)

Page 15 of 18 ends

As such, the City has appropriately determined that the Starkweather Park Boat ramp is a new recreation facility that will enhance the City’s city-wide system of park and recreation facilities.

Fourth, to clarify that the City will only use the Fee revenues for park and recreation costs that proportionately serve new growth, the City has updated the Nexus Study CIP. As explained in detail in response to Comment 1-II and 1-IIA-1-II-E, under the revised CIP, all costs associated with entirely new or expanded park and recreation facilities are allocated as eligible to be funded with Fee revenues, up to the amount necessary to maintain the City’s existing levels of service.

In contrast, costs associated with improvements or refurbishment of existing facilities or costs associated with increasing the City’s existing level of service are allocated to new development on a proportionate basis reflecting new development’s share of the City’s future population growth. Based on the City’s projected growth estimates, new development is expected to account for approximately 13% of the City’s future population by 2040, and the revised CIP generally applies that proportional allocation to improvements that refurbish or upgrade existing facilities.

Finally, based on development trends, the Nexus Study estimates total revenues that could be received through the Fees by the year 2040 in the range of $59.1 million to $67.5 million, with an average estimate of $63.3 million, or $7,403 per new resident. (Nexus Study, p. 21.) Because estimated revenues are substantially less than the total costs identified in the CIP, the revenue estimates demonstrate that the City is not allocating all such costs to new development.

The revised CIP continues to identify sufficient parkland acquisition and facility improvement costs eligible for park impact fee funding to support the estimated Fee revenues that could be collected over the planning period. This is particularly true because the revenue estimates in the Nexus Study actually overstate the estimated Park and Recreation Facilities Fee revenues because they do not account for the fact that the City estimates that approximately 25% of new housing projects will be subdivision projects, and as such, will dedicate land or pay an in-lieu fee, rather than the impact fee. They also do not account for the fact that many projects in the pipeline will pay the considerably lower current fee. Thus, the CIP continues to include ample project costs that the City can fund with estimated impact fee revenues.

Response to Comment 2-IV: This comment asserts that the City should calculate one fee for Multi-family and Single-family development projects.

As explained in detail in response to Comment 1-I, Government Code section 66016.5 requires fees imposed on housing development projects to be calculated proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units, subject to specified exceptions. A fee calculated on that basis is deemed to use a valid method for establishing a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. (Gov. Code, § 66016.5, subd. (a)(5)(A).) The statute further provides that this requirement “does not prohibit an agency from establishing different fees for different types of developments.” (Gov. Code, § 66016.5, subd. (a)(5)(C).) Consistent with that statute, the Nexus Study calculates the park and recreation facility cost attributable to new residents based on the cost per resident and household size assumptions for single-family and multi-family units. The Nexus Study then converts the resulting cost for each development type into a per-square-foot fee. (Nexus Study, pp. 19-21, Tables 10B and 10C.) The resulting fees are therefore calculated proportionately to square footage while also reflecting the different population impacts associated with different types of residential development.

Nor does AB 602 require the City to ignore differences in occupancy, household size, or facility demand between different residential development types. Rather, the Mitigation Fee Act

Page 16 of 18 ends

continues to require a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. The City’s methodology advances that requirement by using population-based demand assumptions to calculate the impact attributable to each development type and then expressing the resulting fee on a square-footage basis. The fee structure therefore remains consistent with AB 602’s square-footage framework while preserving the required nexus between the fee and the impacts of each type of development.

Response to Comment 2-V: This Comment asserts that the proposed Fees fail to comply with the City’s Housing Element.

The City’s adopted Housing Element analyzes governmental constraints on housing production, including development fees. The California Department of Housing and Community Development certified the Housing Element on June 22, 2023. The Housing Element recognizes that “[d]evelopment fees, including planning fees, building fees, and impact fees” can affect the financial feasibility of housing development throughout the Bay Area. (Housing Element, p. 5-44.) However, the Housing Element does not prohibit the City from adopting or updating impact fees.

Rather, the Housing Element explains that development impact fees are used “to cover the cost of capital improvements that may be attributable to each new project” and that such fees are “necessary to equitably distribute the costs of growth to new development rather than to existing taxpayers.” (Ibid.)
Further, the Housing Element states that San Rafael “has not increased its parkland dedication fee in many years,” that the fee was then $1,967 per dwelling and limited to for-sale subdivision projects, and that General Plan 2040 recommends preparation of a nexus study to update the fee and potentially collect it as an impact fee for all residential units rather than as a Quimby Act fee limited to subdivisions. (Housing Element, p. 5-47.) The Housing Element further states that the prior fee was “well below the fees collected in other Marin County jurisdictions and [did] not cover costs for parkland improvement or renovation.” (Ibid.)
Accordingly, the proposed fee update is not inconsistent with the Housing Element. The Housing Element contemplated preparation of a nexus study to update the park fee program, including potentially expanding the fee to all residential units.

The fact that the Housing Element did not identify the precise amount of the updated fee, or quantify the amount by which the fee would change, does not render the Fees inconsistent with the Housing Element. At the time the Housing Element was adopted, the updated fee amount could not be known until completion of the Nexus Study. The Housing Element identified the City’s intent to prepare a nexus study and update the fee program. Adoption of fees supported by the Nexus Study does not, by itself, render the Housing Element’s site inventory, rezoning program, or RHNA assumptions invalid.

The City has considered whether the Fees constitute an unreasonable constraint on housing production. The Fees are supported by the Nexus Study and are calculated to recover only the proportionate costs of park and recreation facilities attributable to new development. Because the Fees are supported by the Nexus Study and recover only proportionate costs attributable to new development, the City is not required to offset the Fees as a new Housing Element constraint before relying on its adopted Housing Element programs.

In addition, the Housing Element recognizes that fee comparisons may be considered in evaluating constraints, noting that fees for recent City projects ranged from $8,300 per unit in a large multifamily project to $17,200 per unit for an individual single-family home, and that total

Page 17 of 18 ends

fees in San Rafael were comparable to those collected by other Bay Area cities. (Housing Element, p. 5-47.) The City also reviewed fee levels in nearby jurisdictions as part of its consideration of the proposed Fees and determined that the proposed Fees were reasonable and in line with those imposed by nearby jurisdictions.

For these reasons, the proposed Fees are consistent with the Housing Element, supported by the Nexus Study, and reasonably related to the impacts of new development.

Response to Comment 2-VI: This Comment contends that the proposed Fees violate fair housing laws.

The proposed Fees are not based on income level, race, ethnicity, familial status, or any protected characteristic, nor are they imposed based on the intended occupancy of any residential development by persons or families of very low, low, moderate, or middle income. Rather, the Fees are calculated based on the impacts of new residential development on the City’s park and recreation facilities, as demonstrated in the Nexus Study.

The fee calculation begins with the estimated park and recreation facility cost attributable to new residents. The Nexus Study then applies household size assumptions for single-family and multifamily units to calculate the cost attributable to each development type and converts that amount into a fee per square foot, as required by Government Code section 66016.5, subdivision (a)(5). (See Nexus Study, pp. 19-21, Tables 10B and 10C.) That statute generally requires local agencies to calculate fees imposed on housing development projects proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development.

Multi-family units are typically smaller than single-family units. As a result, even where the multifamily per-square-foot rate is higher, the total fee paid for an average multi-family unit will be substantially less than the fee paid for a larger single-family unit. The amount of the fee therefore depends on the size and type of the proposed unit and the proportional impact identified in the Nexus Study.

The City further considered the potential effect of the Fees on housing development, including multi-family development, in light of its Housing Element and fair housing obligations. The Fees are reasonably related to the impacts of new development, do not exceed the cost of providing park and recreation facilities necessary to serve new development, and properly balance the City’s need to maintain park and recreation service levels with the City’s interest in avoiding unnecessary constraints on housing production. The City has also incorporated housing policy considerations into the fee program, including by proposing reduced fees for one hundred percent affordable housing projects and an exemption for accessory dwelling units under 750 square feet, consistent with State law and the City’s housing policies.

Accordingly, the proposed Fees do not violate Government Code sections 65008, 8899.50, or the City’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. The Fees are supported by the Nexus Study, are reasonably related to the impacts of new development, and are consistent with the City’s Housing Element.

Response to Comment 3: This Comment asserts that the proposed Fees will make future development projects infeasible and that the City does not require over $100,000,000 in new park and recreation facilities.

Page 18 of 18 ends

First, as addressed in detail in response to Comment 1-IV, neither the Mitigation Fee Act nor HCD’s model nexus study require a local agency to prepare a project-specific feasibility analysis before adopting development impact fees. Rather, HCD’s model nexus study recognizes that comparisons to the fee levels charged by nearby jurisdictions is an acceptable method of evaluating the financial impacts of proposed fees. The City developed a comparison of its total impact fee burden, if the Fees are adopted at their fully justified rates, and determined that the City’s fees would still be comparable to other jurisdictions.

Second, as explained in detail in response to Comments 1-II and 2-III, the City is not requiring new growth to pay for all of the park and recreation facilities costs included in the Nexus Study CIP. Rather, the CIP includes all parkland and park and recreation facilities costs identified in the City’s Park and Recreation Master Plan. Only a portion of those costs are eligible to be funded with Fee revenues, and new growth will only be charged based on the City’s costs to maintain its existing levels of service as new growth occurs.

Response to Comment 4: This Comment requests a delay in implementation of the fees until the City reaches its RHNA goals and eliminates fees for affordable housing.

As addressed in Response to Comment 1-V-A, there are many factors that impact the development of new housing and impact fees are only one small component. As of June 1, 2026, there are 3,708 multifamily residential units that have been submitted or built since the General Plan 2040 was adopted in 2021. These projects have locked in current rates and will not be subject to the proposed impact fee update.

City staff have also proposed reduced fees for 100% affordable housing projects and Accessory Dwelling Units in order to promote more affordable housing.

Response to Comment 5: This Comment expresses concerns regarding the proposed Fees potential impacts on housing development and affordable housing in particular.

As addressed in Response to Comments 1-V-A and 4, there are many factors that impact the development of new housing and impact fees are only one small component. As of June 1, 2026, there are 3,708 multifamily residential units that have been submitted or built since the General Plan 2040 was adopted in 2021. These projects have locked in current rates and will not be subject to the proposed impact fee update.

City staff have also proposed reduced fees for 100% affordable housing projects and Accessory Dwelling Units in order to promote more affordable housing.

From: Jenny Silva <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2026 8:06 PM
To: Mayor Kate <[email protected]>; Rachel Kertz <[email protected]>; Eli Hill <[email protected]>; Maribeth Bushey <[email protected]>; Maika Llorens Gulati <[email protected]>
Cc: Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]>; Karen Strolia <[email protected]> Subject: Public comment: item 3b, May 18 City Council meeting Dear Mayor Kate and San Rafael City Council Members,
Call Marin Home and the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce would like to submit the attached public comment, This comment is lengthy, so we won't repeat it the email.

Briefly, we are concerned that the size of the proposed fees will present a constraint on badly needed new housing development. We do not believe that comparisons of San Rafael's fees versus other jurisdictions (which are also not producing sufficient housing) is a valid method for determining the impact of these fees. We believe that there are numerous issues with the nexus study as outlined in the attachment.

We request that San Rafael address these issues before implementing new impact fees.

Respectfully,
Jenny Silva and Karen Strolia
Jenny Silva
Executive Director
Call Marin Home
[email protected]
(415) 609-4671
May is Affordable Housing Month. See our events here.

Comment 1
Attachment 6
May 14, 2026
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Re: Comments on Proposed Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee and Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Nexus Study (Draft, August 18, 2025) Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Call Marin Home is a housing coalition organization committed to supporting the production of housing of all types throughout Marin County, including affordable and workforce housing, senior housing, and multifamily development. The San Rafael Chamber of Commerce is a member-based business advocacy organization providing a strong voice in support of the economic vitality of our community.We write to share substantive concerns regarding the Draft Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee and Parks and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Nexus Study prepared by Keyser Marston Associates (the "Nexus Study"), dated August 18, 2025 and the proposed impact fees for San Rafael.

We support the City's goal of expanding its parks and recreation system to serve planned growth. However, the proposed fee structure raises significant legal and policy concerns that, if left unaddressed, could expose the City to legal challenge, undermine housing production, and place disproportionate burdens on housing types that serve seniors and smaller households.

We respectfully request that the City direct staff and its consultants to address the following concerns before the fee is adopted, and we welcome the opportunity to work constructively toward a fee structure that is legally sound, equitably designed, and supportive of the City's housing goals.

I. The Square-Footage-Only Methodology Fails to Account for Differences in Housing Type and Park Demand
The proposed fee structure charges all residential development on a flat per-square-foot-of-livable-area basis, with only a distinction between single-family detached and multi-family units. While AB 602 creates a statutory safe harbor for square-footage-based 1-I
Comment 1
2 fees, this safe harbor does not override the constitutional requirements of Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (2024), which requires that fees bear rough proportionality to the actual impacts of the specific development on which they are imposed.

The Nexus Study's own data — drawn from the American Community Survey (Appendix A, Table 4) — demonstrates meaningful variation in household size across multi-family unit types that is not reflected in the fee schedule.

The Study applies a single blended multi-family household size of 2.32 to all of these unit types, then converts to a per-square-foot fee. Senior housing projects, which demonstrably generate fewer residents and lower park demand than general multi-family developments, are charged at precisely the same rate as larger family-oriented apartments. This is not rough proportionality — it is a flat rate that ignores actual impact.

The Nexus Study did not explain why differentiated household size assumptions were not applied within the multi-family category, even though the underlying ACS data to support such differentiation was included in its own appendix. We request that the City direct KMA to revise the fee schedule to incorporate unit-type differentiation — at minimum distinguishing senior restricted housing — supported by the household size data already in the record.

II. The Project List Contains Items with Weak or No Growth Nexus Under both the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and Sheetz, impact fee revenue may only fund capital improvements that are attributable to new development's fair share of costs. Fees cannot fund existing deficiencies, deferred maintenance, or legally mandated improvements that the City would need to undertake regardless of population growth.

Our review of the Parks Development Impact Fee Project List (Table 12 of the Nexus Study) identifies a significant number of projects where the nexus to new development is weak, unsupported, or absent. We summarize our concerns in the table below:

Project Total
Cost
Dev.

Share %
Dev.

Share $
Nexus Risk Key Concern
Terra Linda Park Renovation $5.0M 100% $5.0M High risk Deferred maintenance; serves
existing residents
1-II
3 Terra Linda Community
Center Renovation
$21.0M 100% $21.0M High risk Aging building;
driven by age not
growth; largest
single item
Terra Linda Community
Garden Renovation
$1.6M 100% $1.6M High risk No growth nexus;
serves existing
residents
Albert Park Field & Stadium
Renovation
$4.5M 50% $2.25M Moderate Shared-benefit split
acknowledged but
split percentage
unsupported; 50%
to new residents
seems high.

Possible Measure P
overlap
Falkirk Cultural Center ADA
Improvements
$5.5M 100% $5.5M High risk Federal legal
obligation;
independent of
growth; arguably
0% growth share
Freitas Park North Parcel $644K 100% $644K Unclear Nexus depends on whether this is
genuinely new
capacity and will
serve areas
expected to grow.

Bernard Hoffman Play Area
& Pathway
$500K 100% $500K High risk Pathways serve all
residents; 100%
overstated
Starkweather Park Boat
Ramp
$1.275M 100% $1.275M High risk No clear residential
growth connection;
regional amenity
Freitas Park Tennis Courts &
Pathway
$250K 75% $187.5K High risk 75% split arbitrary
and appears high;
no methodology;
existing facility
4 Gerstle Park Lower Play Area $1.6M 100% $1.6M High risk Existing facility; 100% attribution
unexplained
Oleander Park Playground &
Pathway
$300K 100% $300K High risk Existing facility;
contradicts senior
housing equity
argument
Gerstle Park Pathway
Improvements
$700K 50% $350K Moderate 50% split
unsupported by
analysis
Santa Margarita Tennis,
Basketball, Play Area &
Pathway
$1.6M 100% $1.6M High risk All existing facilities;
100% indefensible
without analysis
Riviera Park Play Area &
Pathway
$400K 100% $400K High risk Existing facility; no
growth nexus
Oliver Hartzell Park Play
Area & Pathway
$300K 100% $300K High risk Existing facility; no
growth nexus
Gerstle Park Tennis Court
Improvements
$500K 100% $500K High risk Maintenance not
mitigation; serves
existing users
Boyd Park Tennis Court
Improvements
$700K 100% $700K High risk Maintenance not
mitigation; serves
existing users
Starkweather Park Trail
Improvements
$750K 50% $375K Moderate Trails serve all
residents; 50% is
too high
Bret Harte Sports Court &
Pathway
$200K 50% $100K Moderate No analysis on why
new residents pay
50% - too high
Bret Harte Park Play Area $500K 100% $500K High risk Inconsistent with 50% sports court at
same park
Victor Jones Sports Court
Improvement
$600K 100% $600K High risk Existing facility; no
growth nexus
5 Canal Boatyard (620 Canal
St)
$4.13M 100% $4.13M More analysis
needed
New parkland;
benefit to existing
residents. Confirm
no Measure A
double-count
Montecito/Dominican
Neighborhood
$3.9M 100% $3.9M More analysis
needed
New land
acquisition;
document
neighborhood
growth
Winward Way $10.0M 100% $10.0M More analysis
needed

6.22 acres new
parkland; document
neighborhood
growth
West End/Fairhills
Neighborhood
$7.8M 100% $7.8M More analysis
needed
New land;
document
neighborhood
growth
Lincoln/San Rafael Hill
Neighborhood
$7.8M 100% $7.8M More analysis
needed
New land;
document
neighborhood
growth
Contempo/Deer Park
Neighborhood
$15.6M 100% $15.6M More analysis
needed
New land; largest
acquisition; appears
far from growth
Northbridge/Marin Lagoon
Neighborhood
$15.6M 100% $15.6M More analysis
needed
New land;
document projected
growth in area

We estimate that projects with weak or absent growth nexus account for at least $58 million of the $110 million attributed to new development — more than half of the total project list. This is a material concern that warrants revision before the fee is adopted.

We draw particular attention to these categories of concern:

A. Legally Mandated Improvements. The Falkirk Cultural Center ADA improvements ($5.5 million, attributed 100% to new development) represent a federal legal obligation that exists independent of population growth. The City must bring Falkirk into ADA compliance 1-II-A 6 regardless of whether any new housing is built. Charging new development for this cost has no rational nexus to the impact of that development and is likely indefensible under Sheetz.

B. Deferred Maintenance Disguised as Growth Infrastructure. The Terra Linda Community Center renovation ($21 million, 100% attributed to new development) is the largest single item on the project list. The City's own Parks and Recreation Master Plan identifies deferred maintenance needs at this facility. An aging building serving 58,000 existing residents is not a growth-driven capital need — it is an existing deficiency that must be funded through other revenue sources, including the General Fund and Measure A.

C. Arbitrary and Unexplained Attribution Percentages. The project list applies attribution percentages ranging from 50% to 100% across similar amenity improvement projects with no supporting methodology. Albert Park Field is discounted to 50%, acknowledging shared benefit with existing users — but this same logic applies equally to tennis courts, playgrounds, trails, and community gardens listed at 100%. Further, given the benefit to existing residents, it feels unreasonable to assign 50% of the cost to the small percentage of new residents. The inconsistency and high percentage suggests the percentages were not analytically derived, which itself constitutes a Sheetz proportionality problem.

D. Question of Nexus for Proposed Projects. The Nexus study does not provide analysis of how the proposed new parks relate to the expected growth of San Rafael’s population. Growth is being heavily targeted towards Downtown and the existing Northgate Mall. Some of the new parks are not convenient to these areas, yet new residents are being apportioned 100% of the costs. There is no analysis on expected use of these parks by existing residents versus by new residents. Further, the recent decision in the Patterson case states that the city’s nexus study needs to demonstrate a “reasonable relationship” between each fee, the use to which it will be put and the type of development on which it is proposed. This was not done. In addition, Patterson states that cities must consider capacity of existing facilities in nexus fee calculations.

Given that the city’s population has declined, it’s hard to argue that existing facilities are at full capacity.

E. Overall Scale of Fee vs Existing Parks Budgets. According to the Nexus study, the expected revenue from this fee is $60M - $67M over the next 14 years, or over $4M per year. As best as we could tell, the current parks budget is about $2.5M/year and the capital expenditures budget is about $600K per year. We question that a small percentage increase in residents would drive additional park needs that is so much greater than total current expenditures.

III. Double-Counting Concerns: Measure P and Measure A
1-II-D
1-II-E
1-II-C
1-II-B
1-III
7 The proposed fee schedule does not account for two existing, dedicated funding streams that already commit resources to the same facilities and improvements on the project list.

Measure P. In November 2024, San Rafael voters approved Measure P — a 30-year parcel tax generating approximately $6.37 million annually — dedicated exclusively to constructing a new library and community center at Albert Park. New development, once built, will pay this parcel tax. The Nexus Study simultaneously uses the replacement cost of the existing San Rafael Community Center ($34 million) as a basis for calculating per-capita fees, and lists Albert Park field improvements on the project list attributed in part to new development. The City is effectively charging new development twice for Albert Park: once through Measure P (which new residents will pay for 30 years), and again through the impact fee. This is a material double-counting problem that must be reconciled before the fee is finalized.

Measure A. Marin County's Measure A parks sales tax distributes a portion of its approximately $14 million in annual revenue to incorporated cities, including San Rafael. These funds are available for park improvements and capital investments. To the extent that Measure A revenues are or will be directed to projects on the impact fee project list, those projects should not be fully attributed to new development. We request that the City provide a clear accounting of Measure A funds received and projected, and demonstrate that no double-counting exists between those funds and the proposed impact fee project list.

IV. Impact on Housing Production
San Rafael has significant unmet housing obligations under its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). The proposed fee rates — up to $18.50 per square foot for non-subdivision multi-family units — represent a substantial new cost on the housing types most needed to meet the City's RHNA targets: multifamily rental housing, affordable housing, and senior housing.

San Rafael is already far behind in meeting its RHNA goals. Last year, only 33 units were permitted, and three years in, San Rafael has only permitted 209 units. This year San Rafael is doing better - having permitted 330 units, but this is still far below the pace needed to meet RHNA goals.

Currently, San Rafael has approved housing development projects that have been unable to move forward due to challenges in obtaining financing. We have heard from a number of developers that their proposed or approved projects would not be viable under this fee structure. Given the already very challenging development financing environment, we question the wisdom of assessing large additional fees. HCD specifically required an amendment to Program 44 in San Rafael’s housing element requiring the city to monitor and modify previously 1-IV
1-III-A
1-III-B
8 granted entitlements as necessary to make projects economically viable. HCD had specific concerns about fees. These fees may be in conflict with San Rafael’s housing element.

San Rafael staff has justified fees as being “market rate” by comparing to other jurisdictions. It should be noted that every comparable jurisdiction is also behind in housing production.

Further, the bar for fees is not how they compare to our neighbors - it is whether it is a valid expense needed to accommodate population growth. Given that San Rafael is below peak population, this level of fees is hard to justify.

We are not opposed to park impact fees as a matter of principle. However, fees that are legally vulnerable, inequitably calibrated, and inflated by projects with weak nexus findings impose real costs on housing production without producing commensurately stronger parks outcomes.

A fee that survives legal challenge and is grounded in sound methodology will serve both the City's parks goals and its housing goals better than one that overclaims.

V. Requested Actions
We respectfully request that the City Council direct staff to address the following before the fee is adopted:
• Delay implementing fees until San Rafael has permitted units adequate to meet its RHNA goals. Given the challenging financing environment, and the large fees, there is significant risk that the new fee structure will backfire and result in a pause in new development. At a minimum, we believe fees should be deferred until San Rafael has approved housing sufficient to bring its population back to its peak levels (2,000 more residents).
• Create a transparent process for fee deferrals. State law now requires that fees for most projects proposed in San Rafael be deferred until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. This fee deferral can potentially save millions in financing costs. It is not clear how a developer would be aware of this or how they request this deferral. The process for requesting a deferral should be clear, easy, and quick. • Revise the fee schedule to differentiate between unit types within the multi-family category, at minimum distinguishing senior restricted housing, using the household size data already present in the Nexus Study.
• Review and revise the project list to remove or reclassify projects that represent legally mandated improvements (ADA compliance), deferred maintenance, or existing deficiencies not attributable to new growth. Remove or reduce projects that will not be neighborhoods serving the planned growth of San Rafael. 1-V-A
1-V-B
1-V-C
1-V-D
9 • Provide a clear methodology supporting each attribution percentage on the project list. Percentages that cannot be analytically justified should be revised downward. • Reconcile the project list with Measure P to ensure that Albert Park and community center costs are not double-charged to new development. • Provide a Measure A accounting demonstrating that no projects on the impact fee list will receive duplicative funding from county park revenues. • Consider a tiered fee structure that reflects actual park demand by housing type, consistent with the proportionality requirements of Sheetz.

We appreciate the City's commitment to its parks system and recognize the genuine investment that has gone into this Nexus Study. Our concerns are offered in the spirit of helping the City arrive at a fee structure that is legally durable, equitably designed, and supportive of both parks and housing goals.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Jennifer Silva
Executive Director
Call Marin Home
Karen Strolia
President and CEO
San Rafael Chamber of Commerce
1-V-E
1-V-F
1-V-G
From: James Lloyd <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2026 7:34 PM
To: Mayor Kate <[email protected]>; Maika Llorens Gulati <[email protected]>; Eli Hill <[email protected]>; Maribeth Bushey <[email protected]>; Rachel Kertz <[email protected]>
Cc: Rob Epstein <[email protected]>; Paul Navazio <[email protected]>; Community Development <[email protected]>; Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: public comment re item 3b for the 5/18/26 Council meeting Dear San Rafael City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits the attached public comment and referenced court case regarding agenda item 3b for the May 18, 2026 Council meeting, the City’s proposed Park And Recreation Facilities Fee; and Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees.

Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
[email protected]
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/
Comment 2
May 15, 2026
City of San Rafael
1400 Fifth Avenue
San Rafael, CA 94901
Re: Proposed Nexus Study and Ordinance for Parks Impact Fees To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Dear San Rafael City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits this letter to remind the Council of its obligation to abide by all relevant state and federal laws, given the legal deficiencies with the City’s proposed Park And Recreation Facilities Fee; and Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fees (“Parks Impact Fees”), which are calendared as agenda item 3b for the May 18, 2026 Council meeting. These laws include the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code §§ 66000 et seq.; the MFA), fair housing law, the Housing Element Law, and the takings clause of the federal constitution (U.S. Const., 5th Amend.).

Of note, CalHDF is currently litigating the legality of similar impact fees in a court action against the City of Los Altos. You may read more about this lawsuit here.

Background
The federal constitution prohibits governments – including local governments – from taking private property without paying for it. (U.S. Const., 5th Amend. [“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”].) This prohibition applies to takings that occur in the land use permitting process. (Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Com (1987) 483 U.S. 825; Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374.) It also applies to fees collected from an applicant seeking land use entitlements. (Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist. (2013) 570 U.S. 595.) Such fees must have an “essential nexus” to a legitimate governmental interest and “rough proportionality” to the proposed development’s impact on that interest. (Id. at 2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
Comment 2
605-606.) Recently, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that impact fees imposed by local legislative bodies must satisfy the nexus and rough proportionality standards. (Sheetz v. Cnty. of El Dorado (2024) 144 S.Ct. 893.) If such impact fees do not satisfy those standards, a permit applicant may sue under the takings clause. (Ibid.)
State law, via the MFA, also imposes a nexus and rough proportionality requirement on impact fees. (Gov. Code, §§ 66001, subd. (a), 66005, subd. (a).) To ensure this requirement is satisfied, the MFA requires local jurisdictions, before they collect impact fees from permit applicants, to adopt a “nexus study” that provides evidence regarding nexus and rough proportionality. (Gov. Code, § 66016.5, subd. (a).)
MFA and Constitutional Problems with Nexus Study and Adopted Fees The City’s nexus study for its Parks Impact Fees (Draft Parkland Dedication In-Lieu Fee and Parkland and Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, August 18, 2025; “Parkland Nexus Study”) falls short of the nexus and rough proportionality standards on several points. The nexus study also violates the MFA. CalHDF urges the Council to correct these problems and adopt an updated study and fee schedule.

1. The City Must Account For Future Tax Revenue from New Development The assumptions employed by the City’s consultant throughout the report share a common flaw. In addition to the issues identified below, the individual fee calculations do not factor in funding available for infrastructure due to increased general fund tax revenues resulting from new development.

The calculation for the final fee assumes that all the funding for new development’s share of park facilities will need to come from impact fee revenues. This amounts to the City charging an up-front tax on new residents in the amount to offset all of their need for park facilities going forward. This policy results in double-charging new residents, who will also be paying sales tax and property tax that will grow the City’s tax base, thus making more general fund money available for the identified projects, and making it easier for the City to fund required improvements. Multifamily development, in particular, often replaces underutilized property and comes with a property tax assessment substantially higher than existing uses.

The residents of these new developments also patronize local stores, generating sales tax revenue. All impact fee calculations should account for the growth in the City’s tax base that would be generated by the projected multifamily development. Failing to account for this results in fee schedules charging costs to new development in amounts far exceeding their impacts on city parks and recreation facilities.

These developments, in effect, double pay, as they will pay for their full share of new infrastructure on an upfront basis through these impact fees, and then they will pay 2 of 8
2-I
property tax on an annual basis. In fact, new development will more than double pay, as due to the effects of Prop 13, new residential development pays significantly more in property taxes than existing residences.

However, the City is assuming the opposite. Page 6 of the agenda report: “Adopting fees below the maximum would result in a funding gap between the cost of park infrastructure needed to serve new development and the revenue generated by the fee program, effectively requiring subsidy from existing residents or resulting in reduced service levels.” This is simply untrue. As discussed above, new development will pay dramatically more in taxes than the previous land use (and surrounding existing land uses). Even without any impact fees, existing residents would benefit dramatically from the significantly increased tax revenue provided by new development. It is the new developments that will be subsidizing existing residents, not the other way round. This miscalculation clearly violates the MFA and constitutional rough proportionality requirements by imposing a fee that far exceeds the impacts of new development on City park facilities.

2. The Parks Development Impact Fee Lacks the Specificity Required by Law The City proposes to impose the Parks Impact Fees based on a replacement cost theory, wherein each new dwelling unit is assessed a fee based on the per capita replacement cost of the City’s entire parks and recreation physical plant.

In an attempt to fulfill the requirements of state law (Gov. Code, § 66001, subd. (a)(2)), the nexus study lists parks to be acquired with the funds provided. (Parkland Nexus Study at p. 24). The study then states that $64,878,230 is needed to fund land acquisitions for future parks development. However, the nexus study fails to identify which parcels the City intends to acquire, as required by law. The study only identifies the Canal Boatyard by address. Other future parks are simply identified by the general neighborhood in which they might be located. (Ibid.).

The MFA requires that before adopting an impact fee, a local government must identify “the public facilities that will be financed with the fee.” (Gov. Code, § 66001, subd. (a)(2).) Instead of identifying specific parcels for acquisition, the nexus study just identifies neighborhoods where the City may elect to develop parks at some point in the future.

This turns the impact fee into a blank check for future land acquisition, untethered from any specific infrastructure need created by the developments paying the fee. The City has two options: (1) identify specific parcels for acquisition and revise the nexus study accordingly, or (2) eliminate the open space acquisition fee. However, it may not collect $64,878,230 million based on undefined future acquisitions (or $60,751,380, which is $64,878,230 less the identified cost of the boatyard, the sole property specifically identified for acquisition). 3 of 8
2-II
As currently drafted, the fee is effectively a poll tax on new residents. This does not comport with the requirements of state law to identify the specific facilities to be financed with the impact fee. (See Ibid.)

3. The City is Making Newcomers Fund Its Parks Wish List The proposed Parks Impact Fees fail the constitution’s and MFA’s nexus and rough proportionality requirements. They charge new residential development for a series of improvements that are either already needed and will primarily benefit existing residents, or that represent discretionary upgrades to park facilities. Furthermore, the nexus study assigns 97% of the cost of the parks capital plan to new development, without any explanation. (Parkland Nexus Study at p. 24).

The nexus study calls for extensive renovations and upgrades to existing facilities, without making any connection to the impact of new development. The nexus study plans for $48.4 million of improvements to existing parks, of which it calls for $45.3 million to be borne by new development via the Parks Impact Fees. (Parkland Nexus Study at p. 24). It is unclear, and never justified, why the City is calling for new development to shoulder almost the entire cost of these park improvements, which include items that were almost certainly going to be needed anyway (e.g. Falkirk Cultural Center Accessibility Improvements) or are discretionary projects. For instance, it is unclear why the City would charge impact fees to new residents of multifamily housing who will likely never be able to use the Starkweather Park Boat ramp, given that apartments typically don’t have room for boat storage. (See Ibid.) These are not new facilities required to serve increased demand from new development.

They are renovations and upgrades to facilities that primarily serve existing residents, as well as discretionary projects unrelated to potential housing development.

However, AB 602 specifically requires that when a nexus study increases service levels beyond existing standards, it must "explain the methodology used to develop the increased level of service." (Gov. Code, § 66016.5, subd. (a)(3).) The study claims these expensive renovations and new facilities merely “maintain” existing service levels, when they plainly represent substantial service increases.

The City should fund these facilities through taxes. Indeed, it must. It cannot do so through “impact fees” that penalize new residential development: that is unconstitutional under the federal constitution and illegal under state law. CalHDF notes that the City will collect more money in taxes as a result of the development. That is the appropriate revenue stream to rely on for the City’s general operations.
4 of 8
2-III
The City’s capital plan calls for $113,297,730 of new parks and improvements to existing facilities, and it states that new development’s share of that cost is $110,160,230, or 97% of the total. (Parkland Nexus Study at p. 24.) It is patently inequitable to force new residents to pay for 97% of a City’s parks wish list. While the City’s existing residents will continue to pay an ever-decreasing share of the City’s property tax base as a result of Prop 13, they will be able to enjoy dramatically upgraded parks and recreational facilities, paid for by new residents who will then also pay dramatically higher property taxes than existing residents. The City is, without explanation, attributing the vast majority of capital improvements to existing parks to new residents, while also charging new residents for the entire cost of acquiring a developing new parkland that would serve them, all while failing to account at all for the fact that new residents generate significant additional tax base for the City’s general fund. The proposed fees are vastly overcharging for the actual impacts of new residents on City park infrastructure.

4. Different Rates for Multi-family and Single-family Development All the proposed impact fees charge different rates to multi-family versus single-family housing developments. Specifically, multifamily units will have to pay $18.50 per square foot vs. $9.98 per square foot for single-family development.

CalHDF appreciates the City’s commitment to following the MFA’s rule that nexus studies must calculate impact fees “proportionately to the square footage of proposed units.” (Gov.

Code, § 66016.5, subd. (a)(5).) But the City is following the rule in a twisted and impermissible fashion: it does not assess impact fees proportionately to square footage, but rather assesses impact fees based partly on square footage and partly on housing type. The MFA’s language leaves no room for such a two-factor approach. Fees must be calculated based on square footage alone.

The MFA was amended by AB 602 in order to incentivize smaller unit sizes. The City’s policy to penalize multifamily housing does the opposite. It incentivizes building large single-family homes, as they will have to pay much less per square foot than multi-family homes.

California has a housing crisis, and it needs more housing of all types, especially housing suitable for lower- and middle-income families. State law has changed to reflect this, and so must the City’s policy.

The Proposed Fee Fails to Comply with Housing Element Law Housing Element Law requires local governments to analyze governmental constraints on housing production. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).) The results of this analysis then inform the policies and programs in the housing element. (See id.; id. at subd. (c)(3); Californians for 5 of 8
2-IV
2-V
Homeownership, Inc. v. City of Beverly Hills (2023) Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 23STCP00143, at p. 6, [finding planned rezonings for housing element site inventory must consider constraints identified by the housing element’s constraints analysis] [opinion attached to this letter].)
The City’s Housing Element acknowledges that impact fees impose a constraint on housing development: “Development fees, including planning fees, building fees, and impact fees have been identified as a factor in the financial feasibility of housing development throughout the Bay Area.” (San Rafael Housing Element, May 15, 2023, pp. 5-44) Table 5.11 of the Housing Element lists the City’s current parks impact fees. While the Housing Element states that the fee will be updated and expanded to cover all types of housing, not just subdivisions, it does not mention the potential for the fee to be increased by a factor of 10. (Id. at 5-47).

The current fee is $1,967 per dwelling. (Ibid.) In contrast, the proposed fee would be $18.50 per square foot in a mulit–family development. This means that the typical fee per multifamily unit amounts to approximately $18,500 per unit,1 roughly 10 times the current fee. At no point does the Housing Element analyze what a 10x increase to the parks impact fee would do to housing development.

Because this new parks impact fee was not analyzed in the City’s housing element, the City cannot rely on its Housing Element programs, including its rezoning program, to produce as many units as it is required to unless the City analyzes the effects of the new constraint and offsets its impact on housing production.

The Proposed Impact Fee Violates Fair Housing Law
The City proposes to charge multifamily units approximately double what it charges single-family homes: $18.50 per square foot vs. $9.98 per square foot. (Parks Fees Ordinance, Exhibit B.) This wild inconsistency violates the City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing.

Local governments have an obligation under California to refrain from any actions that would discriminate against protected classes, or against the “intended occupancy of any residential development by persons or families of very low, low, moderate, or middle income.” (Gov. Code, § 65008, subs. (a)(3), (b)(1)(C), and (b)(2)(B).) In addition, both local governments and California state agencies are tasked with affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH), requiring “meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that 1 1,000 sf (gross) per two-bedroom apartment, with 200 sf devoted to circulation space 6 of 8
2-VI
restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” (Gov. Code, § 8899.50, subd. (a)(1).) The obligation to AFFH works in conjunction with, and independently of, local governments’ housing element obligations. Local governments are required to include a plan to AFFH as part of a compliant housing element, and are required to carry out this plan and other policies consistent with their obligation to affirmatively further fair housing. (Id., § 65583, subd. (a)(3), (b)(1).)
Demanding more money from multi-family developments imposes an unfair burden on housing for lower- and moderate-income households, while wealthier households in single-family homes enjoy a discount on their required contributions to the city treasury.

Given racial and ethnic gaps in wealth and income, the City runs the risk of creating a disparate impact on protected classes, specifically race, ethnicity, and familial status.

The structure of the fees adopted by the City violates the City’s general duty to affirmatively further fair housing, as well as its duty to affirmatively further fair housing in connection with the implementation of its housing element. (Gov. Code §§ 8899.50, 65583(c)(5). The City should be aware that even if the fees calculated in the nexus study were correct, those fees would represent the maximum potential fee. The City is obligated to weigh other factors in setting the fee amount, especially its mandatory duty to further fair housing under state law.
⬢⬢⬢
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. Impact fees directly increase the cost of new housing, leading to an overall insufficient supply. Multifamily housing in particular is vital for fulfilling housing need, as it is lower-cost on a per-unit basis and generally more accessible to low- and moderate-income households. If we do not allow sufficient housing development, more and more Californians will become and remain homeless. CalHDF urges the City to reconsider its impact fee schedule and follow state and federal constitutional law.

CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.

You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
7 of 8
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
8 of 8
• FILED
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
SEP 12 2023
David W. Slayton, Exeartive Officeritlerk of Court

CALIFORNIANS FOR
HOMEOWNERSHIP, INC.,
vs.

CITY OF BEVERLY HILLS,
Petitioner,
Respondent.

Case No. 23STCP00143

RULING ON VERIFIED FIRST

AMENDED PETITION FOR

WRIT OF MANDATE
Dept. 82 (Hon. Curtis A. Kin)
Petitioner Californians for Homeownership, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandate directing respondent City of Beverly Hills to adopt a revised housing element pursuant to Government Code§ 65754.

I. Factual Background
The State of California requires each city to have a "comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development" of the city. (Gov. Code§ 65300.)1 Each general plan must have a housing element.(§ 65302(c).) The housing element consists of 'standards and plans for housing sites in the municipality that 'shall endeavor to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community.' [Citations.]" (California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose (2015) 61 Cal.4th 435, 444; see also § 65580 [legislative findings concerning housing element law].)
"A municipality must review its housing element for the appropriateness of its housing goals, objectives, and policies and must revise the housing element in accordance with a statutory schedule." (Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193, 222, citing§ 65588(a), (b).) "The interval between the due dates for 1 All statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise specified.
1 the revised housing element is referred to as a planning period or cycle, which usually is eight years." (Martinez, 90 Cal.App.5th at 222, citing§ 65588(e)(3), (f)(l).) "A revised housing element's assessment of needs must quantify the locality's existing and projected housing needs for all income levels, which includes the locality's proportionate share of regional housing needs for each income level." (Martinez, 90 Cal.App.5th at 223, citing § 65583(a)(l).) "The projected regional housing needs for a planning period are determined by the HCD [Department of Housing and Community Development] in consultation with regional 'councils of government."' (Martinez, 90 Cal.App.5th at 223, citing§§ 65584(a) & (b), 65584.01, 65588(e)(3).) "Based on the HCD's regional housing needs determination, each regional council of governments adopts a 'final regional housing need plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need' among the cities and counties within its region." (Martinez, 90 Cal.App.5th at 223, citing§ 65584(b).) For the 2021-2029 planning period, the City Council of respondent City of Beverly Hills ("City") adopted a housing element on October 12, 2021 and submitted it for review to HCD. (JR 776.) On January 14, 2022, HCD determined that the · housing element did not fully comply with the housing element law and provided necessary revisions. (JR 1309-16.)
On September 28, 2022, the City submitted a revised housing element to HCD. (JR 776.) On November 28, 2022, HCD determined that the revised housing element did not fully comply with the housing element law and provided necessary revisions. (JR 1318-24.)
On February 21, 2023, after having revised the September 2022 housing element, the City adopted the revision. (JR 5.) On February 21, 2023, petitioner • Californians for Homeownership, Inc., who monitors local compliance with the housing element law, sent a letter to the City asserting that the revised housing element was inadequate for reasons identified by HCD and petitioner. (JR 1584-85.) On May 12, 2023, HCD determined that the housing element does not substantially comply with housing element law. (RJN Ex. B.)
II. Procedural History
On January 18, 2023, petitioner filed a verified petition for writ of mandate.

On May 24, 2023, pursuant to stipulation, petitioner filed a verified first amended petitioner for writ of mandate.

On June 22, 2023, during the trial setting conference, the Court set the hearing on the instant petition for September 12, 2023.

On July 14, 2023, petitioner filed an opening brief. On August 15, 2023, respondent filed an opposition. On August 31, 2023, petitioner filed a reply. 2 III. Request for Judicial Notice
Petitioner's requests for judicial notice are ruled on as follows:
• Exhibit A (September 15, 2017 Assembly Floor Analysis of AB 1397 (2017- 2018 Session))- GRANTED (Evid. Code§ 452(c); Wood v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 742, 751, fn. 4)
• Exhibit B (May 12, 2023 Letter from HCD to City) - GRANTED (Evid. Code § 452(c))
• Exhibit C (Staff Report for June 22, 2023 Meeting of Beverly Hills Planning Commission) - DENIED
• Exhibit D (Minutes of June 22, 2023 Meeting of Beverly Hills Planning Commission) - DENIED
• Exhibit E (Resolution No. 1907 of Beverly Hills Planning Commission) - DENIED
• Exhibit F (2022 Form 10-K for Creative Media & Community Trust Corporation (Excerpts)) - DENIED
• Exhibit G (June 10, 2020 Memorandum of the California Department of Housing and Community Development, Entitled "Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook")- GRANTED (Evid. Code§ 452(c))
• Exhibit H (City of Gardena's 2021-2029 Housing Element, Table C-1) - GRANTED (Evid. Code § 452(c))
With respect to denying the request for judicial notice of Exhibits C, D, E, and F, the Court notes these exhibits are extra-record evidence petitioner presents to demonstrate that certain sites listed in the sites inventory of the housing element are improperly included. For the reason stated in section V.C below, this is improper.

The exhibits are accordingly irrelevant. (Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1063 ["Although a court may judicially notice a variety of matters (Evid. Code, § 450 et seq.), only relevant material may be noticed"].) IV. Standard of Review
CCP § 1085(a) provides: "A writ of mandate may be issued by any court to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person, to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to 3 which the party is entitled, and from which the party is unlawfully precluded by that inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person."
"Any action brought by any interested party to review the conformity with the provisions of this article of any housing element or portion thereof or revision thereto shall be brought pursuant to Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the court's review of compliance with the provisions of this article shall extend to whether the housing element or portion thereof or revision thereto substantially complies with the requirements of this article."(§ 65587(b); see also§ 65751.) Substantial compliance means "actual compliance in respect to the substance essential to every reasonable objective of the statute, as distinguished from mere technical imperfections of form." (Martinez, 90 Cal.App.5th at 237, internal citations omitted.) "[A] city's adoption of a housing element is a legislative enactment, something which is generally entitled to some deference." (Fonseca v. City of Gilroy (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 1174, 1191.) "If the municipality has substantially complied with statutory requirements, we will not interfere with its legislative action, unless that action was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support." (Ibid.) The challenging party has the burden to demonstrate that the housing element is inadequate. (Ibid.)
V. Analysis
A. This Dispute is Not Moot
As a preliminary matter, respondent asserts that the City anticipates adopting a revised housing element in November of this year to address concerns about the current housing element. (Wiener Deel. ,r 2.) However, there is no guarantee that a .revision will be completed by November or that the City will adopt a revision at that time, or at any time thereafter. The Court can only rule based on the current housing element. The instant petition is entitled to preference. (§ 65752.) Further, if the Court were to enter judgment in favor of petitioner, the housing element law provides deadlines for the City to address the deficiencies in the housing element and to submit the revision to HCD. (§ 65754(a).) If respondent were to appeal, the appeal would be given preference also. (§ 65752.) Accordingly, there is no reason to delay ruling on the merits of the operative first amended petition.

B. Whether Sites Inventory Meets Statutory Requirements

1. Realistic Development Capacity
The inventory in a housing element must "specify for each site the number of units that can realistically be accommodated on that site and whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing, moderate-income housing, or above moderate-income housing." (§ 65583.2(c).) For a city that does not require a 4 minimum residential density, 2 the city "shall demonstrate how the number of units determined for [each] site ... will be accommodated." (§ 65583.2(c)(l).) As part of the calculation," [t]he number of units calculated ... shall be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements requirement identified in paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, the realistic development capacity for the site, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction, and on the current or planned availability and accessibility of sufficient water, sewer, and dry utilities." (§ 65583.2(c)(2).) An "assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs" shall include an "analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels ... including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit procedures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development." (§ 65583(a)(5).)
To demonstrate that its inventory is adequate, respondent relies on a Mixed Use Overlay Zone ("Overlay Zone") adopted by ordinance on November 17, 2020, where the maximum residential density within the zone was increased from O in commercial areas to 79.2 units/acre. (JR 200, 209.) The Overlay Zone spans the length of the City from east to west and partially north to south, along its largest commercial corridors, including Wilshire Boulevard, Robertson Boulevard, Olympic Boulevard, South Doheny Drive, and South Beverly Drive. (JR 125; see also JR 213 [map of Overlay Zone].) In the housing element, the City describes the purported benefits of the Overlay Zone: "This wide-scale rezoning allows for the creation or conversion of non-residential space into residential units, and therefore will create all net new housing, since it does not involve the displacernent of any existing occupied housing/residents." (JR 125.)
Respondent argues that the maximum residential density exceeds the minimum 30 units per acre that is statutorily deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income individuals. (§ 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv).) Respondent also argues that existing commercial buildings in the Overlay Zone may obtain a permit to convert to a mixed-use building and obtain relief from having to comply with standards concerning parking requirements, loading facilities, outdoor living space, commercial-residential transitional setbacks, or height limits if compliance is physically infeasible. (JR 1636; see also Chen Deel. Ex. G [Beverly Hills Municipal Code ("BMMC") § 10-3-1888].) The vacancy rates for commercial buildings also purportedly create an incentive for commercial building owners to convert their buildings to mixed-use projects. (JR 201.)
2 It is undisputed Beverly Hills does not mandate a minimum residential density.
5 For commercial properties listed in the sites inventory of the housing element that were designated for conversion or indicated as having conversion potential (JR 229-34), to calculate the total number of units on the site, the City multiplied the total parcel size by the maximum allowable residential density.3 However, the total parcel size listed in the sites inventory refers to land area, not the square footage of ·the existing building that can accommodate residential units. Contrary to respondent's contention, the sites inventory does not account for floor area capacity; the sites inventory lists the height limit of the building, not the number of stories to be converted to residential use. (See, e.g., JR 229 [column name is "Height Limit (stories)," 233 [8500 Wilshire Blvd. described as "8 story building- conversion," but height limit is 3 stories].) As a result, for buildings to be converted to mixed use, the housing element does not demonstrate how the number of units indicated in the sites inventory will be accommodated, as required by section 65583.2(c)(l).

Moreover, as petitioner points out in the reply, most of the sites in the City's sites inventory are not designated as conversions or potential conversions. (JR 229-

34.) For sites not indicated as conversions, any construction of residential units is subject to land use and building controls. For example, multi-family developments are subject to height limits from three to five stories. (JR 153-54.) Any building in the Overlay Zone must include commercial uses on the ground floor, and residential uses on the first floor within the first 40 feet from the street are prohibited. (BMMC §§ 10- 3-1877(C), 10-3-1879.) Moreover, each multi-family development must have at least 200 square feet for each dwelling unit, excluding front yards, balconies, and pedestrian accessways. (BHMC §§ 10-3-1886, 10-3-2803.)
The sites inventory contains no adjustment based on land use controls for new construction, as required by section 65583.2(c)(2). Rather, like the sites designated as conversions, the number of units for each site is calculated based on the land area multiplied by the maximum residential density. Moreover, the housing element contains no meaningful consideration and analysis of the governmental constraints on the development of housing, as required by § 65583(a)(5). Rather, the City relies on prior approved and proposed developments in arguing in conclusory fashion that "the current standards are not inhibiting development of housing." (JR 158-159, 203-

04.) Accordingly, the housing element, including the sites inventory, fails to account for the realistic development capacity for the sites listed in the inventory.

With respect to respondent's contention that the maximum residential density exceeds the density set forth in section 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv), this only means that the 3 For example, for 8730 Wilshire Blvd., the parcel size is 11,863 square feet. (JR 233.) There are 1/43,560 acres in one square foot. (See https://www.britannica.com/science/acre-unit-of-measurement [43,560 square feet in 1 acre].) 11,863 square feet multiplied by 1/43,560 acre per square foot is 0.27 acres.

0.27 acres multiplied by 79.2 units per acre is approximately 21 units. 6 City does not have to provide an analysis demonstrating how its adopted density accommodates its share of the regional housing need for lower income households. (§ 65583.2(c)(3)(A-B).) However, the City still must adjust the number of units for each site based on the realistic development capacity of the site under section 65583.2(c)(l) and (c)(2) and provide an "analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the ... development of housing for all income levels" under section 65583(a)(5).

Petitioner also argues that the City designated the majority of the sites on the sites inventory as 100% low-income or 100% moderate-income housing without explaining the basis for such designation. (OB at 10:6-7.) Petitioner further argues that the City did not adjust the unit counts based on "typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction," as required by section 65583.2(c)(2). (OB 10:7-8.) Petitioner, however, does not reference any statute that requires an explanation for the basis for the low-income or moderate-income housing designation. The housing element law only requires that the City specify "the number of units that can realistically be accommodated on that site and whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing, moderate-income housing, or above moderate-income housing" and demonstrate "how the number of units determined for that site ... will be accommodated." (§ 65583.2(c), (c)(l).) The sites inventory indicates the total number of units for each site. (JR 229 ["Total Units" column].) By indicating the number of units that are designated as low-income or moderate-income housing, the City also indicates "whether the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing [or] moderate-income housing." (JR 229 ["Lower" and "Mod" columns].) While the City did not explain how the total number of units will be accommodated for the reasons stated above, the designation of housing as low-income or moderate-income is not deficient.

Nevertheless, it is not apparent from the sites inventory whether the City adjusted the numbers for low-income and moderate-income housing based on "typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction." (§ 65583.2(c)(2).) By multiplying the land area by the maximum residential density of 79.2 units per acre and designating all housing as low- or moderate-income housing, the City assumes that all units built on the site will be low-income or moderate-income housing. The City does not account for the possibility that only a certain percentage of the housing on the site will be designated for residents with low- or moderate-income. A revised housing element would need to contain an adjustment based on typical densities at similar affordability levels.

In sum, with respect to realistic development capacity, the housing element is deficient for the following reasons: (1) for conversions, the sites inventory calculates the total number of units based on a product ofland area and the maximum residential density without accounting for the floor area of the building; (2) the sites 7 inventory does not contain any adjustments based on land use controls for new construction; (3) the housing element contains no analysis of the governmental constraints on the development of housing; and (4) the sites inventory does not contain any adjustments based on typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at similar affordability levels in the City.

2. Nonvacant Sites
For nonvacant sites, the housing element law imposes the following additional requirement:
[T]he city or county shall specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period and shall provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential. The methodology shall consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, the city's or county's past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current market demand for the existing use, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites.
(§ 65583.2(g)(l).)
Petitioner argues that the City does not explain how its methodology relates to the sites it has included or excluded in the sites inventory. For underutilized nonvacant sites, respondent explains that it selected sites that were more likely to be redeveloped or converted based on evidence of a lack of investment in the property, such as a lack of maintenance or lack of recent upgrades and improvements; parcels with underutilized improvements; and parcels with existing commercial buildings that are higher than 3 stories but whose floor plan is conducive to residential conversion. (JR 202-03, 210-11.) Respondent also explains that existing uses do not constitute an impediment to additional residential development because the creation of the Overlay Zone creates opportunities for residential development; conversion from non-residential to residential use costs less than new construction; and high residential property values in the City create financial incentives for residential development. (JR 209-10.) However, respondent discusses its methodology for determining development potential generally, without engaging in any site-specific analysis.

Respondent contends that it need not engage in an analysis of the methodology of the development potential for each site. The Court disagrees. Section 8 65583.2(g)(l) states that, for nonvacant sites, "the city or county shall specify the additional development potential for each site within the planning period and shall provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential." Reading the subdivision as a whole, the City is required to provide an explanation of the methodology for each site in the sites inventory. Among the factors that the methodology must consider are "the current market demand for the existing use" and "an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development." (§ 65583.2(g)(l).) These factors necessarily relate to specific sites and cannot be discussed generally. Because the Legislature included these factors, the Legislature surely intended that the City provide "an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential" for each site.

Without a site-specific analysis, it is unclear how the methodology was applied. For example, as petitioner points out in the opening brief, the City purports to have excluded commercial buildings that contained medical uses and car dealerships from the sites inventory. (JR 210.) However, the sites inventory includes medical buildings and car dealerships. (See, e.g., JR 229-30 [153 S. Doheny Dr., 239 S. La Cienega Blvd., 8833 W. Olympic Blvd., 8845 W. Olympic Blvd., 9134 W.

Olympic Blvd.].) The City does not explain how the existing use does not serve as an impediment to residential development.

For the foregoing reasons, with respect to section 65583.2(g)(l), the housing element is deficient because the City did not provide an explanation of the · methodology used to determine the development potential for each site, including a discussion of the factors probative of likelihood of redevelopment set forth in section 65583.2(g)(l).

Further, the sites inventory shows that the City is meeting all of its share of the need for lower-income housing through nonvacant sites. Accordingly, section 65583.2(g)(2), quoted below, is implicated: •
In addition to the analysis required in paragraph (1), when a city or county is relying on nonvacant sites described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) to accommodate 50 percent or more of its housing need for lower income households, the methodology used to determine additional development potential shall demonstrate that the existing use identified pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element. An existing use shall be presumed to impede additional residential development, absent findings based on substantial evidence that the use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period.
(§ 65583.2(g)(2).)
• 9
For nonvacant sites, the "Field Notes/Existing Conditions & Analysis for Keeping/Removing" column in the sites inventory only indicates the existing use of the site and whether the site is designated for conversion or has conversion potential. (JR 229-34.) The City does not engage in any discussion of occupancy rates, lease terms, viability of the business operating at the sites. Nor does the City present any other discussion demonstrating that the existing use for each site "does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element."(§ 65583.2(g)(2).) Without any evidence concerning the existing use of each site, the existing use is presumed to impede additional residential development. (Ibid.)
Respondent maintains that Culver City and Gardena obtained HCD approval based on a chart similar to its sites inventory. However, unlike Beverly Hills, Gardena's sites inventory sets forth the existing use of each site and why the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period. (Reply RJN Ex. B; cf.

Chen Deel. Ex.Bat 71 [listing criteria used in selection of sites].) With respect to Culver City, the sites inventory does not set forth the reason why the existing use is likely to be discontinued. (Chen Deel. Ex. A at Appendix B.) However, elsewhere in the housing element, Culver City discusses sites that present opportunities for development based on positive responses from property owners and developers. (Chen Deel. Ex. A at B-9 to B-10.) Unlike Beverly Hills, Culver City discussed how the existing use at certain sites would not impede residential development. Beverly Hills did not engage in any site-specific analysis concerning how the existing use would not impede additional residential development.

Respondent contends that the Court of Appeal in Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 193 determined that no site-specific analysis concerning the methodology used to determine development potential and additional development factors is required. This is not quite accurate. In Martinez, the Court of Appeal found that section 65583.2(g)(l) "does not mandate the City 'specify the additional development potential for each [nonvacant] site within the planning period and ... provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential' in the housing element itself." (Martinez, 90 Cal.App.5th at 248-49, emphasis added.) While specification of the additional development potential for each site does not have to be part of the housing element, the City still must demonstrate the additional development potential for each site. In Martinez, for example, the City of Clovis provided evidence outside of the housing element to demonstrate the development potential of a nonvacant site. (Id. at 249-51.) Here, there is no analysis of the additional development potential for each site listed in the sites inventory in the housing element or elsewhere. Further, the housing element does not contain findings based on substantial evidence that the existing uses of nonvacant sites are likely to be discontinued, as required by section 65583.2(g)(2) .•
10 In sum, with respect to nonvacant sites, the housing element is deficient for the following reasons: (1) the City did not provide an explanation of the methodology used to determine the development potential for each site in the sites inventory, including a discussion of the factors probative of likelihood of redevelopment set forth in section 65583.2(g)(l); and (2) the City fails to demonstrate with substantial evidence that the existing use for each site in the sites inventory does not constitute an impediment to additional residential development during the period covered by the housing element.

C. Specific Sites
Petitioner also contends that certain sites were improperly included in the sites inventory. (OB at 15:6-17:1.) Petitioner maintains that the City did not make the findings based on substantial evidence that are required to rebut the presumption under section 65583.2(g)(2) that the existing use will impede additional residential development. (Reply at 4:13-14.)
However, in contending that additional residential development is not possible on certain sites, petitioner relies on extra-record evidence. For example, for 55 North La Cienega, the sites inventory indicates that the property will have 70 low-income units. (JR 229.) However, petitioner presents a Planning Commission Report and meeting minutes to assert that the City's Planning Commission approved development on the site with only 11 units of very low-income housing. (Gelfand Deel. Exs. C at 1, D at 3-4.)
"[W]here the scope of review of factual findings is substantial evidence, review limited to the administrative record is appropriate because extra-record evidence is irrelevant to whether the agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence." (Cinema West, LLC v. Baker (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 194, 208.) Petitioner cannot challenge the inclusion of sites in the inventory based on extra-record evidence.

Ironically, petitioner would have the Court consider the propriety of certain sites based on extra-record evidence, but then bar respondent from presenting extrarecord evidence to rebut petitioner's argument. (Reply at 4:18-5:13.) With respect to sites which petitioner contends are unlikely to disappear based on their existing use (OB at 16:21-17:2; JR 1557-58), the Court already finds that respondent did not make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use for each nonvacant site in the sites inventory is likely to be discontinued. The City must make such findings in revising the housing element. 11 VI. Conclusion
The petition is GRANTED. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.231(n), petitioner shall prepare, serve, and ultimately file a proposed judgment and proposed writ of mandate. •
Date: September 12, 2023 ,t:::_::_ HON. CURTIS A. KIN
12 Comment 3
From: RONALD BROWN
Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 2:04 PM
To: Distrib- City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Update to Park Impact Fee Programs and Nexus Study To the City Council:

I am writing on behalf of the Marin Organizing Committee, a coalition of 23 churches, synagogues and other non-profit institutions. MOC is a member of the Call Marin Home coalition, and is supporting Call Marin Home's position on park impact fees.

San Rafael is currently woefully behind on its Housing Element commitment to build affordable housing, and many projects are stalled in pre-construction phases.

Developers cite increased costs and delay in permitting as major factors stalling these projects. Increased fees will place a substantial additional burden on developers, stalling even more projects and making it more unlikely that the City will be able to meet its RHNA numbers.

We support delaying the implementation of new fees until the City is substantially in compliance with its RHNA goals and eliminating park fees for affordable housing.

Sincerely,
Ron Brown
San Rafael resident
Comment 4
From: hagertykm < >
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2026 4:06 PM
To: Mayor Kate <[email protected]>
Cc: < >
Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Park Fees on New Housing Development Dear Mayor Kate,
On behalf of the League of Women Voters of Marin County, I am writing to express our concerns regarding the proposed park impact fees on new housing developments currently under consideration by the City Council.

The League supports policies that encourage the development of much-needed housing in our community. We are concerned that the proposed fees could increase overall project costs, potentially affecting the financial feasibility of new housing developments. At a time when San Rafael and the region continue to face significant housing shortages, we believe it is important to carefully consider the cumulative impact of additional development fees on housing production.

We recognize the value of maintaining and enhancing our parks and recreational facilities. However, we encourage the Council to evaluate whether the proposed fee structure appropriately balances those objectives with the need to facilitate the construction of new housing, including affordable housing.

If it would be helpful, the League of Women Voters of Marin County would be pleased to have a representative attend the Council meeting and provide comments on this issue.

Thank you for considering our concerns and for your continued service to the residents of San Rafael.

Sincerely,
Kevin Hagerty
Board Member
League of Women Voters of Marin County
Comment 5

San Rafael City CouncilJune 15, 2026

San Rafael City Council
June 15, 2026