Cities Index.
Agenda packet

San Rafael City Council
July 20, 2026

Document
Agenda packet
Meeting
July 20, 2026
Body
San Rafael City Council
Pages
17
Original file
60.7 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on storage.googleapis.com. That file is the official record.

$250,000
Report Due Date(s)
Final Report: 7/31/2027 covering 6/1/2026 - 6/30/2027
Question(s):

1. Provide a summary of your progress towards grant objectives.

2. To what extent did activities supported by this grant advance projects toward implementation? This may include milestones such as feasibility assessments, project design to 30/60/90%, environmental review, permitting, critical stakeholder engagement, or other pre-construction steps.

Please describe specific progress achieved during the grant period as well as key/barriers or challenges.

3. Did work supported by this grant help secure or position your project to secure additional funding from public sources? Please describe any funding that has been secured, committed, or is currently being pursued, including dollar amounts and funding sources. What barriers, if any, have limited your ability to leverage additional resources?

4. Is there any additional information you would like to share to help MCF better understand your progress, challenges, or emerging opportunities? Payment Schedule
June 22, 2026: $250,000

Page 3 of 3 ends

____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting:

Disposition:

Agenda Item No: 2.n
Meeting Date: July 20, 2026

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Finance
Prepared by: Paul Navazio,
Interim City Manager
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: CITY INVESTMENT POLICY
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL INVESTMENT POLICY RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the investment policy as presented.

BACKGROUND:

Consistent with best practices in public investing, the City’s existing investment policy must be reviewed and updated, as needed, on an annual basis. The City’s Investment Policy was last presented to the City Council in June 2024.

This agenda item has been prepared to present proposed revisions to the City’s Investment Policy based on the review and recommendations from the Finance Director and the City’s investment advisor, Chandler Asset Management.

The California Government Code limits the types of investments open to local municipalities. The City’s investment priorities – in order - are safety, liquidity, and yield. The City pursues a fair market return on its investments after considering the security of the investment’s principal, cash flow requirements, and current investment portfolio structure.

ANALYSIS:

The last revisions to the City’s Investment Policy were made in June 2024. They included additions to the investment policy best practices, technical revisions, a revised portfolio performance benchmark, and the prohibition on “direct investments in issuers whose primary business revenue is derived from the exploration, extraction, and processing of fossil fuels.” A review of the City’s investment policy suggests that proposed revisions are warranted and can characterized as follows:

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
1) Authorized Securities and Transactions – one section is proposed to be updated (Prime Commercial Paper) and another section added (Shares of Beneficial Interest Issued by a Joint Powers Agency (JPA)) to be consistent with best practices and model investment policies. 2) Prohibited Investments – In the context of the City’s existing investment policy, prohibited investments are considered investment vehicles not specially listed as “Authorized Securities” or otherwise prohibited under applicable CA Government Code. Examples of prohibited securities include equities (stocks), futures, options, and securities that represent excessive risk as measured by applicable “ratings” criteria. 3) Technical Revisions – several sections of the policy are proposed to be updated to reflect changes in state law governing the investment of public funds. Among the recommendations contained in the draft update of the investment policy is the formal adoption of the prohibition of “the purchase of a security with a forward settlement date exceeding 45 days from the time of the investment is prohibited.” 4) Reporting – The policy is proposed to be updated to formalize the timeline for formally issuing the City’s Quarterly Treasurer’s Report (within 45 days of the end of the reporting period).

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact from accepting the policy as proposed.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends that the Council adopt the resolution approving the investment policy as presented.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution with Exhibit A to Resolution: Investment Policy

2. Redline edits to Investment Policy (2024 version)
1 RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TO

APPROVE THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL INVESTMENT POLICY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Rafael adopted an investment policy on June 17, 2024, pursuant to Resolution No. 15308 (the "Prior Investment Policy"); and
WHEREAS, the Council now deems it advisable to adopt a revised investment policy to better align with current financial objectives and regulatory requirements; and WHEREAS, this Resolution shall supersede and replace Resolution No. 15308, dated June 17, 2024, and any other previously adopted investment policies or resolutions relating to investment practices; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Rafael exercises its responsibility for the stewardship of the City’s public funds through adoption of policies and practices related to cash management and investments; and
WHEREAS, the investment policy is intended to provide a long-term strategy for prudent care of the City’s cash; and
WHEREAS, all funds are invested in accordance with the investment policy and applicable sections of the California Government Code; and WHEREAS, in order to remain current and consistent with applicable statutes and best practices, the City’s Investment Policy requires annual review and re-adoption; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the San Rafael City Council hereby adopts the updated Investment Policy that is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

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 Council of said City on Monday, the 20th day of July 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk

Page 1 ends

City of San Rafael Investment Policy
PROPOSED July 20, 2026
The City Council of the City of San Rafael (the City) has adopted this Investment Policy (the Policy) in order to establish the investment scope, objectives, delegation of authority, standards of prudence, reporting requirements, internal controls, eligible investments and transactions, diversification requirements, risk tolerance, and safekeeping and custodial procedures for the investment of the funds of the City. All such funds will be invested in accordance with this Policy and with applicable sections of the California Government Code.

This Policy was endorsed and adopted by the City Council on the approved date noted above.

It replaces any previous investment policy or investment procedures of the City.

SCOPE
It is intended that this Policy cover all short-term operating funds and investment activities of the City. These funds are accounted for in the annual audit report, and include:
• General Fund
• Special Revenue Funds
• Debt Service Funds
• Capital Projects Funds
• Enterprise Funds
• Internal Service Funds
• Fiduciary Funds
Additional funds that may be created from time to time shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this Policy.

All cash shall be pooled for investment purposes. The investment income derived from the pooled investment account shall be allocated to the contributing funds based upon the proportion of the respective average balances relative to the total pooled balance in the investment portfolio. Investment income shall be distributed to the individual funds not less than annually.

OBJECTIVES
The City’s funds shall be invested in compliance with all applicable City Municipal Codes, California State statutes, and Federal regulations, and in a manner designed to accomplish the following objectives, which are listed in priority order:

1. Preservation of capital and protection of investment principal.

2. Maintenance of sufficient liquidity to meet anticipated cash flows.

3. Attainment of a market value rate of return.

4. Diversification to avoid incurring unreasonable market risks.

City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
July 20, 2026

Page 2 ends

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
The management responsibility for the City’s investment program is delegated annually by the City Council to the Treasurer pursuant to California Government Code Section 53607.

The Treasurer may delegate the authority to conduct investment transactions and to manage the operation of the investment portfolio to other specifically authorized staff members. The Treasurer shall maintain a list of persons authorized to transact securities business for the City. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as expressly provided under the terms of this Policy.

The City Manager and the Treasurer jointly shall develop written administrative procedures and internal controls, consistent with this Policy, for the operation of the City's investment program. Such procedures shall be designed to prevent losses of public funds arising from fraud, employee error, misrepresentation by third parties, or imprudent actions by employees of the City.

The City may engage the support services of outside investment advisors in regard to its investment program, so long as it can be clearly demonstrated that these services produce a net financial advantage or necessary financial protection of the City's financial resources.

PRUDENCE
The standard of prudence to be used for managing the City's investments shall be California Government Code Section 53600.3, the prudent investor standard which states, “When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency.” The City's overall investment program shall be designed and managed with a degree of professionalism that is worthy of the public trust. The City recognizes that no investment is totally without risk and that the investment activities of the City are a matter of public record.

Accordingly, the City recognizes that occasional measured losses may be desirable in a diversified portfolio and shall be considered within the context of the overall portfolio's return, provided that adequate diversification has been implemented and that the sale of a security is in the best long-term interest of the City.

The Treasurer and authorized investment personnel acting in accordance with written procedures and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided that the deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion to the City Manager and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments.

ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
July 20, 2026

Page 3 ends

Elected officials and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program or that could impair or create the appearance of an impairment of their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Employees and investment officials shall disclose to the City Manager any business interests they have in financial institutions that conduct business with the City and they shall subordinate their personal investment transactions to those of the City. In addition, the City Manager and the Treasurer shall file a Statement of Economic Interests each year pursuant to California Government Code Section 87203 and regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission.

AUTHORIZED SECURITIES AND TRANSACTIONS
All investments and deposits of the City shall be made in accordance with California Government Code Sections 16429.1, 53600-53609 and 53630-53686, except that, pursuant to California Government Code Section 5903(e), proceeds of bonds and any moneys set aside or pledged to secure payment of the bonds may be invested in securities or obligations described in the ordinance, resolution, indenture, agreement, or other instrument providing for the issuance of the bonds. Within the investments permitted by the Code, the City seeks to further restrict eligible investments to the guidelines listed below. In the event a discrepancy is found between this policy and the Code, the more restrictive parameters will take precedence. In accordance with California Government Code listed above, the “Total Portfolio” includes all investments and deposits including funds in any money market accounts and governmental pools such as LAIF. Any percentage limitations are deemed to be calculated on the “Total Portfolio” and are measured based on the market value of the investment at the time of purchase. Minimum credit quality requirements apply at time of purchase.

The City has further restricted the eligible types of securities and transactions as follows:

1. United States Treasury bills, notes and bonds and other government obligations for which the full faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest with a final maturity not exceeding five years from the date of trade settlement.

There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that the City may invest in U.S.

Treasury obligations

2. Federal Agency securities or United States Government-Sponsored Enterprise obligations, participations, or other instruments, including those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or United States governmentsponsored enterprises with a final maturity not exceeding five years from the date of trade settlement. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be invested in any single Agency/GSE issuer. The maximum percent of agency callable securities in the portfolio will be 20%.

3. Mortgage and Asset-Backed Obligations: Any mortgage pass-through security, collateralized mortgage obligation, mortgage-backed or other pay-through bond, equipment lease-backed certificate, consumer receivable-pass-through certificate, or consumer receivable-backed bond from issuers not defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Authorized Securities and Transactions section of this policy, with a final maturity not exceeding five years from the date of trade settlement. Investments in mortgage and City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
July 20, 2026

Page 4 ends

asset-backed obligations shall be rated in a rating category of “AA” or the equivalent or better by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization (NRSRO).

Purchases of securities authorized by this section may not exceed 20% of the City’s total portfolio. No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single asset-backed or commercial mortgage security issuer.

4. Supranational Securities: United States dollar denominated, senior unsecured and unsubordinated obligations issued or unconditionally guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Corporation, or InterAmerican Development Bank, with a maximum maturity not exceeding five years from the date of trade settlement, and eligible for purchase and sale within the United States.

Investments in supranational securities shall be rated in a rating category of “AA” or the equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO and shall not exceed 30% of the City’s total portfolio. No more than 10% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer.

5. Medium-Term Notes issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or by depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States, with a final maturity not exceeding five years from the date of trade settlement, and rated in a rating category of “A” or the equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO. No more than 5% of the portfolio shall be invested in mediumterm notes of any one issuer, and the aggregate investment in medium-term notes shall not exceed 30% of the City’s total portfolio.

6. Negotiable Certificates of Deposits (CDs) issued by a nationally or state-chartered bank, a savings association or a federal association, a state or federal credit union, or by a federally licensed or state-licensed branch of a foreign bank rated at least A-1, or the equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO, or with long-term obligations rated in a rating category of “A” or the equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO, with maturities not exceeding five years from the date of trade settlement. Amounts up to the FDIC limit do not require any credit ratings. Amounts above the FDIC limit must follow the credit requirements listed above. In addition, the City may not invest in the CD of a state or federal credit union where any person with investment decision making authority at the City also serves on the board of directors, or any committee appointed by the board of directors, or the credit committee or the supervisory committee of the state or federal credit union issuing the negotiable certificates of deposit. No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in the CDs of any one issuer, and the aggregate investment in CDs shall not exceed 30% of the portfolio.

7. Non-negotiable Certificates of Deposit and savings deposits with a maturity not exceeding five years from the date of trade settlement, in FDIC insured state or nationally chartered banks or savings banks that qualify as a depository of public funds in the State of California as defined in California Government Code Section 53630.5. No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in the CDs of any one issuer, and the aggregate investment in CDs shall not exceed 20% of the portfolio.

Deposits in excess of the insured amount shall be secured pursuant to California Government Code Section 53651 and 53652. The City shall comply with and act to secure compliance with the security (collateralization) system specified in the Government Code Section 53649 and 56652.

City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
July 20, 2026

Page 5 ends

Deposits may be placed using a private sector entity that assists in the placement of deposits per section 53601.8 and 53635.8 in the Government Code. No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested through any one private sector entity that assists in the placement of such deposits and the aggregate investment in CDs shall not exceed 20% of the portfolio.

8. Municipal Securities including obligations of the State of California and any local agency within the State of California, including Special Assessment District Obligations issued by the City of San Rafael as Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds related to special assessment districts and special tax districts. Municipal securities shall be rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO. No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be in Municipal Securities. The maximum maturity shall not exceed five (5) years. Investment in Special Assessment District Obligations issued by the City of San Rafael as Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds requires the approval of the City Council and maturities may extend to 30 years from the date of trade settlement.

9. Municipal Securities (Registered Treasury Notes or Bonds) of any of the other 49 states in addition to California, including bonds payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by a state or by a department, board, agency, or authority of any of the other 49 states, in addition to California. The securities are rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO. No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be in Municipal Securities. The maximum maturity does not exceed five (5) years.

10. Prime Commercial Paper with a maturity not exceeding 397 days from the date of purchase with the highest ranking or of the highest letter and number rating as provided for by at least one NRSRO. The entity that issues the commercial paper shall meet all of the following conditions in either sub-paragraph A. or sub-paragraph B. below:

A. The entity shall (1) be organized and operating in the United States as a general corporation, (2) have total assets in excess of five $500,000,000 and (3) Have debt other than commercial paper, if any, that is rated “A” or higher by a NRSRO.

B. The entity shall (1) be organized within the United States as a special purpose corporation, trust, or limited liability company, (2) have program-wide credit enhancements, including, but not limited to, over collateralization, letters of credit or surety bond and (3) have commercial paper that is rated “A-1” or higher, or the equivalent, by a NRSRO.

No more than 5% of the City’s total portfolio, shall be invested in the commercial paper of any one issuer, and the aggregate investment in commercial paper shall not exceed 25% of the City’s total portfolio. Under a provision sunsetting on January 1, 2031, no more than 40% of the total portfolio may be invested in Commercial Paper if the City’s investment assets under management are $100,000,000 or more.

City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
July 20, 2026

Page 6 ends

11. Eligible Banker’s Acceptances issued by FDIC insured commercial banks, rated at least A-1 or the equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO with maturities not exceeding 180 days from the date of purchase. If issuers have senior debt outstanding, it shall be rated in a rating category of at least “A” or the equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO. No more than $2,000,000 shall be invested in banker’s acceptances of any one commercial bank, and the aggregate investment in banker’s acceptances shall not exceed 40% of the City’s total portfolio.

12. Repurchase Agreements with a final termination date not exceeding one year collateralized by U.S. Treasury obligations, Federal Agency securities, or Federal Instrumentality securities listed in items 1 or 2 above with the maturity of the collateral not exceeding five years. For the purpose of this section, the term collateral shall mean purchased securities under the terms of the City’s approved Master Repurchase Agreement. The purchased securities shall have a minimum market value including accrued interest of 102% of the dollar value of the funds borrowed. Collateral shall be held in the City's custodian bank, as safekeeping agent, and the market value of the collateral securities shall be marked-to-the-market daily.

Repurchase Agreements shall be entered into only with broker/dealers who are recognized as Primary Dealers by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or have a primary dealer within their holding company structure. Repurchase agreement counterparties shall execute a City approved Master Repurchase Agreement with the City.

The Treasurer shall maintain a copy of the City's approved Master Repurchase Agreement along with a list of the broker/dealers who have executed same.

13. State of California’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), pursuant to California Government Code Section 16429.1.

14. Money Market Funds registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 that (1) are “no-load” (meaning no commission or fee shall be charged on purchases or sales of shares); (2) have a constant daily net asset value per share of $1.00; (3) invest only in United States Treasury securities, United States Agency securities and Federal Instrumentality securities or repurchase agreements backed by the aforementioned and (4) have a rating equivalenting the highest letter and numerical rating by at least two NRSROs. The aggregate investment in money market funds shall not exceed 20% of the City’s total portfolio.

15. Collateralized Bank Deposits. City’s deposits with financial institutions will be collateralized with pledged securities per California Government Code, Section 53651. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that the City may invest in collateralized bank deposits.

16. Shares of Beneficial Interest Issued by a Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The JPA must be organized pursuant to California Government Code Section 6509.7 and invest in the securities and obligations authorized in subdivisions (a) to (r), inclusive of California Government Code Section 53601. Each share shall represent an equal proportional interest in the underlying pool of securities owned by the JPA. The JPA must have retained an investment advisor who is registered with the SEC (or exempt from registration), has assets under management in excess of $500 million, and has at least five years’ experience investing in instruments authorized by Section 53601, subdivisions (a) to (q).

City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
July 20, 2026

Page 7 ends

It is the intent of the City that the foregoing list of authorized securities and transactions is strictly interpreted.

PROHIBITED INVESTMENT VEHICLES AND PRACTICES
• State law notwithstanding, any investments not specifically described herein are prohibited, including, but not limited to futures and options. • In accordance with Government Code, Section 53601.6, investment in inverse floaters, range notes, or mortgage derived interest-only strips is prohibited. • Investment in any security that could result in a zero interest accrual if held to maturity is prohibited. Under a provision sunsetting on January 1, 2031, securities backed by the U.S. Government that could result in a zero- or negative-interest accrual if held to maturity are permitted.
• Trading securities for the sole purpose of speculating on the future direction of interest rates is prohibited.
• Purchasing or selling securities on margin is prohibited. • The use of reverse repurchase agreements, securities lending or any other form of borrowing or leverage is prohibited.
• The purchase of foreign currency denominated securities is prohibited. • Agencies that are not Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIB) as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission are prohibited from purchasing Private Placement Securities. The SEC defines a QIB as having at least $100,000,000 in securities owned and invested.
• Direct investments in issuers whose primary business revenue is derived from the exploration, extraction, and processing of fossil fuels. • The purchase of a security with a forward settlement date exceeding 45 days from the time of the investment is prohibited.

INVESTMENT POOLS/MUTUAL FUNDS
The City shall conduct a thorough investigation of any pool or mutual fund prior to making an investment, and on a continual basis thereafter. The Treasurer shall develop a questionnaire which will answer the following general questions:

City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
July 20, 2026

Page 8 ends

• A description of eligible investment securities, and a written statement of investment policy and objectives.
• A description of interest calculations and how it is distributed, and how gains and losses are treated.
• A description of how the securities are safeguarded (including the settlement processes), and how often the securities are priced and the program audited. • A description of who may invest in the program, how often, what size deposit and withdrawal are allowed.
• A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings. • Are reserves, retained earnings, etc. utilized by the pool/fund? • A fee schedule, and when and how is it assessed.
• Is the pool/fund eligible for bond proceeds and/or will it accept such proceeds?

PORTFOLIO MATURITIES AND LIQUIDITY
To the extent possible, investments shall be matched with anticipated cash flow requirements and known future liabilities. The City will not invest in securities maturing more than five years from the date of purchase, unless the City Council has by resolution granted authority to make such an investment at least three months prior to the date of investment.

MAXIMUM MATURITY
To the extent possible, investments shall be matched with anticipated cash flow requirements and known future liabilities.

The City will not invest in securities maturing more than five (5) years from the date of trade settlement, unless the City Council has granted authority to make such an investment either specifically or as a part of an investment program approved by the City Council no less than three months prior to the investment. Investment in Special Assessment District Obligations issued by the City of San Rafael as Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds requires the approval of the City Council and maturities may extend to 30 years from the date of trade settlement.

RISK MANAGEMENT AND DIVERSIFICATION
Mitigating Credit Risk in the Portfolio
Credit risk is the risk that a security or a portfolio will lose some or all its value due to a real or perceived change in the ability of the issuer to repay its debt. The City will mitigate credit risk by adopting the following strategies:

City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
July 20, 2026

Page 9 ends

• The diversification requirements included in the “Authorized Investments” section of this policy are designed to mitigate credit risk in the portfolio. • No more than 5% of the total portfolio may be deposited with or invested in securities issued by any single issuer unless otherwise specified in this policy. • The City may elect to sell a security prior to its maturity and record a capital gain or loss in order to manage the quality, liquidity or yield of the portfolio in response to market conditions or City’s risk preferences.
• If a security owned by the City is downgraded to a level below the requirements of this policy, making the security ineligible for additional purchases, the following steps will be taken:
• Any actions taken related to the downgrade by the investment manager will be communicated to the Treasurer in a timely manner.
• If a decision is made to retain the security, the credit situation will be monitored and reported to the City Council.

Mitigating Market Risk in the Portfolio
Market risk is the risk that the portfolio value will fluctuate due to changes in the general level of interest rates. The City recognizes that, over time, longer-term portfolios have the potential to achieve higher returns. On the other hand, longer-term portfolios have higher volatility of return. The City will mitigate market risk by providing adequate liquidity for short-term cash needs, and by making longer-term investments only with funds that are not needed for current cash flow purposes.

The City further recognizes that certain types of securities, including variable rate securities, securities with principal paydowns prior to maturity, and securities with embedded options, will affect the market risk profile of the portfolio differently in different interest rate environments. The City, therefore, adopts the following strategies to control and mitigate its exposure to market risk:
• The City will maintain a minimum of six months of budgeted operating expenditures in short term investments to provide sufficient liquidity for expected disbursements. • The maximum stated final maturity of individual securities in the portfolio will be five (5) years, except as otherwise stated in this policy.
• The duration of the portfolio will generally be approximately equal to the duration (typically, plus or minus 20%) of a Market Benchmark, an index selected by the City based on the City’s investment objectives, constraints and risk tolerances.

SELECTION OF BROKER/DEALERS
The Treasurer shall maintain a list of broker/dealers authorized for investment purposes, and it shall be the policy of the City to purchase securities only from those authorized firms. To City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
July 20, 2026

Page 10 ends

be eligible, a firm must be licensed by the State of California as a broker/dealer as defined in Section 25004 of the California Corporations Code, and:

1. be recognized as a Primary Dealer by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or have a primary dealer within its holding company structure, or

2. report voluntarily to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, or

3. qualify under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 15c3-1 (Uniform Net Capital Rule).

The City may engage the services of investment advisory firms to assist in the management of the portfolio and investment advisors may utilize their own list of approved Broker/Dealers.

Selection of broker/dealers used by an external investment adviser retained by the City will be at the sole discretion of the advisor and the list of approved firms shall be provided to the City on an annual basis or upon request.

In the event that an external investment advisor is not used in the process of recommending a particular transaction in the City’s portfolio, authorized broker/dealers shall attest in writing that they have received and reviewed a copy of this policy and annually update a City approved Broker/Dealer Information Request form which includes the firm's most recent financial statements. The Treasurer shall maintain a list of the broker/dealers that have been approved by the City, along with each firm's most recent broker/dealer Information Request form.

The City may purchase commercial paper from direct issuers even though they are not on the approved broker/dealer list as long as they meet the criteria outlined in Item 5 of the Authorized Securities and Transactions section of this Policy.

COLLATERALIZATION
Certificates of Deposit (CDs). The City shall require any commercial bank or savings and loan association to deposit eligible securities with a City of a depository approved by the State Banking Department to secure any uninsured portion of a Non-Negotiable Certificate of Deposit. The value of eligible securities as defined pursuant to California Government Code, Section 53651, pledged against a Certificate of Deposit shall be equal to 150% of the face value of the CD if the securities are classified as mortgages and 110% of the face value of the CD for all other classes of security.

Collateralization of Bank Deposits. This is the process by which a bank or financial institution pledges securities, or other deposits for the purpose of securing repayment of deposited funds. The City shall require any bank or financial institution to comply with the collateralization criteria defined in California Government Code, Section 53651.

Repurchase Agreements. The City requires that Repurchase Agreements be collateralized only by securities authorized in accordance with California Government Code:
• The securities which collateralize the repurchase agreement shall be priced at Market Value, including any Accrued Interest plus a margin. The Market Value of the City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
July 20, 2026

Page 11 ends

securities that collateralize a repurchase agreement shall be valued at 102% or greater of the funds borrowed against those securities. • Financial institutions shall mark the value of the collateral to market at least monthly and increase or decrease the collateral to satisfy the ratio requirement described above.
• The City shall receive monthly statements of collateral.

COMPETITIVE TRANSACTIONS
Where possible, each investment transaction shall be competitively transacted with authorized broker/dealers. At least three broker/dealers shall be contacted for each transaction and their bid and offering prices shall be recorded.

If the City is offered a security for which there is no other readily available competitive offering, the Treasurer will document quotations for comparable or alternative securities. . When purchasing original issue instrumentality securities, no competitive offerings will be required as all dealers in the selling group offer those securities at the same original issue price.

SELECTION OF BANKS
The Treasurer shall maintain a list of banks that are approved to provide banking services for the City. To be eligible for authorization, a bank must be a member of the FDIC and shall qualify as a depository of public funds in the State of California as defined in California Government Code Section 53630.5.

SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY
The Treasurer shall select one or more banks to provide safekeeping and custodial services for the City, in accordance with the provisions of Section 53608 of the California Government Code. A Safekeeping Agreement approved by the City shall be executed with each custodian bank prior to utilizing that bank's safekeeping services. Custodian banks will be selected on the basis of their ability to provide services for the City's account and the competitive pricing of their safekeeping related services.

The purchase and sale of securities and repurchase agreement transactions shall be settled on a delivery versus payment basis. All securities shall be perfected in the name of the City.

Sufficient evidence to title shall be consistent with modern investment, banking and commercial practices.

All investment securities purchased by the City will be delivered by book entry and will be held in third-party safekeeping by a City approved custodian bank, or its Depository Trust Company (DTC) participant account.

The City’s custodian shall be required to furnish the City a list of holdings on at least a monthly basis and safekeeping receipts or customer confirmations shall be issued for each transaction.

City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
July 20, 2026

Page 12 ends

PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE
The investment portfolio shall be designed to attain a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account prevailing market conditions, risk constraints for eligible securities, and cash flow requirements. The performance of the City’s investments shall be compared to the return of a similar duration readily available market benchmark.

REPORTING
On a quarterly basis, within 45 days after quarter end, the Treasurer shall submit to the Council a report of the investment earnings and performance results of the City’s investment portfolio. The report shall include the following information:

1. Investment type, issuer, date of purchase, purchase price, date of maturity, par value, current rate of interest and dollar amount invested in all securities, and investments and monies held by the City;

2. A description of the funds, investments and programs;

3. A market value as of the date of the report (or the most recent valuation as to assets not valued monthly) and the source of the valuation;

4. Overall portfolio yield based on historical cost;

5. Weighted average final maturity and weighted average effective maturity;

6. A statement of compliance with this Policy or an explanation for not-compliance;

7. A description of any of the City's funds, investments or programs that are under the management of contracted parties, including lending programs; and

8. A statement of the ability to meet expenditure requirements for six months, as well as an explanation of why money will not be available if that is the case.

The Treasurer shall submit to the Council a report of any changes affecting more than 15% of the investment portfolio within 30 days of such change.

POLICY REVIEW
This Investment Policy shall be reviewed and approved by City Council annually to ensure its consistency with the overall objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity, yield and diversification and its relevance to current law and economic trends. Any additional amendments to this Investment Policy shall be submitted to the City Council for approval.

City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
July 20, 2026

Page 13 ends

GLOSSARY OF INVESTMENT TERMS
AGENCIES. Shorthand market terminology for any obligation issued by a governmentsponsored entity (GSE), or a federally related institution. Most obligations of GSEs are not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Examples are:

FFCB. The Federal Farm Credit Bank System provides credit and liquidity in the agricultural industry. FFCB issues discount notes and bonds.

FHLB. The Federal Home Loan Bank provides credit and liquidity in the housing market. FHLB issues discount notes and bonds.

FHLMC. Like FHLB, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation provides credit and liquidity in the housing market. FHLMC, also called “FreddieMac” issues discount notes, bonds and mortgage pass-through securities.

FNMA. Like FHLB and FreddieMac, the Federal National Mortgage Association was established to provide credit and liquidity in the housing market. FNMA, also known as “FannieMae,” issues discount notes, bonds and mortgage pass-through securities.

GNMA. The Government National Mortgage Association, known as “GinnieMae,” issues mortgage pass-through securities, which are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US Government.

PEFCO. The Private Export Funding Corporation assists exporters. Obligations of PEFCO are not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government.

TVA. The Tennessee Valley Authority provides flood control and power and promotes development in portions of the Tennessee, Ohio, and Mississippi River valleys.

TVA currently issues discount notes and bonds.

ASKED. The price at which a seller offers to sell a security.

ASSET BACKED SECURITIES. Securities supported by pools of installment loans or leases or by pools of revolving lines of credit.

AVERAGE LIFE. In mortgage-related investments, including CMOs, the average time to expected receipt of principal payments, weighted by the amount of principal expected.

BANKER’S ACCEPTANCE. A money market instrument created to facilitate international trade transactions. It is highly liquid and safe because the risk of the trade transaction is transferred to the bank which “accepts” the obligation to pay the investor.

BENCHMARK. A comparison security or portfolio. A performance benchmark is a partial market index, which reflects the mix of securities allowed under a specific investment policy.

BID. The price at which a buyer offers to buy a security.

BROKER. A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a transaction for which the broker receives a commission. A broker does not sell securities from his own position.

CALLABLE. A callable security gives the issuer the option to call it from the investor prior to its maturity. The main cause of a call is a decline in interest rates. If interest rates decline since an issuer issues securities, it will likely call its current securities and reissue them at a lower rate of interest. Callable securities have reinvestment risk as the investor City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
July 20, 2026

Page 14 ends

may receive its principal back when interest rates are lower than when the investment was initially made.

CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT (CD). A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a certificate. Large denomination CDs may be marketable.

CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT ACCOUNT REGISTRY SYSTEM (CDARS). A private placement service that allows local agencies to purchase more than $250,000 in CDs from a single financial institution (must be a participating institution of CDARS) while still maintaining FDIC insurance coverage. CDARS is currently the only entity providing this service. CDARS facilitates the trading of deposits between the California institution and other participating institutions in amounts that are less than $250,000 each, so that FDIC coverage is maintained.

COLLATERAL. Securities or cash pledged by a borrower to secure repayment of a loan or repurchase agreement. Also, securities pledged by a financial institution to secure deposits of public monies.

COLLATERALIZED MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS (CMO). Classes of bonds that redistribute the cash flows of mortgage securities (and whole loans) to create securities that have different levels of prepayment risk, as compared to the underlying mortgage securities.

COMMERCIAL PAPER. The short-term unsecured debt of corporations.

COST YIELD. The annual income from an investment divided by the purchase cost. Because it does not give effect to premiums and discounts which may have been included in the purchase cost, it is an incomplete measure of return.

COUPON. The rate of return at which interest is paid on a bond.

CREDIT RISK. The risk that principal and/or interest on an investment will not be paid in a timely manner due to changes in the condition of the issuer.

CURRENT YIELD. The annual income from an investment divided by the current market value.

Since the mathematical calculation relies on the current market value rather than the investor’s cost, current yield is unrelated to the actual return the investor will earn if the security is held to maturity.

DEALER. A dealer acts as a principal in security transactions, selling securities from and buying securities for his own position.

DEBENTURE. A bond secured only by the general credit of the issuer.

DELIVERY VS. PAYMENT (DVP). A securities industry procedure whereby payment for a security must be made at the time the security is delivered to the purchaser’s agent.

DERIVATIVE. Any security that has principal and/or interest payments which are subject to uncertainty (but not for reasons of default or credit risk) as to timing and/or amount, or any security which represents a component of another security which has been separated from other components (“Stripped” coupons and principal). A derivative is also defined as a financial instrument the value of which is totally or partially derived from the value of another instrument, interest rate, or index.

DISCOUNT. The difference between the par value of a bond and the cost of the bond, when the cost is below par. Some short-term securities, such as T-bills and banker’s acceptances, are known as discount securities. They sell at a discount from par, and return the par value to the investor at maturity without additional interest. Other City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
July 20, 2026

Page 15 ends

securities, which have fixed coupons, trade at a discount when the coupon rate is lower than the current market rate for securities of that maturity and/or quality.

DIVERSIFICATION. Dividing investment funds among a variety of investments to avoid excessive exposure to any one source of risk.

DURATION. The weighted average time to maturity of a bond where the weights are the present values of the future cash flows. Duration measures the price sensitivity of a bond to changes in interest rates. (See modified duration).

FEDERAL FUNDS RATE. The rate of interest charged by banks for short-term loans to other banks. The Federal Reserve Bank through open-market operations establishes it.

FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE. A committee of the Federal Reserve Board that establishes monetary policy and executes it through temporary and permanent changes to the supply of bank reserves.

LEVERAGE. Borrowing funds in order to invest in securities that have the potential to pay earnings at a rate higher than the cost of borrowing.

LIQUIDITY. The speed and ease with which an asset can be converted to cash.

LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF). A voluntary investment fund open to government entities and certain non-profit organizations in California that is managed by the State Treasurer’s Office.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOL. Investment pools that range from the State Treasurer’s Office Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) to county pools, to Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs). These funds are not subject to the same SEC rules applicable to money market mutual funds.

MAKE WHOLE CALL. A type of call provision on a bond that allows the issuer to pay off the remaining debt early. Unlike a call option, with a make whole call provision, the issuer makes a lump sum payment that equals the net present value (NPV) of future coupon payments that will not be paid because of the call. With this type of call, an investor is compensated, or "made whole."
MARGIN. The difference between the market value of a security and the loan a broker makes using that security as collateral.

MARKET RISK. The risk that the value of securities will fluctuate with changes in overall market conditions or interest rates.

MARKET VALUE. The price at which a security can be traded.

MARKING TO MARKET. The process of posting current market values for securities in a portfolio.

MATURITY. The final date upon which the principal of a security becomes due and payable.

MEDIUM TERM NOTES. Unsecured, investment-grade senior debt securities of major corporations which are sold in relatively small amounts on either a continuous or an intermittent basis. MTNs are highly flexible debt instruments that can be structured to respond to market opportunities or to investor preferences.

MODIFIED DURATION. The percent change in price for a 100 basis point change in yields.

Modified duration is the best single measure of a portfolio’s or security’s exposure to market risk.

City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
July 20, 2026

Page 16 ends

MONEY MARKET. The market in which short-term debt instruments (T-bills, discount notes, commercial paper, and banker’s acceptances) are issued and traded.

MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH SECURITIES. A securitized participation in the interest and principal cash flows from a specified pool of mortgages. Principal and interest payments made on the mortgages are passed through to the holder of the security.

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES. Securities issued by state and local agencies to finance capital and operating expenses.

MUTUAL FUND. An entity which pools the funds of investors and invests those funds in a set of securities which is specifically defined in the fund’s prospectus. Mutual funds can be invested in various types of domestic and/or international stocks, bonds, and money market instruments, as set forth in the individual fund’s prospectus. For most large, institutional investors, the costs associated with investing in mutual funds are higher than the investor can obtain through an individually managed portfolio.

NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED STATISTICAL RATING ORGANIZATION (NRSRO).

A credit rating agency that the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States uses for regulatory purposes. Credit rating agencies provide assessments of an investment's risk. The issuers of investments, especially debt securities, pay credit rating agencies to provide them with ratings. The three most prominent NRSROs are Fitch, S&P, and Moody's.

NEGOTIABLE CD. A short-term debt instrument that pays interest and is issued by a bank, savings or federal association, state or federal credit union, or state-licensed branch of a foreign bank. Negotiable CDs are traded in a secondary market and are payable upon order to the bearer or initial depositor (investor).

PREMIUM. The difference between the par value of a bond and the cost of the bond, when the cost is above par.

PREPAYMENT SPEED. A measure of how quickly principal is repaid to investors in mortgage securities.

PREPAYMENT WINDOW. The time period over which principal repayments will be received on mortgage securities at a specified prepayment speed.

PRIMARY DEALER. A financial institution (1) that is a trading counterparty with the Federal Reserve in its execution of market operations to carry out U.S. monetary policy, and (2) that participates for statistical reporting purposes in compiling data on activity in the U.S. Government securities market.

PRUDENT PERSON (PRUDENT INVESTOR) RULE. A standard of responsibility which applies to fiduciaries. In California, the rule is stated as “Investments shall be managed with the care, skill, prudence and diligence, under the circumstances then prevailing, that a prudent person, acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters, would use in the conduct of an enterprise of like character and with like aims to accomplish similar purposes.”
REALIZED YIELD. The change in value of the portfolio due to interest received and interest earned and realized gains and losses. It does not give effect to changes in market value on securities, which have not been sold from the portfolio.

City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
July 20, 2026

Page 17 ends

REGIONAL DEALER. A financial intermediary that buys and sells securities for the benefit of its customers without maintaining substantial inventories of securities and that is not a primary dealer.

REPURCHASE AGREEMENT. Short-term purchases of securities with a simultaneous agreement to sell the securities back at a higher price. From the seller’s point of view, the same transaction is a reverse repurchase agreement.

SAFEKEEPING. A service to bank customers whereby securities are held by the bank in the customer’s name.

STRUCTURED NOTE. A complex, fixed income instrument, which pays interest, based on a formula tied to other interest rates, commodities or indices. Examples include inverse floating rate notes which have coupons that increase when other interest rates are falling, and which fall when other interest rates are rising, and "dual index floaters," which pay interest based on the relationship between two other interest rates - for example, the yield on the ten-year Treasury note minus the SOFR rate. Issuers of such notes lock in a reduced cost of borrowing by purchasing interest rate swap agreements.

SUPRANATIONAL. A Supranational is a multi-national organization whereby member states transcend national boundaries or interests to share in the decision making to promote economic development in the member countries.

TOTAL RATE OF RETURN. A measure of a portfolio’s performance over time. It is the internal rate of return, which equates the beginning value of the portfolio with the ending value; it includes interest earnings, realized and unrealized gains, and losses in the portfolio.

U.S. TREASURY OBLIGATIONS. Securities issued by the U.S. Treasury and backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Treasuries are considered to have no credit risk, and are the benchmark for interest rates on all other securities in the US and overseas.

The Treasury issues both discounted securities and fixed coupon notes and bonds.

TREASURY BILLS. All securities issued with initial maturities of one year or less are issued as discounted instruments, and are called Treasury bills. The Treasury currently issues three- and six-month T-bills at regular weekly auctions. It also issues “cash management” bills as needed to smooth out cash flows.

TREASURY NOTES. All securities issued with initial maturities of two to ten years are called Treasury notes, and pay interest semi-annually.

TREASURY BONDS. All securities issued with initial maturities greater than ten years are called Treasury bonds. Like Treasury notes, they pay interest semi-annually.

VOLATILITY. The rate at which security prices change with changes in general economic conditions or the general level of interest rates.

YIELD TO MATURITY. The annualized internal rate of return on an investment which equates the expected cash flows from the investment to its cost.

Page 1 ends

City of San Rafael Investment Policy
PROPOSED June 17, 2024 July 20, 2026
The City Council of the City of San Rafael (the City) has adopted this Investment Policy (the Policy) in order to establish the investment scope, objectives, delegation of authority, standards of prudence, reporting requirements, internal controls, eligible investments and transactions, diversification requirements, risk tolerance, and safekeeping and custodial procedures for the investment of the funds of the City. All such funds will be invested in accordance with this Policy and with applicable sections of the California Government Code.

This Policy was endorsed and adopted by the City Council on the approved date noted above.

It replaces any previous investment policy or investment procedures of the City.

SCOPE
It is intended that this Policy cover all short-term operating funds and investment activities of the City. These funds are accounted for in the annual audit report, and include:
• General Fund
• Special Revenue Funds
• Debt Service Funds
• Capital Projects Funds
• Enterprise Funds
• Internal Service Funds
• Fiduciary Funds
Additional funds that may be created from time to time shall be administered in accordance with the provisions of this Policy.

All cash shall be pooled for investment purposes. The investment income derived from the pooled investment account shall be allocated to the contributing funds based upon the proportion of the respective average balances relative to the total pooled balance in the investment portfolio. Investment income shall be distributed to the individual funds not less than annually.

OBJECTIVES
The City’s funds shall be invested in compliance with all applicable City Municipal Codes, California State statutes, and Federal regulations, and in a manner designed to accomplish the following objectives, which are listed in priority order:

1. Preservation of capital and protection of investment principal.

2. Maintenance of sufficient liquidity to meet anticipated cash flows.

3. Attainment of a market value rate of return.

4. Diversification to avoid incurring unreasonable market risks.

City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
June 17, 2024 July 20, 2026

Page 2 ends

DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
The management responsibility for the City’s investment program is delegated annually by the City Council to the Treasurer pursuant to California Government Code Section 53607.

The Treasurer may delegate the authority to conduct investment transactions and to manage the operation of the investment portfolio to other specifically authorized staff members. The Treasurer shall maintain a list of persons authorized to transact securities business for the City. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as expressly provided under the terms of this Policy.

The City Manager and the Treasurer jointly shall develop written administrative procedures and internal controls, consistent with this Policy, for the operation of the City's investment program. Such procedures shall be designed to prevent losses of public funds arising from fraud, employee error, misrepresentation by third parties, or imprudent actions by employees of the City.

The City may engage the support services of outside investment advisors in regard to its investment program, so long as it can be clearly demonstrated that these services produce a net financial advantage or necessary financial protection of the City's financial resources.

PRUDENCE
The standard of prudence to be used for managing the City's investments shall be California Government Code Section 53600.3, the prudent investor standard which states, “When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the agency, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the agency.” The City's overall investment program shall be designed and managed with a degree of professionalism that is worthy of the public trust. The City recognizes that no investment is totally without risk and that the investment activities of the City are a matter of public record.

Accordingly, the City recognizes that occasional measured losses may be desirable in a diversified portfolio and shall be considered within the context of the overall portfolio's return, provided that adequate diversification has been implemented and that the sale of a security is in the best long-term interest of the City.

The Treasurer and authorized investment personnel acting in accordance with written procedures and exercising due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for an individual security's credit risk or market price changes, provided that the deviations from expectations are reported in a timely fashion to the City Manager and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments.

City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
June 17, 2024 July 20, 2026

Page 3 ends

ETHICS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
Elected officials and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with proper execution of the investment program or that could impair or create the appearance of an impairment of their ability to make impartial investment decisions. Employees and investment officials shall disclose to the City Manager any business interests they have in financial institutions that conduct business with the City and they shall subordinate their personal investment transactions to those of the City. In addition, the City Manager and the Treasurer shall file a Statement of Economic Interests each year pursuant to California Government Code Section 87203 and regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission.

AUTHORIZED SECURITIES AND TRANSACTIONS
All investments and deposits of the City shall be made in accordance with California Government Code Sections 16429.1, 53600-53609 and 53630-53686, except that, pursuant to California Government Code Section 5903(e), proceeds of bonds and any moneys set aside or pledged to secure payment of the bonds may be invested in securities or obligations described in the ordinance, resolution, indenture, agreement, or other instrument providing for the issuance of the bonds. Within the investments permitted by the Code, the City seeks to further restrict eligible investments to the guidelines listed below. In the event a discrepancy is found between this policy and the Code, the more restrictive parameters will take precedence. In accordance with California Government Code listed above, the “Total Portfolio” includes all investments and deposits including funds in any money market accounts and governmental pools such as LAIF. Any percentage limitations are deemed to be calculated on the “Total Portfolio” and are measured based on the market value of the investment at the time of purchase. Minimum credit quality requirements apply at time of purchase.

The City has further restricted the eligible types of securities and transactions as follows:

1. United States Treasury bills, notes and bonds and other government obligations for which the full faith and credit of the United States are pledged for the payment of principal and interest with a final maturity not exceeding five years from the date of trade settlement.

There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that the City may invest in U.S.

Treasury obligations

2. Federal Agency securities or United States Government-Sponsored Enterprise obligations, participations, or other instruments, including those issued by or fully guaranteed as to principal and interest by federal agencies or United States governmentsponsored enterprises with a final maturity not exceeding five years from the date of trade settlement. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be invested in any single Agency/GSE issuer. The maximum percent of agency callable securities in the portfolio will be 20%.

3. Mortgage and Asset-Backed Obligations: Any mortgage pass-through security, collateralized mortgage obligation, mortgage-backed or other pay-through bond, equipment lease-backed certificate, consumer receivable-pass-through certificate, or consumer receivable-backed bond from issuers not defined in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
June 17, 2024 July 20, 2026

Page 4 ends

Authorized Securities and Transactions section of this policy, with a final maturity not exceeding five years from the date of trade settlement. Investments in mortgage and asset-backed obligations shall be be rated in a rating category of “AA” or the equivalent or better by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization (NRSRO).

Purchases of securities authorized by this section may not exceed 20% of the City’s total portfolio. No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single asset-backed or commercial mortgage security issuer.

4. Supranational Securities: United States dollar denominated, senior unsecured and unsubordinated obligations issued or unconditionally guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Corporation, or InterAmerican Development Bank, with a maximum maturity not exceeding five years from the date of trade settlement, and eligible for purchase and sale within the United States.

Investments in supranational securities shall be rated in a rating category of “AA” or the equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO and shall not exceed 30% of the City’s total portfolio. No more than 10% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer.

5. Medium-Term Notes issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or by depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States, with a final maturity not exceeding five years from the date of trade settlement, and rated in a rating category of “A” or the equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO. No more than 5% of the portfolio shall be invested in mediumterm notes of any one issuer, and the aggregate investment in medium-term notes shall not exceed 30% of the City’s total portfolio.

6. Negotiable Certificates of Deposits (CDs) issued by a nationally or state-chartered bank, a savings association or a federal association, a state or federal credit union, or by a federally licensed or state-licensed branch of a foreign bank rated at least A-1, or the equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO, or with long-term obligations rated in a rating category of “A” or the equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO, with maturities not exceeding five years from the date of trade settlement. Amounts up to the FDIC limit do not require any credit ratings. Amounts above the FDIC limit must follow the credit requirements listed above. In addition, the City may not invest in the CD of a state or federal credit union where any person with investment decision making authority at the City also serves on the board of directors, or any committee appointed by the board of directors, or the credit committee or the supervisory committee of the state or federal credit union issuing the negotiable certificates of deposit. No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in the CDs of any one issuer, and the aggregate investment in CDs shall not exceed 30% of the portfolio.

7. Non-negotiable Certificates of Deposit and savings deposits with a maturity not exceeding five years from the date of trade settlement, in FDIC insured state or nationally chartered banks or savings banks that qualify as a depository of public funds in the State of California as defined in California Government Code Section 53630.5. No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in the CDs of any one issuer, and the aggregate investment in CDs shall not exceed 20% of the portfolio.

Deposits in excess of the insured amount shall be secured pursuant to California Government Code Section 53651 and 53652. The City shall comply with and act to secure City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
June 17, 2024 July 20, 2026

Page 5 ends

compliance with the security (collateralization) system specified in the Government Code Section 53649 and 56652.

Deposits may be placed using a private sector entity that assists in the placement of deposits per section 53601.8 and 53635.8 in the Government Code. No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested through any one private sector entity that assists in the placement of such deposits and the aggregate investment in CDs shall not exceed 20% of the portfolio.

8. Municipal Securities including obligations of the State of California and any local agency within the State of California, including Special Assessment District Obligations issued by the City of San Rafael as Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds related to special assessment districts and special tax districts. Municipal securities shall be rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO. No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be in Municipal Securities. The maximum maturity shall not exceed five (5) years. Investment in Special Assessment District Obligations issued by the City of San Rafael as Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds requires the approval of the City Council and maturities may extend to 30 years from the date of trade settlement.

9. Municipal Securities (Registered Treasury Notes or Bonds) of any of the other 49 states in addition to California, including bonds payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue-producing property owned, controlled, or operated by a state or by a department, board, agency, or authority of any of the other 49 states, in addition to California. The securities are rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO. No more than 5% of the portfolio may be invested in any single issuer. No more than 30% of the portfolio may be in Municipal Securities. The maximum maturity does not exceed five (5) years.

10. Prime Commercial Paper with a maturity not exceeding 207 397 days from the date of purchase with the highest ranking or of the highest letter and number rating as provided for by at least one NRSRO. The entity that issues the commercial paper shall meet all of the following conditions in either sub-paragraph A. or sub-paragraph B. below:

A. The entity shall (1) be organized and operating in the United States as a general corporation, (2) have total assets in excess of five $500,000,000 and (3) Have debt other than commercial paper, if any, that is rated “A” or higher by a NRSRO.

B. The entity shall (1) be organized within the United States as a special purpose corporation, trust, or limited liability company, (2) have program-wide credit enhancements, including, but not limited to, over collateralization, letters of credit or surety bond and (3) have commercial paper that is rated “A-1” or higher, or the equivalent, by a NRSRO.

Purchases of eligible commercial paper may not represent more than 10% of the outstanding commercial paper of any single corporate issuer. No more than 5% of the City’s total portfolio, shall be invested in the commercial paper of any one issuer, and the aggregate investment in commercial paper shall not exceed 25% of the City’s total City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
June 17, 2024 July 20, 2026

Page 6 ends

portfolio. Under a provision sunsetting on January 1, 2031, no more than 40% of the total portfolio may be invested in Commercial Paper if the City’s investment assets under management are $100,000,000 or more.

11. Eligible Banker’s Acceptances issued by FDIC insured commercial banks, rated at least A-1 or the equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO with maturities not exceeding 180 days from the date of purchase. If issuers have senior debt outstanding, it shall be rated in a rating category of at least “A” or the equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO. No more than $2,000,000 shall be invested in banker’s acceptances of any one commercial bank, and the aggregate investment in banker’s acceptances shall not exceed 40% of the City’s total portfolio.

12. Repurchase Agreements with a final termination date not exceeding one year collateralized by U.S. Treasury obligations, Federal Agency securities, or Federal Instrumentality securities listed in items 1 or 2 above with the maturity of the collateral not exceeding five years. For the purpose of this section, the term collateral shall mean purchased securities under the terms of the City’s approved Master Repurchase Agreement. The purchased securities shall have a minimum market value including accrued interest of 102% of the dollar value of the funds borrowed. Collateral shall be held in the City's custodian bank, as safekeeping agent, and the market value of the collateral securities shall be marked-to-the-market daily.

Repurchase Agreements shall be entered into only with broker/dealers who are recognized as Primary Dealers by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or have a primary dealer within their holding company structure. Repurchase agreement counterparties shall execute a City approved Master Repurchase Agreement with the City.

The Treasurer shall maintain a copy of the City's approved Master Repurchase Agreement along with a list of the broker/dealers who have executed same.

13. State of California’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), pursuant to California Government Code Section 16429.1.

14. Money Market Funds registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 that (1) are “no-load” (meaning no commission or fee shall be charged on purchases or sales of shares); (2) have a constant daily net asset value per share of $1.00; (3) invest only in United States Treasury securities, United States Agency securities and Federal Instrumentality securities and or repurchase agreements backed by the aforementioned and (4) have a rating equivalenting the highest letter and numerical rating by at least two NRSROs. The aggregate investment in money market funds shall not exceed 20% of the City’s total portfolio.

15. Collateralized Bank Deposits. City’s deposits with financial institutions will be collateralized with pledged securities per California Government Code, Section 53651. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that the City may invest in collateralized bank deposits.

16. Shares of Beneficial Interest Issued by a Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The JPA must be organized pursuant to California Government Code Section 6509.7 and invest in the securities and obligations authorized in subdivisions (a) to (r), inclusive of California Government Code Section 53601. Each share shall represent an equal proportional City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
June 17, 2024 July 20, 2026

Page 7 ends

interest in the underlying pool of securities owned by the JPA. The JPA must have retained an investment advisor who is registered with the SEC (or exempt from registration), has assets under management in excess of $500 million, and has at least five years’ experience investing in instruments authorized by Section 53601, subdivisions (a) to (q).

It is the intent of the City that the foregoing list of authorized securities and transactions is strictly interpreted.

PROHIBITED INVESTMENT VEHICLES AND PRACTICES
• State law notwithstanding, any investments not specifically described herein are prohibited, including, but not limited to futures and options. • In accordance with Government Code, Section 53601.6, investment in inverse floaters, range notes, or mortgage derived interest-only strips is prohibited. • Investment in any security that could result in a zero interest accrual if held to maturity is prohibited. Under a provision sunsetting on January 1, 2026 2031, securities backed by the U.S. Government that could result in a zero- or negativeinterest accrual if held to maturity are permitted. • Trading securities for the sole purpose of speculating on the future direction of interest rates is prohibited.
• Purchasing or selling securities on margin is prohibited. • The use of reverse repurchase agreements, securities lending or any other form of borrowing or leverage is prohibited.
• The purchase of foreign currency denominated securities is prohibited. • Agencies that are not Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIB) as defined by the Securities and Exchange Commission are prohibited from purchasing Private Placement Securities. The SEC defines a QIB as having at least $100,000,000 in securities owned and invested.
• Direct investments in issuers whose primary business revenue is derived from the exploration, extraction, and processing of fossil fuels. • The purchase of a security with a forward settlement date exceeding 45 days from the time of the investment is prohibited.

INVESTMENT POOLS/MUTUAL FUNDS
The City shall conduct a thorough investigation of any pool or mutual fund prior to making an investment, and on a continual basis thereafter. The Treasurer shall develop a questionnaire which will answer the following general questions:

City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
June 17, 2024 July 20, 2026

Page 8 ends

• A description of eligible investment securities, and a written statement of investment policy and objectives.
• A description of interest calculations and how it is distributed, and how gains and losses are treated.
• A description of how the securities are safeguarded (including the settlement processes), and how often the securities are priced and the program audited. • A description of who may invest in the program, how often, what size deposit and withdrawal are allowed.
• A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings. • Are reserves, retained earnings, etc. utilized by the pool/fund? • A fee schedule, and when and how is it assessed.
• Is the pool/fund eligible for bond proceeds and/or will it accept such proceeds?

PORTFOLIO MATURITIES AND LIQUIDITY
To the extent possible, investments shall be matched with anticipated cash flow requirements and known future liabilities. The City will not invest in securities maturing more than five years from the date of purchase, unless the City Council has by resolution granted authority to make such an investment at least three months prior to the date of investment.

MAXIMUM MATURITY
To the extent possible, investments shall be matched with anticipated cash flow requirements and known future liabilities.

The City will not invest in securities maturing more than five (5) years from the date of trade settlement, unless the City Council has granted authority to make such an investment either specifically or as a part of an investment program approved by the City Council no less than three months prior to the investment. Investment in Special Assessment District Obligations issued by the City of San Rafael as Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds requires the approval of the City Council and maturities may extend to 30 years from the date of trade settlement.

RISK MANAGEMENT AND DIVERSIFICATION
Mitigating Credit Risk in the Portfolio
Credit risk is the risk that a security or a portfolio will lose some or all its value due to a real or perceived change in the ability of the issuer to repay its debt. The City will mitigate credit risk by adopting the following strategies:

City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
June 17, 2024 July 20, 2026

Page 9 ends

• The diversification requirements included in the “Authorized Investments” section of this policy are designed to mitigate credit risk in the portfolio. • No more than 5% of the total portfolio may be deposited with or invested in securities issued by any single issuer unless otherwise specified in this policy. • The City may elect to sell a security prior to its maturity and record a capital gain or loss in order to manage the quality, liquidity or yield of the portfolio in response to market conditions or City’s risk preferences.
• If a security owned by the City is downgraded to a level below the requirements of this policy, making the security ineligible for additional purchases, the following steps will be taken:
• Any actions taken related to the downgrade by the investment manager will be communicated to the Treasurer in a timely manner.
• If a decision is made to retain the security, the credit situation will be monitored and reported to the City Council.

Mitigating Market Risk in the Portfolio
Market risk is the risk that the portfolio value will fluctuate due to changes in the general level of interest rates. The City recognizes that, over time, longer-term portfolios have the potential to achieve higher returns. On the other hand, longer-term portfolios have higher volatility of return. The City will mitigate market risk by providing adequate liquidity for short-term cash needs, and by making longer-term investments only with funds that are not needed for current cash flow purposes.

The City further recognizes that certain types of securities, including variable rate securities, securities with principal paydowns prior to maturity, and securities with embedded options, will affect the market risk profile of the portfolio differently in different interest rate environments. The City, therefore, adopts the following strategies to control and mitigate its exposure to market risk:
• The City will maintain a minimum of six months of budgeted operating expenditures in short term investments to provide sufficient liquidity for expected disbursements. • The maximum stated final maturity of individual securities in the portfolio will be five (5) years, except as otherwise stated in this policy.
• The duration of the portfolio will generally be approximately equal to the duration (typically, plus or minus 20%) of a Market Benchmark, an index selected by the City based on the City’s investment objectives, constraints and risk tolerances.

SELECTION OF BROKER/DEALERS
The Treasurer shall maintain a list of broker/dealers authorized for investment purposes, and it shall be the policy of the City to purchase securities only from those authorized firms. To City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
June 17, 2024 July 20, 2026

Page 10 ends

be eligible, a firm must be licensed by the State of California as a broker/dealer as defined in Section 25004 of the California Corporations Code, and:

1. be recognized as a Primary Dealer by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or have a primary dealer within its holding company structure, or

2. report voluntarily to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, or

3. qualify under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 15c3-1 (Uniform Net Capital Rule).

The City may engage the services of investment advisory firms to assist in the management of the portfolio and investment advisors may utilize their own list of approved Broker/Dealers.

Selection of broker/dealers used by an external investment adviser retained by the City will be at the sole discretion of the advisor and the list of approved firms shall be provided to the City on an annual basis or upon request.

In the event that an external investment advisor is not used in the process of recommending a particular transaction in the City’s portfolio, authorized broker/dealers shall attest in writing that they have received and reviewed a copy of this policy and annually update a City approved Broker/Dealer Information Request form which includes the firm's most recent financial statements. The Treasurer shall maintain a list of the broker/dealers that have been approved by the City, along with each firm's most recent broker/dealer Information Request form.

The City may purchase commercial paper from direct issuers even though they are not on the approved broker/dealer list as long as they meet the criteria outlined in Item 5 of the Authorized Securities and Transactions section of this Policy.

COLLATERALIZATION
Certificates of Deposit (CDs). The City shall require any commercial bank or savings and loan association to deposit eligible securities with a City of a depository approved by the State Banking Department to secure any uninsured portion of a Non-Negotiable Certificate of Deposit. The value of eligible securities as defined pursuant to California Government Code, Section 53651, pledged against a Certificate of Deposit shall be equal to 150% of the face value of the CD if the securities are classified as mortgages and 110% of the face value of the CD for all other classes of security.

Collateralization of Bank Deposits. This is the process by which a bank or financial institution pledges securities, or other deposits for the purpose of securing repayment of deposited funds. The City shall require any bank or financial institution to comply with the collateralization criteria defined in California Government Code, Section 53651.

Repurchase Agreements. The City requires that Repurchase Agreements be collateralized only by securities authorized in accordance with California Government Code:
• The securities which collateralize the repurchase agreement shall be priced at Market Value, including any Accrued Interest plus a margin. The Market Value of the City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
June 17, 2024 July 20, 2026

Page 11 ends

securities that collateralize a repurchase agreement shall be valued at 102% or greater of the funds borrowed against those securities. • Financial institutions shall mark the value of the collateral to market at least monthly and increase or decrease the collateral to satisfy the ratio requirement described above.
• The City shall receive monthly statements of collateral.

COMPETITIVE TRANSACTIONS
Where possible, each investment transaction shall be competitively transacted with authorized broker/dealers. At least three broker/dealers shall be contacted for each transaction and their bid and offering prices shall be recorded.

If the City is offered a security for which there is no other readily available competitive offering, the Treasurer will document quotations for comparable or alternative securities. . When purchasing original issue instrumentality securities, no competitive offerings will be required as all dealers in the selling group offer those securities at the same original issue price.

SELECTION OF BANKS
The Treasurer shall maintain a list of banks that are approved to provide banking services for the City. To be eligible for authorization, a bank must be a member of the FDIC and shall qualify as a depository of public funds in the State of California as defined in California Government Code Section 53630.5.

SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY
The Treasurer shall select one or more banks to provide safekeeping and custodial services for the City, in accordance with the provisions of Section 53608 of the California Government Code. A Safekeeping Agreement approved by the City shall be executed with each custodian bank prior to utilizing that bank's safekeeping services. Custodian banks will be selected on the basis of their ability to provide services for the City's account and the competitive pricing of their safekeeping related services.

The purchase and sale of securities and repurchase agreement transactions shall be settled on a delivery versus payment basis. All securities shall be perfected in the name of the City.

Sufficient evidence to title shall be consistent with modern investment, banking and commercial practices.

All investment securities purchased by the City will be delivered by book entry and will be held in third-party safekeeping by a City approved custodian bank, or its Depository Trust Company (DTC) participant account.

The City’s custodian shall be required to furnish the City a list of holdings on at least a monthly basis and safekeeping receipts or customer confirmations shall be issued for each transaction.

City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
June 17, 2024 July 20, 2026

Page 12 ends

PORTFOLIO PERFORMANCE
The investment portfolio shall be designed to attain a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, taking into account prevailing market conditions, risk constraints for eligible securities, and cash flow requirements. The performance of the City’s investments shall be compared to the return of a similar duration readily available market benchmark.

REPORTING
On a quarterly basis, within 45 days after quarter end, the Treasurer shall submit to the Council a report of the investment earnings and performance results of the City’s investment portfolio. The report shall include the following information:

1. Investment type, issuer, date of purchase, purchase price, date of maturity, par value, current rate of interest and dollar amount invested in all securities, and investments and monies held by the City;

2. A description of the funds, investments and programs;

3. A market value as of the date of the report (or the most recent valuation as to assets not valued monthly) and the source of the valuation;

4. Overall portfolio yield based on historical cost;

5. Weighted average final maturity and weighted average effective maturity;

6. A statement of compliance with this Policy or an explanation for not-compliance;

7. A description of any of the City's funds, investments or programs that are under the management of contracted parties, including lending programs; and

8. A statement of the ability to meet expenditure requirements for six months, as well as an explanation of why money will not be available if that is the case.

The Treasurer shall submit to the Council a report of any changes affecting more than 15% of the investment portfolio within 30 days of such change.

POLICY REVIEW
This Investment Policy shall be reviewed and approved by City Council annually to ensure its consistency with the overall objectives of preservation of principal, liquidity, yield and diversification and its relevance to current law and economic trends. Any additional amendments to this Investment Policy shall be submitted to the City Council for approval.

City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
June 17, 2024 July 20, 2026

Page 13 ends

GLOSSARY OF INVESTMENT TERMS
AGENCIES. Shorthand market terminology for any obligation issued by a governmentsponsored entity (GSE), or a federally related institution. Most obligations of GSEs are not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Examples are:

FFCB. The Federal Farm Credit Bank System provides credit and liquidity in the agricultural industry. FFCB issues discount notes and bonds.

FHLB. The Federal Home Loan Bank provides credit and liquidity in the housing market. FHLB issues discount notes and bonds.

FHLMC. Like FHLB, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation provides credit and liquidity in the housing market. FHLMC, also called “FreddieMac” issues discount notes, bonds and mortgage pass-through securities.

FNMA. Like FHLB and FreddieMac, the Federal National Mortgage Association was established to provide credit and liquidity in the housing market. FNMA, also known as “FannieMae,” issues discount notes, bonds and mortgage pass-through securities.

GNMA. The Government National Mortgage Association, known as “GinnieMae,” issues mortgage pass-through securities, which are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US Government.

PEFCO. The Private Export Funding Corporation assists exporters. Obligations of PEFCO are not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government.

TVA. The Tennessee Valley Authority provides flood control and power and promotes development in portions of the Tennessee, Ohio, and Mississippi River valleys.

TVA currently issues discount notes and bonds.

ASKED. The price at which a seller offers to sell a security.

ASSET BACKED SECURITIES. Securities supported by pools of installment loans or leases or by pools of revolving lines of credit.

AVERAGE LIFE. In mortgage-related investments, including CMOs, the average time to expected receipt of principal payments, weighted by the amount of principal expected.

BANKER’S ACCEPTANCE. A money market instrument created to facilitate international trade transactions. It is highly liquid and safe because the risk of the trade transaction is transferred to the bank which “accepts” the obligation to pay the investor.

BENCHMARK. A comparison security or portfolio. A performance benchmark is a partial market index, which reflects the mix of securities allowed under a specific investment policy.

BID. The price at which a buyer offers to buy a security.

BROKER. A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a transaction for which the broker receives a commission. A broker does not sell securities from his own position.

CALLABLE. A callable security gives the issuer the option to call it from the investor prior to its maturity. The main cause of a call is a decline in interest rates. If interest rates decline since an issuer issues securities, it will likely call its current securities and reissue them at a lower rate of interest. Callable securities have reinvestment risk as the investor City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
June 17, 2024 July 20, 2026

Page 14 ends

may receive its principal back when interest rates are lower than when the investment was initially made.

CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT (CD). A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a certificate. Large denomination CDs may be marketable.

CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT ACCOUNT REGISTRY SYSTEM (CDARS). A private placement service that allows local agencies to purchase more than $250,000 in CDs from a single financial institution (must be a participating institution of CDARS) while still maintaining FDIC insurance coverage. CDARS is currently the only entity providing this service. CDARS facilitates the trading of deposits between the California institution and other participating institutions in amounts that are less than $250,000 each, so that FDIC coverage is maintained.

COLLATERAL. Securities or cash pledged by a borrower to secure repayment of a loan or repurchase agreement. Also, securities pledged by a financial institution to secure deposits of public monies.

COLLATERALIZED MORTGAGE OBLIGATIONS (CMO). Classes of bonds that redistribute the cash flows of mortgage securities (and whole loans) to create securities that have different levels of prepayment risk, as compared to the underlying mortgage securities.

COMMERCIAL PAPER. The short-term unsecured debt of corporations.

COST YIELD. The annual income from an investment divided by the purchase cost. Because it does not give effect to premiums and discounts which may have been included in the purchase cost, it is an incomplete measure of return.

COUPON. The rate of return at which interest is paid on a bond.

CREDIT RISK. The risk that principal and/or interest on an investment will not be paid in a timely manner due to changes in the condition of the issuer.

CURRENT YIELD. The annual income from an investment divided by the current market value.

Since the mathematical calculation relies on the current market value rather than the investor’s cost, current yield is unrelated to the actual return the investor will earn if the security is held to maturity.

DEALER. A dealer acts as a principal in security transactions, selling securities from and buying securities for his own position.

DEBENTURE. A bond secured only by the general credit of the issuer.

DELIVERY VS. PAYMENT (DVP). A securities industry procedure whereby payment for a security must be made at the time the security is delivered to the purchaser’s agent.

DERIVATIVE. Any security that has principal and/or interest payments which are subject to uncertainty (but not for reasons of default or credit risk) as to timing and/or amount, or any security which represents a component of another security which has been separated from other components (“Stripped” coupons and principal). A derivative is also defined as a financial instrument the value of which is totally or partially derived from the value of another instrument, interest rate, or index.

DISCOUNT. The difference between the par value of a bond and the cost of the bond, when the cost is below par. Some short-term securities, such as T-bills and banker’s acceptances, are known as discount securities. They sell at a discount from par, and return the par value to the investor at maturity without additional interest. Other City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
June 17, 2024 July 20, 2026

Page 15 ends

securities, which have fixed coupons, trade at a discount when the coupon rate is lower than the current market rate for securities of that maturity and/or quality.

DIVERSIFICATION. Dividing investment funds among a variety of investments to avoid excessive exposure to any one source of risk.

DURATION. The weighted average time to maturity of a bond where the weights are the present values of the future cash flows. Duration measures the price sensitivity of a bond to changes in interest rates. (See modified duration).

FEDERAL FUNDS RATE. The rate of interest charged by banks for short-term loans to other banks. The Federal Reserve Bank through open-market operations establishes it.

FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE. A committee of the Federal Reserve Board that establishes monetary policy and executes it through temporary and permanent changes to the supply of bank reserves.

LEVERAGE. Borrowing funds in order to invest in securities that have the potential to pay earnings at a rate higher than the cost of borrowing.

LIQUIDITY. The speed and ease with which an asset can be converted to cash.

LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF). A voluntary investment fund open to government entities and certain non-profit organizations in California that is managed by the State Treasurer’s Office.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOL. Investment pools that range from the State Treasurer’s Office Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) to county pools, to Joint Powers Authorities (JPAs). These funds are not subject to the same SEC rules applicable to money market mutual funds.

MAKE WHOLE CALL. A type of call provision on a bond that allows the issuer to pay off the remaining debt early. Unlike a call option, with a make whole call provision, the issuer makes a lump sum payment that equals the net present value (NPV) of future coupon payments that will not be paid because of the call. With this type of call, an investor is compensated, or "made whole."
MARGIN. The difference between the market value of a security and the loan a broker makes using that security as collateral.

MARKET RISK. The risk that the value of securities will fluctuate with changes in overall market conditions or interest rates.

MARKET VALUE. The price at which a security can be traded.

MARKING TO MARKET. The process of posting current market values for securities in a portfolio.

MATURITY. The final date upon which the principal of a security becomes due and payable.

MEDIUM TERM NOTES. Unsecured, investment-grade senior debt securities of major corporations which are sold in relatively small amounts on either a continuous or an intermittent basis. MTNs are highly flexible debt instruments that can be structured to respond to market opportunities or to investor preferences.

MODIFIED DURATION. The percent change in price for a 100 basis point change in yields.

Modified duration is the best single measure of a portfolio’s or security’s exposure to market risk.

City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
June 17, 2024 July 20, 2026

Page 16 ends

MONEY MARKET. The market in which short-term debt instruments (T-bills, discount notes, commercial paper, and banker’s acceptances) are issued and traded.

MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH SECURITIES. A securitized participation in the interest and principal cash flows from a specified pool of mortgages. Principal and interest payments made on the mortgages are passed through to the holder of the security.

MUNICIPAL SECURITIES. Securities issued by state and local agencies to finance capital and operating expenses.

MUTUAL FUND. An entity which pools the funds of investors and invests those funds in a set of securities which is specifically defined in the fund’s prospectus. Mutual funds can be invested in various types of domestic and/or international stocks, bonds, and money market instruments, as set forth in the individual fund’s prospectus. For most large, institutional investors, the costs associated with investing in mutual funds are higher than the investor can obtain through an individually managed portfolio.

NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED STATISTICAL RATING ORGANIZATION (NRSRO).

A credit rating agency that the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States uses for regulatory purposes. Credit rating agencies provide assessments of an investment's risk. The issuers of investments, especially debt securities, pay credit rating agencies to provide them with ratings. The three most prominent NRSROs are Fitch, S&P, and Moody's.

NEGOTIABLE CD. A short-term debt instrument that pays interest and is issued by a bank, savings or federal association, state or federal credit union, or state-licensed branch of a foreign bank. Negotiable CDs are traded in a secondary market and are payable upon order to the bearer or initial depositor (investor).

PREMIUM. The difference between the par value of a bond and the cost of the bond, when the cost is above par.

PREPAYMENT SPEED. A measure of how quickly principal is repaid to investors in mortgage securities.

PREPAYMENT WINDOW. The time period over which principal repayments will be received on mortgage securities at a specified prepayment speed.

PRIMARY DEALER. A financial institution (1) that is a trading counterparty with the Federal Reserve in its execution of market operations to carry out U.S. monetary policy, and (2) that participates for statistical reporting purposes in compiling data on activity in the U.S. Government securities market.

PRUDENT PERSON (PRUDENT INVESTOR) RULE. A standard of responsibility which applies to fiduciaries. In California, the rule is stated as “Investments shall be managed with the care, skill, prudence and diligence, under the circumstances then prevailing, that a prudent person, acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters, would use in the conduct of an enterprise of like character and with like aims to accomplish similar purposes.”
REALIZED YIELD. The change in value of the portfolio due to interest received and interest earned and realized gains and losses. It does not give effect to changes in market value on securities, which have not been sold from the portfolio.

City of San Rafael
Investment Policy
June 17, 2024 July 20, 2026

Page 17 ends

REGIONAL DEALER. A financial intermediary that buys and sells securities for the benefit of its customers without maintaining substantial inventories of securities and that is not a primary dealer.

REPURCHASE AGREEMENT. Short-term purchases of securities with a simultaneous agreement to sell the securities back at a higher price. From the seller’s point of view, the same transaction is a reverse repurchase agreement.

SAFEKEEPING. A service to bank customers whereby securities are held by the bank in the customer’s name.

STRUCTURED NOTE. A complex, fixed income instrument, which pays interest, based on a formula tied to other interest rates, commodities or indices. Examples include inverse floating rate notes which have coupons that increase when other interest rates are falling, and which fall when other interest rates are rising, and "dual index floaters," which pay interest based on the relationship between two other interest rates - for example, the yield on the ten-year Treasury note minus the SOFR rate. Issuers of such notes lock in a reduced cost of borrowing by purchasing interest rate swap agreements.

SUPRANATIONAL. A Supranational is a multi-national organization whereby member states transcend national boundaries or interests to share in the decision making to promote economic development in the member countries.

TOTAL RATE OF RETURN. A measure of a portfolio’s performance over time. It is the internal rate of return, which equates the beginning value of the portfolio with the ending value; it includes interest earnings, realized and unrealized gains, and losses in the portfolio.

U.S. TREASURY OBLIGATIONS. Securities issued by the U.S. Treasury and backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Treasuries are considered to have no credit risk, and are the benchmark for interest rates on all other securities in the US and overseas.

The Treasury issues both discounted securities and fixed coupon notes and bonds.

TREASURY BILLS. All securities issued with initial maturities of one year or less are issued as discounted instruments, and are called Treasury bills. The Treasury currently issues three- and six-month T-bills at regular weekly auctions. It also issues “cash management” bills as needed to smooth out cash flows.

TREASURY NOTES. All securities issued with initial maturities of two to ten years are called Treasury notes, and pay interest semi-annually.

TREASURY BONDS. All securities issued with initial maturities greater than ten years are called Treasury bonds. Like Treasury notes, they pay interest semi-annually.

VOLATILITY. The rate at which security prices change with changes in general economic conditions or the general level of interest rates.

YIELD TO MATURITY. The annualized internal rate of return on an investment which equates the expected cash flows from the investment to its cost. ____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting:

Disposition:

Agenda Item No: 2.o
Meeting Date: July 20, 2026

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Fire Department
Prepared by: Justin Barrow, Fire Captain
Jason Hatfield, Battalion Chief
Thomas Wong, Sr. Management
Analyst II
City Manager Approval: _______
TOPIC: FIREBOAT PURCHASE
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE ONE FIREBOAT WITH METALCRAFT MARINE INC. FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $1,481,419; AND AUTHORIZING SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS OF $1,054,988 WITHIN THE FIRE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND (FUND 625) SUPPORTED BY

A FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $904,988 AND SALE OF THE EXISTING FIREBOAT FOR A TOTAL PROJECT COST NOT-TO-EXCEED $1,495,000
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract to purchase one fireboat with MetalCraft Marine Inc. for the Fire Department for a not-to-exceed amount of $1,481,419 and authorize supplemental budget appropriations of $1,054,988 within the Fire Equipment Replacement Fund (Fund 625) supported by a Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) grant in the amount of $904,988 and the sale of the existing fireboat for a total project cost not-to-exceed $1,495,000.

BACKGROUND:

The San Rafael Fire Department operates a single fireboat, Fireboat San Rafael (FBSR), located at the Loch Lomond Marina. Fireboat San Rafael is a 2004 MetalCraft Marine Firestorm 30 specifically designed and constructed for municipal firefighting, rescue, and emergency response operations in the unique shallow-water environment of San Francisco Bay and the surrounding waterways. The vessel measures 33 feet 5 inches in overall length with a 10-foot 6-inch beam and a shallow operating draft of approximately 18 inches, allowing it to safely access marinas, waterfront infrastructure, tidal sloughs, mudflats, and other areas inaccessible to larger fireboats. The vessel's lightweight aluminum construction and approximately 11,700-pound displacement provide excellent maneuverability while maintaining the durability required for emergency operations.

The Fireboat San Rafael serves as a multi-mission public safety platform capable of supporting marine firefighting, search and rescue, medical emergencies, law enforcement assistance, hazardous materials response, and disaster operations throughout Marin County and the greater San Francisco Bay region.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
Its shallow draft enables operations in areas where water depths may be less than three feet, significantly expanding emergency response capabilities along the City's extensive waterfront and environmentally sensitive shoreline. The vessel's purpose-built design, combined with its stability, maneuverability, and rapid response capability, makes it a critical asset for protecting life, property, and natural resources while supporting mutual aid responses throughout the region.

FBSR and the Fire Department’s Marine Division provide fire suppression, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), Hazmat mitigation, public education, and disaster response services not only to San Rafael but also to areas within the San Francisco Bay, in coordination with the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and other local partners. Within the last year, FBSR has assisted with a structure fire off the San Rafael Canal, as well as operated in Vallejo, supporting a warehouse fire. FBSR has also recorded numerous water rescues and assisted USCG in search and rescue operations in the Bay.

FBSR was constructed in 2004, purchased used from the Southern Marin Fire Department in 2020, and is now 22 years old. Due to the current age of FBSR, the Fire Department has typically spent $15,000- 20,000 annually on boat maintenance. This is a significantly higher maintenance cost than a newer boat.

Recognizing the current age of FBSR and increased maintenance costs, in June 2024, the Fire Department submitted a FEMA Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) grant for the replacement of FBSR.

In September 2024, the City was awarded a PSGP grant of $904,988 towards the purchase of a new boat. The grant requires the boat and project to be completed by August 2028. In November 2025, the Fire Department issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a fireboat (Attachment 3), which closed in December 2025.

ANALYSIS:

Fireboats require specialized design features, operational requirements, and vendor-specific capabilities.

Each boat manufacturer has different designs that impact various operational parameters the City requires. Because there is no complete, adequate, and realistic specification or purchase description available for a fireboat, the Fire Department used a competitive sealed proposal process rather than a sealed bidding process, more commonly referred to as a low bid process.

The competitive sealed proposal is consistent with San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) section

2.55.110(B), which authorizes the City Manager to permit competitive sealed proposals and negotiation under 2.55.200 and 2.55.210 when sealed bidding is not practical or advantageous to the City. It is also aligned with federal requirements under 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, which are required as part of the grant agreement. Using competitive sealed proposals ensures compliance with federal and local procurement standards while allowing the Fire Department to select the manufacturer with the strongest proposal that meets the needs of the San Rafael Fire Department, while simultaneously negotiating the best terms.

The Fire Department received four proposals in response to the RFP. A Five-person technical evaluation committee consisting of members of the Marine Division was assembled, and each proposal was scored based on anticipated performance in the waterside operational environment, the manufacturer's capability to perform, cost, procurement and replacement schedule, and maintenance considerations.

The evaluation committee conducted a comprehensive review of each proposal using the evaluation criteria established in the RFP. While cost was an important consideration, the selection process placed significant weight on operational performance, technical compliance, long-term value, and the vessel's ability to meet the Fire Department's specific mission requirements. Evaluation criteria included maneuverability at low speeds, the ability to maintain steering control during fire pumping operations, shallow draft capabilities, seaworthiness in both protected and open water, fuel capacity and operational SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
range, maintenance requirements, operator training considerations, and interoperability with similarly sized vessels currently operated by regional partner agencies. These criteria were weighted to reflect their relative importance to the Fire Department's emergency response mission, recognizing that the City's investment in a fireboat is a long-term commitment. Emphasis was placed on selecting a vessel that will provide reliable performance throughout its service life while minimizing maintenance costs, reducing training impacts, and allowing the Fire Department to deliver high-quality fire suppression, emergency medical, and rescue services safely and effectively.

MetalCraft received the highest overall evaluation score and was determined to provide the best overall value to the City based on the established selection criteria. The proposed vessel best meets the Fire Department's operational needs within the unique marine environment surrounding San Rafael. Its shallow draft provides access to areas such as the San Rafael Canal and China Camp. At the same time, its hull design and propulsion system deliver superior maneuverability in narrow waterways and maintain steering control during high-volume fire pumping operations. The enclosed cabin provides a protected workspace for firefighters operating navigation and communication systems, and the propulsion configuration maximizes deck space for rescue swimmer deployment while allowing convenient access for maintenance. The vessel's fire pump can deliver more than 2,000 gallons per minute directly from the Bay, providing exceptional firefighting capability. Additionally, the availability of certified service technicians in Marin County supports timely maintenance and reduces potential downtime. MetalCraft's proven history of manufacturing high-quality fireboats, combined with the successful deployment of its Fire Storm platform by neighboring fire agencies, demonstrates its reliability, performance, and suitability for the City's long-term operational needs. A copy of the draft contract is provided as Attachment 2.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The total purchase of the fireboat with use tax, delivery, and upfitting is $1,495,000. The following tables summarize the total costs associated with the new fireboat:

Total Cost for new boat
Fireboat $1,336,334
Delivery $21,475
Use Tax $123,610
Upfitting and contingency $13,581
TOTAL $1,495,000
Funding to support this purchase would be covered through a combination of the FEMA grant, City contributions through the Fire Equipment Replacement Fund, and anticipated proceeds from the sale of the FBSR. The City’s contribution also serves to meet the local match requirement (minimum of 25%) required of the FEMA grant.

Estimated Final Cost/Impact to Fund 625
New Fireboat $1,495,000
FEMA PSPG Award ($904,988)
Estimated Sale Price of FBSR ($150,000)
Estimated Final Cost $440,012
The City’s matching contribution was included as an appropriation within the Fire Equipment Replacement Fund (625) in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 approved budget. Staff is now requesting that the City Council authorize an additional supplemental appropriation of $1,054,988 within the Fire SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
Equipment Replacement Fund, as well as an offsetting increase in revenues, to account for the federal grant award ($904,988) and the proceeds from the sale of FBSR ($150,000).

OPTIONS:

1. Approve the resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract to purchase one fireboat with MetalCraft Marine Inc. for the Fire Department for a not-to-exceed amount of $1,481,419 and authorize supplemental budget appropriations of $1,054,988 within the Fire Equipment Replacement Fund (fund 625) supported by grant funding and sale of the existing fireboat for a total project cost not-to-exceed $1,495,000

2. Direct the Fire Department to modify the proposed purchase.

3. Direct the Fire Department to withhold the proposed purchase. This option may require an extension with FEMA to ensure the boat is delivered by the grant's completion date.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract to purchase one fireboat with MetalCraft Marine Inc. for the Fire Department for a not-to-exceed amount of $1,481,419 and authorize supplemental budget appropriations of $1,054,988 within the Fire Equipment Replacement Fund (Fund 625) supported by a Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) grant in the amount of $904,988 and the sale of the existing fireboat for a total project cost not-to-exceed $1,495,000.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. MetalCraft – Draft Contract

3. Request for Proposal
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE ONE FIREBOAT WITH METALCRAFT MARINE INC. FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT OF $1,481,419 AND AUTHORIZE SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS OF $1,054,988 WITHIN THE FIRE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND (FUND 625) SUPPORTED BY GRANT FUNDING AND

SALE OF THE EXISTING FIREBOAT FOR A TOTAL PROJECT COST NOT-TO-EXCEED $1,495,000
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael Fire Department provides fire suppression, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), Hazmat mitigation, public education, and disaster response services within the shoreline and waters of San Francisco Bay; and WHEREAS, the Fire Department currently operates Fire Boat San Rafael (FBSR), a 34’ single-hull aluminum boat purchased used in 2020 from the Southern Marin Fire District; and WHEREAS, FBSR is now 22 years old and, while still well maintained, is nearing the end of its useful service life; and
WHEREAS, the San Rafael Fire Department submitted and was successfully awarded a 2024 FEMA Port Security Grant Program grant in the amount of $904,988 towards the replacement of FBSR; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted a request for proposals in November 2025 and received four (4) responses; and
WHEREAS, San Rafael Municipal Code (SRMC) section 2.55.110(B) authorizes the City Manager to permit competitive sealed proposals and negotiation under 2.55.200 and 2.55.210 when sealed bidding is not practical or advantageous to the City; and WHEREAS, the Fire Department used a technical committee to select the most qualified response, which was Metal Craft Incorporated; and
WHEREAS, the Fire Department subsequently negotiated the final specifications and price with Metal Craft consistent with SRMC and federal procurement guidelines.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and hereby authorizes the City Manager to purchase one fire boat, including build-up and outfitting, for the Fire Department, for a not-toexceed amount of $1,495,000; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes supplemental budget appropriations of $1,054,988 within the Fire Equipment Replacement Fund (Fund 625), supported by grant funding secured and future sale of FBSR, augmenting funding previously appropriated in the FY27 budget for a total cost not to exceed $1,495,000.

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 20th of July 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

Lindsay Lara, City Clerk
583 Broadway St. E, Cape Vincent New York 13618  347 Wellington Street Kingston Ontario K7K 6N7 www.metalcraftmarine.com
(800) 410-8464
Date: May 14, 2026
DRAFT - Agreement Between
City of San Rafael
Fire Department (Buyer)
1375 5th Ave, San Rafael
CA 94901

and
MetalCraft Marine Inc. (MCM) (Builder)
349 Wellington Street
Kingston ON K7K 6N7
This is an agreement to enter into a contract for the construction of one MetalCraft Marine Model FireStorm 4344. The boat shall be built in accordance with the terms & conditions included herein. Any modification to this contract shall be done in writing with the acknowledgement of both parties on MCM’s standard Design Change Form, sample enclosed. The maximum period for delivery is 14 months from Contract signing and implementation.

ADDITIONAL DETAILS;
The parties agree that the contract will be subject to the laws of California.

Contract Inclusions;
-Signed General Arrangement of craft
-Specification
-Acceptance Document
-Warranty Document
-DPW-PO Terms & Conditions
Contract Conditions:
1) All construction is to ISO 12215 Category structure and the American Boat & Yachting Council Standards for outfitting as applicable.
2) All electrical work as specified is supplied and installed and fully tested and conforms American Bureau and Yachting Council, Marine Electrical Standard E-2. All wiring will be labeled for easy identification.
1 of 4
Metal Craft Mar . i -- I N C O R P O R A T E D

3) All welding and vessel structure will be in accordance with American Welding Society standards for welding high speed aluminum vessels as applicable.
4) MCM will provide the appropriate Hull Identification Number and documentation for the customer’s purpose of registering the boats in their home State. 5) Purchase orders will be available for inspection. MCM reserves the right to select all parts and gear not specifically referenced in the specification. MCM shall build the boat according to the attached specification. The customer has full rights to request specific gear during the contract period with considerations for price adjustment and possible contract delays. 6) We approve the customers right of complete access to the vessel during normal hours or by prior arrangement.
7) Any and all changes to the contract or the specification will be documented on MCM’s standard Design Change form, copy enclosed. All changes will require the owner or its representative’s authorized signature prior to work commencing. Changes that require fixed cost estimates in advance of approval by the customer, will permit the builder to charge for his time and material in establishing the fixed cost estimate, as many estimates will require some engineering or engineering considerations. All DCR’s will establish any resultant schedule changes.
8) The Parties agree that Time is of the essence. The builder shall do everything in its power to expedite all materials to the factory and maintain its production schedule. Any delays that are beyond the control of MetalCraft Marine shall be conveyed to the customer as soon as these are known.

All written questions requiring advice from the customer, requires a written response within 48 hours to prevent any potential delay. This includes drawing approvals.

The Technical Representative of the end user and or Representative of the Buyer shall meet with the MCM Technical Representative for an Engineering Conference within four weeks of Contract signing to review and confirm all design and specification items. Location shall be determined or held virtually if it is not possible to co-ordinate schedules. Written information will be accepted by fax or headed e-mail.

Fax numbers for questions are MCM 613-542-6515, Buyer 415-246-1308. E-mail addresses for questions are; MCM, ([email protected]) Buyer, Justin Barrow [email protected].

MCM is responsible for timely placement of Purchase Orders relating to the equipment specified.

9) MCM maintains a comprehensive Ship Builder’s Risk insurance policy covering all aspects of the vessel, from commencement of construction. Our insurer is Travellers Insurance, New York NY. The Ship Builder’s Risk policy ends when the boat has been loaded upon its conveyance. At this point MCM’s shipping insurance covers the vessel, from time of departure from the MCM yards to the FOB point
2 of 4

10) MetalCraft provide a 1 year warranty on all items and equipment and a ten year hull weld warranty. Each of the Equipment suppliers individual warranties apply and they determine and approve or disapprove all warranty claims for their specific equipment based on their individual warranty terms and conditions.

Engine warranties are 2 years engines and 3 years electronics. MCM is not responsible for any claims that are disallowed by our equipment suppliers as we do not have control over these suppliers. 11) The vessel will be trialed and accepted by the customer or customer’s representative at the contractor’s facility. This signed acceptance will be known as the Final Acceptance and indicates the customer or customer’s representative has inspected the vessel and indicated by his/her signature that the vessel meets the specifications in all respects and is ready for shipment. Any deficiencies found by this inspection shall be rectified by the contractor at the contractor’s expense and completed in a timely manner prior to shipment of the vessel.
12) We have not included the costs for a third party inspector to perform inspections. The customer is responsible to provide his own inspection during construction. 13) The Contract covers 2 days of operator and maintenance training in San Rafael. We recommend no more than four persons for operator training for more positive results. 14) Payments based on submitted invoices and approved documentation shall be made within 10 days of submission of appropriate documentation. The final payment shall be made after Final Acceptance of the boat, which is at MetalCraft Marine’s facility after successful sea trials.

15) If the Builder (MCM) is found to be in Breach of the Contract the Buyer must notify the Builder in writing clearly stating the clause breached and provide 30 days for the Builder to rectify the Breach and provide the Buyer with written notice by that the Breach is corrected. Such notification shall be by Fax or email. The Builder shall have 30 days from receipt of Notice by the Buyer to rectify the Breach noted. If the buyer is in breach of the Contract they shall 30 days to rectify the breach after notice. 16) If the Buyer terminates the contract for convenience, the Buyer shall notify MCM immediately by fax or email. MCM shall immediately stop work upon receipt of the notice. The Buyer shall be responsible for all costs incurred up to that time including labor and any materials on hand or that have been ordered by MCM purchase order that cannot be cancelled and any restocking charges levied against MCM by its suppliers, plus the profit that MCM would have made on the contract, had it been completed.

17) The delivery period is subject to conditions beyond the control of MetalCraft Marine as described in this Contract, including shipping delays of the carrier. Such delays beyond the Builder’s control are considered Force Majeure.
18) The contract price and payments are to be made in USD Dollars.

3 of 4

Contract Pricing and Terms:

Price for FireStorm 4344 as per attached Specification: $ 1,336,33.14 Freight to San Rafael, $ 21,475.00
Plus applicable taxes

Payment Terms: Draws as per schedule;
20% Deposit to reserve production slot,
20% Receipt of main cut parts, & commencement of construction 30% Completion of metalwork
20% Receipt of engines
5% upon successful completion of trials
5% at Acceptance at San Rafael

_______________________ ______________________________
MetalCraft Marine Inc. Date: City of San Rafael Date:
4 of 4
<(
c:i
I
,.......,
0 ~
.I
Ol
~
L.....I
0 LO
0 VHF ANTENNA (P /S)

ROOF TOP MONITOR
/ / / ¥---~---JA1
: L-, 1
------ 1-------------
L DWI..
~ -
17 16 15 14 13 12 B1-111 10 9 8 7 BH6 5 4 3 BH2 0
------------------10366 [34'] L.W.L.------------------
i--------------------11724 [38'-6"] MOLDED LENGTn----------------------i i-------------------------13124 [43'-1"] L.O.A.-------------------------1 VESSEL PARTICULARS:

LOA:

BEAM MAXIMUM
DEADRISE:

FIRESTORM 43/44
13M (43'-1")

3.97M (13' -1 ")
22·
FULL LOAD WEIGHT (APPROXIMATE) 33,000 LBS

PROPULSION
MAIN ENGINES: (2) CUMMINS QSC 6.7 4BOHP
WATER JETS: (2) HAMILTON HTX30
FIRE PUMP: (1) DARLEY 1750GPM
FUEL CAPACITY: (2) 150 USG TANK
*SOME OPTIONS MAY BE SHOWN.

PIW RECOVERY DECK OVERSIZE ENGINE

ACCESS HATCHES

SEAT LOCKER
{P/S) NAV. SEAT (SUSPENSION)
--- <i. w
0 C! w [Il 0
_J --, 0 ~ ~ I ----;=, r')
~ 'io -----' I
Ol °N
I~ r-,. ~
L.....I Ol
N
N
(X)
1 l
.£;::)

AFT DISCHARGE
1----.L-J_ I
~
~

AIR INLET/

SEATING (P/S)

ENGINE ROOM
HATCH

PLAN VIEW

CABIN DECK
HATCH
4" D-RUBBER (BLACK)

NCHOR HATCH (FREEMAN)

METALCRAFT MARINE

INCORPORATED
349 WELLINGTON STREET, KINGSTON
ON K7K 6N7
43/ 44FT FIRESTORM

SAN RAFAEL FIRE DEPARTMENT

GENERAL ARRANGMENT

OUTBOARD PROFILE AND DECK PLAN I
ERTIHS w/STOWAGE BELOW I SIZE FSCM CAGE NO. DRAWING NO. REV B 1T8W7 FS44-81438-801-001 B1
@ METALCRAFT MARINE INC. 2025 i SCALE 1:50 STATUS: RELEASED I SHEET 1 6/26/2026
San Rafael Fire Department FireStorm 4344
Standard Features Price valid for 90 days
USD
Hull $ 222,420.00
5083 hull structure designed to ISO 12215 standard Category B, 13-19 wave heights. There is no 6061 extrusion used in way of the bilge area of the boat, Hull FireStorm 4344 Note 5083 is 25% stronger after welding 13200 Stability calculated to meet NFPA 1925 NFPA 1925 1
Side decks to be minimum 24" wide. Cut files 1
Frames and Bulkheads MCM 1
Cut girders and stem Included 1
Erect backbone and deck Included 1
Add stiffeners to deck Included 1
Deck beams Included 1
Install longitudinal Included 1
Deck soft patch Misc. hardware 1
Install transom Included 1
Add framing to transom Included 1
Hull plating 5/16" hull bottom, 1/4" hull sides 3/16 "deck 1 Hull welding Welding wire 1
Dive rescue platform Aluminum 1
Hull grinding and buffing Misc. 1
Roll-over Crane 1
Anchor locker with push knees Freeman or BOmar hinged deck hatch, must be draining Overboard 1 Grounding Bar beaching plate MCM Channel 1
QA and safety hours Misc. 1
Metal Other $ 79,890.50
Superstructure
Cut parts for Super structure Aluminum parts cut in house 1 Bend cabin top beams Bending in house 1
Erect superstructure Head clearance of 6'10", 6'6" in cuddy 1 Weld superstructure Welding wire 1
Install on to hull 1
Port & Stbd console Need location for MDC computer Fighter station 2 Aluminum Helm, seat boxes Misc. alum 3
EMS Patient berths main cabin post Lifting lid no sliding doors required, 1 V-berth cuddy with twin berth/seats change to plywood lids misc. metal storage boxes and cushions HDW 2 Hinged mast Hinged mast 1
Aft deck Lazarette hatch MCM design w/ ladder, utilizes vandal proof locking pin from inside cabin 1 Handrails as per customer preference Bow, hull sides, aft - around deck edge 1 Handrails roof Inside Cabin P&S 1
Roof base for hinged mast Revised roof plates 1
Anchor locker Brackets in anchor locker Freeman deck hatch 1 Cabin sole hatch for storage access below decks MCM 41" hatch 1 Monitor bases Roof base 1
Engine room hatches twin With Stainless gas shocks and safety locking retainer when open with oversize gutter 2 Vent storage boxes with lower hose trays Standard model louvers 2 Deck cleats 12" cleats welded 6
349 Wellington St., Kingston Ontario, K7K-6N7 - 22419 Fisher Rd., Watertown, NY, 13601 MetalCraft Marine
l~CORPORATED
Mooring bitts Deleted
Chart table MCM standard aft of helms seat 1
Hull Side Strakes 5 ea. side - Channel lengths diagonal 10 Pike Pole holders 2 -
Tow post in aft steps 1 -
Tow reel - possibly in seat bench with fairlead for line 1 - QA & Safety hours 1
Propulsion $ 544,247.00
Cummins 6.7 with marine gears @ 480HP per side intermittent rating port engine including tariff 1 Cummins 6.7 with marine gears @ 480 HP per side Intermittent rating installation certified 1 Engine mounts Independent resilient mounts included 4
Shafts Spicer 1610 2
Shafts for pumps Darley Vibradamp 1
Ham Jet Hamilton Jets 322 2
Fluids Misc. 1
Machining & safety hours Machining costs, flanges 1
Exhaust Port riser Included Cummins supply 2
QA& Safety hours 1
Systems $ 198,289.00
Bilge System Bilge pumps Min 2000 GPH 4
Installation hardware Misc. hose, clamps 1
Wiring and switches Visual indicator, controller for 4 compartments 1 Alarms Anti Corrosion Meter w/ data logger/reference cell, shows if anodic protection ABYC Requirement, Data logger will ID time of high stray current event, can be downloaded to computer 1 ABYC requirement Exhaust temp alarm to prevent fire and notify bridge if internation in cooling water 2 Engine room high temp is in addition to Fire suppression Visual and Audible 1 Alam CO Carbon Monoxide 1
Fuel System Tanks 2 x 150 USG fuel tanks (for Cummins 6.7L) 2 System install fuel fill vent, fittings hose, gauge, cross con. 2 Racor fuel filters Racor cartridge filters singles 2
Anti-spill Splash stop and vent protector 2
Remote shut off cables to steering station 2
Engine Controls Single station throttle bucket binnacle control heads 2 Transmission electric switch 2
Steering System Installation Steering supplied by HJ -
Edson Destroyer wheel 1
Fire System Installation Darley 2000 GPM Bronze pump 1
Cannot use pressure governors with HJ AVX Discharge pressure gauge - Credit one pressure gauge (total of one required) 1 - Piping ACR Pressure governor included in pump quote 1
Remove Pressure governor keep pressure relief Valve -
Pressure/thermal relief valve included with pump 1
Sea chests, Misc. piping & valves 1
Darley primer included in pump quote - Remove Primer (not required with flooded pump) - - Victaulic fittings 8
Valves Misc. sizes 1
Monitor - bow remote TFT Monsoon 1
Monitor - aft side deck TFT 1250 Monsson Manual monitors 2 Aft large diameter discharge National thread Hydrant outlet of 4.5"NH 2 Seawater system Filters Groco Vertical simplex system 2 Seawater Seawater system for engines hose, clamps etc. 1 Exhaust System Muffler Centeck water lift mufflers for main engines 2 Transom plate and check valves Elbows, flaps clamps and hose 2 Heat defrost system Hydronic with defrost Heatercraft 40,000 BTU multiple port plus ducting 1 Cabin defrost Fans Cabin defrost Fans 2
Fire suppression FM200 with pull cables to fire off system and fuel shut off cables by the helm Fireboy fully engineered system 1 Fire Extinguishers 1X 15ib dry chem, 1 X20 Ib CO 1
QA & Safety Hours 1
FITOUT $ 118,920.23
Surface Coating Exterior Paint Sandblast prep, underwater portion 1 Interior Paint Sandblast prep, painted consoles, chart table, seat boxes 1 Markings Deleted -
Anti fouling International paints 1
Deck Sandblasted zero maintenance Non-skid or light grey painted non-skid for cool dec 1 Interior Equipment installation General 1
Windows all framed in anodized aluminum, Black anodizing or aluminum, tinting as per customer requirement 1 Upgrade to Exalto wipers with adjustable spring tension on wiper arms 3 - Overhead spotter framed windows Spotter windows give views forward and up and side and up. Also line up for s side 5 Doors aft hinged over sized and 2 side sliders AJR aft door, dogged, insulated, stainless lockset, side sliders 28". Sliding doors : 3 Wet gear hanger By removing stbd seat cushion wet gear drains into bilge thro storage seat 1 Seats changed to I3MM suspension Seats Inc Mechanical adjustable suspension seats with armrests 3 Upgrade seats from I3MM to Mariner II seats (6" suspension instead of 3") 1 - Cushions EMS berth and forward cuddy berths Bench seats in main cabin and V-Berth 6 insulation Includes main cabin and cuddy 1
Cladding choice of colors includes main cabin and cuddy 1 Engine room bulkhead insulated Deleted -
Reinstate engine room bulkhead sound insulation 1 -
Rubber sound matting NoTraxs anti fatigue matting in both cabins 1 Steps to Cuddy Non-skid 1
Center rail at access to cuddy 1 -
Exterior D-rubber 4.5" rubber in feet through bolted, includes dive platform 100 D-rubber Vertical D-rubber on bow 8
Hull anodes 10 Ib alum anodes, extended anode mass 4
Life lines P&S and Stem 1 Fwd port, 2 mid P&S, 1 stem 4 Mast hardware Pulleys and cleats for flag halyards 1
QA& Safety hours 1
Electrical $ 142,965.00
Electrical System
DC systems Wire and cable ABYC & USCG spec'd wire/cable 1 Electrical labeling & schematic ABYC labeling at all terminal ends schematic fully detailed for remote repairs 1 Fully bonded electrical system Abyc requires a bonded system to a common grounding post 1 D/C panel 4 spares - backlit and indicator lights 3
Battery boxes Boxes with brackets 7
Batt selector switch Bluesea 3 way switch 3
Battery isolators Perfect switch 4
D/C outlets with USB Console, EMS bench, Cuddy 4
Upgrade from USB-A to USB-C 4 -
Batteries Engine start (increase quantity from 2 to 4 - no charge) 900 CCA batteries AGM 4 - Batteries House Deep cycle Trojan 3
Battery charger Newmar 3 bank 40 amp battery charger 1
AC systems ELCI - ABYC required ELCI/ GFCI shock protection equipment 1 Inverter for phone computer charging 300 watt 1
A/C panel 6-8 breaker panel w/ 2 spares, volt. AMP meter, Lock out switch 1 ASC outlets GF outlets 4
Shore power Outlets and chords 30 amp 50' cord 1
Transformers (Not in Outboard version) ABYC requirement Victron 30 amp no block heaters 1 Lights Dimmer St Mack 1
Chart light St Mack 1
Deck lighting D/C LED Superbright floods lights 3
Courtesy lights by dive platform Courtesy bright 6
Navigation lights Hella LED navigation lights 3
Dive lights TBD Q&A Deleted -
Searchlight Stryker 1
Interior lights Cabin & Cuddy, red/white recessed 6
RAM Lights Deleted -
Engine room lights LED Strip lights 2
Emergency lights Whelen Mini Liberty 1
Chart light Chart light 1
Horn Electric horn West - credit electric horn, integrate horn with siren. 1 - Wipers Imira wipers, self parking w/2 gallon washer 3
Electronics Compass Ritchie 4” 1
Siren and speakers Whelen PA300 1
VHF radios 2 of customer supplied Customer supplied 2
Department emergency radios Customer supplied 2
Radio antennas Customer supplied 4
EPIRB ACR 1
Antenna GPS 1
Raymarine Axiom Pro 12" screen 2
Raymarine Axiom Pro 10" screen - Credit 10" screen - add second 12" screen - - Raymarine 4KW dome 1
Raymarine AIS 1
Raymarine Misc. ethernet cabling 1
Airmar transducer w/CHIRP sidescan Thru hull transducer, GTS1M-THP 1 FLIR FLIR M-332 Camera 1
Miscellaneous $ 29,601.00
Miscellaneous Items
Customer Inspections Travel to customer's account
Manuals service and parts 2 copies 2
Boat Manuals electronic Deleted -
Design As-Built drawings electrical/mechanical schematics 1 Miscellaneous fasteners ALL 318 stainless only 1
Testing & Trials Fuel 1
Tank testing As per ABYC Requirements 1
Life ring 30" w/ line, light, whistle, decal 1
Re-commissioning vessel 2 Days onsite commissioning only 1 Final Finishing clean up Prep for shipping 1
QA 1
Subtotal $1,336,333.14
Freight to San Rafael $ 21,475.00
Total price - Above configuration $1,357,808.14
Sales tax @ 9.25% $ 123,610.82
Total price including CA sales tax. (no tax on freight) $1,481,418.96 Terms
20% Deposit at contract signing
20% Receipt of cut parts and commencent of construction 30% Completion of metalwork
20% Receipt of engines
5% Completion of sea trials
5% At Final Acceptance in San Raphael
22419 Fisher Road, Watertown, NY 13601  349 Wellington Street Kingston Ontario K7K 6N7 www.metalcraftmarine.com
(800) 410-8464
 Preliminary Acceptance  Final Acceptance
This document acknowledges that the boat bearing hull # ______________________ has been received and accepted in good order, and that the vessel owner(s) now take responsibility for proper operation and maintenance of this vessel. ______________________________, ___________________________, _________ Print name Signature Date
On behalf of:
____________________________________________________________________________________ (Organization)
Notes if any;
R0.1 2018-03-05
MetalCraft Mar~ , - I N C O R P O R A T E D
22620 Fisher Road, Watertown, New York, 13601  347 Wellington Street Kingston Ontario K7K 6N7 www.metalcraftmarine.com
(800) 410-8464

METALCRAFT MARINE WARRANTY
MetalCraft Marine Inc. (MCM)
guarantees that the craft sold to
the Buyer shall at the time of
delivery, be free from defects in
materials and/or workmanship.

Such guarantees by the contract
and MCM shall be in force for a
twelve (12) month period from
the date of acceptance. MCM
warrants its hull assembly and
welds for a ten (10) year period
from the date of acceptance.

MCM makes no guarantee with respect to accessories or equipment manufactured by others, but hereby extends the manufacturer’s guarantee, if any, to the Buyer. The propulsion system components carry a separate guarantee by their individual manufacturer’s which transfer to the Buyer. These individual guarantees are included in the Buyer’s manual’s package. MCM assumes no liability for defects found with this equipment.

Any malfunction within the propulsion system should be reported to the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) directly or to its local dealer or representative. The manual’s package will include phone or fax numbers for contacts.

The Buyer will notify MCM of any defects that are discovered within the warranty period.

The Buyer shall report the defect on the warranty claim form found in the manual.

Whenever practicable, the Buyer shall, in addition to giving MCM notice of any defect, afford MCM an opportunity to examine the defect or provide evidence of the defect to MCM. Within a reasonable time after such notice MCM shall expeditiously proceed to correct the defect.

Should it not be possible or expeditious for the Buyer to return the defective part to MCM, MCM will authorize a local service center or the customer to carry out the necessary repairs, or send MCM employees to the craft’s location at MCM’s option. MCM’s liability for a repair in the field shall not exceed the cost of repair had the work been conducted at MCM’s building facility. The warranty period for the replaced or corrected supply shall remain in effect for one year.

MCM shall have no liability for defects caused by abuse, negligence, or collision occurring, non-approved operations in ice after transfer of title from MCM, or with respect to parts that have been altered or repaired by anyone other than MCM or its nominee.

For immediate service call the numbers listed below:

MetalCraft Marine Inc., North America toll free: 1-800-410-8464 MetalCraft Marine

I N C O R P O R A T E D
MetalCraft Marine Warranty
Our boats are designed with a 25 year service life. We assure our boats to be free of defects in materials and/or workmanship for 12 months and warranty our hull seam welds for an industry leading 10 years. We have a customer support team that is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Our policy is to take action on service calls within 24 hours. We have highly trained technicians that can be rapidly deployed to any location to ensure that our boats remain ready and able to fulfill their mission at all times. We build strong relationships with our customers and invite you to contact any or all of our references ..
22620 Fisher Road, Watertown, New York, 13601  347 Wellington Street Kingston Ontario K7K 6N7 www.metalcraftmarine.com
(800) 410-8464

WARRANTY CLAIM FORM
(1) Vessel Type and HIN (1A) Warranty Item Number (1B) Warranty Claim Date
(2) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WARRANTY claim (include part number identification and equipment manufacturer’s name if possible, date of failure, boat location, name of point of contact with telephone and FAX numbers and e-mail address, and all necessary documentations i.e., pictures) (3) ACTION TAKEN TO DATE
(4) RECOMMENDED FURTHER ACTION
(5) SIGNATURE (PROJECT MANAGER) (5A) SIGNATURE (WARRANTY ENGINEER)

(6) DISTRIBUTION: CCC, WMI, PWGSC.

Form approved by City Attorney (Nov. 2022) Page 1 of 2
TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. PURCHASE ORDER AS A CONTRACT
This Agreement, if issued as the result of a request for quotation offer, bid invitation or other form of offer, is an acceptance of the Seller/Contractor’s offer and constitutes the contract between the City and Seller/Contractor. This Agreement, if issued as the result of a sealed bid with public opening or of a formal request for proposal, is a formal contract which incorporates the bid specifications. In this case, the terms, conditions, and provisions of the bid specifications take precedence over conflicting terms and conditions shown on this document.

TERMS FOR PURCHASE OF GOODS 2. TITLE AND RISK OF LOSS
The Seller assumes all risks in connection with the goods ordered herein until delivery is made to the City as specified, and the City has noted its acceptance. The goods being acquired under this Agreement are subject to inspection and testing by the City at the place of destination. If any goods are found at any time to be defective or nonconforming, the City, in addition to all other rights, shall have the right to reject and return them in whole or in part at the Seller’s expense and to receive full credit for them, or to require their replacement without additional cost to the City. 3. ACCEPTANCE Any additional or different terms or conditions which may appear in any communication from Seller are hereby expressly objected to and shall not be effective or binding unless specifically agreed to in writing by the City, and no such additional or different terms and conditions in any printed form of Seller shall become part of this Agreement despite the City's acceptance of goods or services unless such acceptance specifically recognizes and assents to their inclusion. Any objection by the Seller to the terms and conditions hereof shall be ineffective unless the City is advised in writing thereof within ten (10) days of the date of this Agreement. 4. SHIPPING INSTRUCTIONS A. All goods are to be shipped freight prepaid, F.O.B. Destination unless otherwise stated. Where the City has so authorized in writing on the face of this Agreement, goods may be shipped F.O.B. shipping point, but Seller shall prepay all shipping charges, route the goods by the cheapest common carrier, or the carrier specified and list said charges as a separate item on the Seller’s invoice. Each invoice for shipping charges shall be accompanied by the original or a copy of the bill indicating that such charges have been paid. The City will not accept C.O.D. shipments. Seller shall not insure the goods for the City’s account during shipment except upon the City’s express written request. B. Applicable shipping charges have either been included in the totals or are itemized separately on the face of the agreement. 5. SPECIAL CHARGES Seller shall be responsible for the payment of all charges for handling, packaging, wrapping, bags, containers, and related matters unless the City has assumed an express, written obligation for same on the face of this Agreement. 6. IDENTIFICATION All invoices, packages, shipping notices, instruction manuals, and other written documents affecting this Agreement shall contain an appropriate, identifying reference to this Agreement. Packing lists shall be enclosed in or attached firmly to the shipping package. In the case of multiple container shipments, the Packing slip shall be placed in the lead package. 7. DELIVERY
Delivery shall be made within the time(s) specified on the face of this Agreement. Seller will not be held liable for failure to make timely delivery because of strikes, conscription of property, governmental regulations, acts of God, or any other causes beyond Seller’s control, provided an extension of time for delivery is obtained from the City as soon as practicable after Seller is aware that delivery is or may be late.

TERMS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS (< $25,000) 8. PUBLIC WORKS The provisions of paragraphs 8 through 15 apply to public works contracts paid for in whole or in part out of public funds. Public works includes construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work and can include preconstruction and post-construction activities. For a full definition of public works refer to Labor Code section 1720.

9. TIME FOR COMPLETION
Contractor will fully complete the work within the timeframe specified on the face of this Agreement from the date the City authorizes Contractor to proceed with the work. 10.CONTRACT PRICE AND PAYMENT A. The contract price is the full and complete compensation for Contractor’s timely performance and completion of the work in accordance with this Agreement and includes all of Contractor’s direct and indirect costs to perform the work, including all labor, materials, supplies, equipment, taxes, insurance, bonds and all overhead costs. B. Contractor must submit an invoice on the first day of each month for the work performed during the preceding month and/or upon completion, itemizing labor, materials, equipment and any incidental costs incurred. Contractor warrants that title to all work, materials and equipment incorporated into the Work will pass to City free of any claims, liens, or encumbrances upon payment to Contractor. 11. STANDARD OF CARE
All work must be provided in a manner that meets or exceeds the standard of care applicable to the same type of work in the City of San Rafael. Contractor must promptly correct, at Contractor’s sole expense, any work that the City determines is deficient or defective. 12. PERMITS AND LICENSES Contractor, at its sole expense, must obtain and maintain during the term of this Agreement, all appropriate permits, certificates and licenses including, but not limited to, the required California contractor’s license and a City business license. 13. INSURANCE Contractor, at its sole expense, must maintain during the term of this Agreement, the following insurance: A. Commercial General Liability (“CGL”) insurance issued on an occurrence basis, with limits of at least $1,000,000 per occurrence and $2,000,000 general aggregate. B. Commercial automotive liability coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles with coverage of at least $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury, death, or property damage. C. Workers’ compensation coverage required by applicable law and employer’s liability insurance with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. D. Contractor waives any right of subrogation that an insurer may have against the City. The City shall be named as an additional insured under the general liability and automobile liability policies.

Such insurance shall be primary and non-contributory. No insurance held or owned by the City may be called upon to contribute to a loss. Contractor shall submit proof of insurance acceptable to the City prior to the City authorizing the work. 14.LABOR CODE COMPLIANCE Unless the contract price is $1,000 or less, this Agreement is subject to all applicable requirements of Chapter 1 of Part 7 of Division 2 of the Labor Code, beginning at section 1720, and the related regulations, including but not limited to requirements pertaining to wages, working hours and workers’ compensation insurance. Contractor must also post all job site notices required by laws or regulations pursuant to Labor Code section 1771.4. A. Prevailing Wages. Each worker performing work under this Agreement covered under Labor Code section 1720 or 1720.9, must be paid at a rate not less than the prevailing wage as defined in sections 1771 and 1774 of the Labor Code. The prevailing wage rates are on file with the City Public Works office and are available online at http://www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1775, Contractor and any subcontractor will forfeit to City as a penalty up to $200 for each calendar day, or portion of a day, for each worker paid less than the applicable prevailing wage rate, in addition to paying each worker the difference between the applicable wage rate and the amount actually paid. B. Working Day. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1810, eight hours of labor consists of a legal day’s work. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1813, Contractor will forfeit to City as a penalty the sum of $25 for each day during which a worker employed by Contractor or any subcontractor is required or permitted to work more than 8 hours during any one calendar day, or more than 40 hours per calendar week, unless such workers are paid overtime wages under Labor Code section 1815. All Work must be carried out during regular City working days and hours unless otherwise authorized in writing by City.

Form approved by City Attorney (July 2025) Page 2 of 2
C. Payroll Records. Contractor and its subcontractors must maintain certified payroll records in compliance with Labor Code sections 1776 and 1812, and all implementing regulations promulgated by the Department of Industrial Relations. For each payroll record, Contractor and its subcontractors must certify under penalty of perjury that the information in the record is true and correct, and that it has complied with the requirements of Labor Code sections 1771, 1811, and 1815. D. Workers’ Compensation Certification. Under Labor Code section 1861, by accepting this Agreement, Contractor certifies as follows:
“I am aware of the provisions of Labor Code section 3700 which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Work on this
Contract.” 15. WARRANTY
Contractor guarantees and warrants the work and the materials used or provided for a period of one year, beginning upon City’s acceptance of the work. During this warranty period, upon notice from the City of any defect in the work or the materials, Contractor must, at its sole expense, promptly repair or replace the defective work or materials, including repair or replacement of any other work or materials that is or are displaced or damaged during the warranty work, excepting any damage resulting from ordinary wear and tear.

GENERAL PROVISIONS 16.BREACH AND CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT A. In the event the Seller/Contractor fails or refuses to deliver or provide the supplies, materials, equipment, or services within the time(s) specified herein, or fails or refuses to comply with any requirement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the City may serve notice in writing upon Seller/Contractor of its intention to purchase said supplies, materials, or equipment, or obtain said services from another source. Such notice shall contain the reasons for the City's intention to purchase from another source. Unless Seller/Contractor makes complete delivery and/or complies with all other terms and conditions of this Agreement within ten (10) days of serving of such notice, the City may make said purchase from another source. B. If said purchase is made at a price higher than the bid price, the Seller/Contractor shall be liable to the City for an amount not to exceed the difference between the actual purchase price and the price bid by Seller/Contractor. Payment shall be made to the City upon demand, and if any payments are owing to the
Seller/Contractor by the City, such payments will be withheld and set off in an amount not to exceed the claim of the City against the Seller/Contractor. C. In the event any term or condition of this Agreement is violated as indicated in Paragraph (A) above, and Seller/Contractor fails or refuses to comply after notice is given by the City, the City shall have the additional right, without further notice, to cancel this Agreement. If said cancellation is made,
Seller/Contractor will be declared to be an irresponsible vendor, in which case no contract shall be awarded to them by the City for a period of at least one year from date of cancellation of the Agreement. Only after Seller/Contractor submits evidence satisfactory to the City to substantiate Seller/Contractor’s ability to deliver materials, provide services, and otherwise comply with City specifications and bid
provisions will said Seller/Contractor be deemed eligible. 17.NOTICE A written notice shall be deemed served upon sealing said notice in a postage paid envelope addressed to the other party to this Agreement and depositing the same with the United States Post Office. For purposes of this Agreement, all notices shall be addressed as follows: Administrative Services Director, City of San Rafael, 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901. For purposes of this Agreement, all notices to Seller/Contractor shall be addressed as indicated on the face of this Agreement. 18.ROYALTIES AND PATENTS The Seller/Contractor shall be responsible for and shall pay all royalties and patent fees. The Seller/Contractor shall defend all suits and claims for infringement of any patent rights and shall defend, indemnify and hold City harmless from loss on account thereof. 19.TAXES A. Applicable sales and use taxes are either included in the totals of each item or are shown as separate items on the face of this Agreement. B. The City is exempt from payments of Federal Excise taxes. Exemption certificates will be furnished upon
request. 20.LIENS, CLAIMS AND ENCUMBRANCES
Seller/Contractor warrants and represents that all goods will, when delivered hereunder, be free and clear of all liens, claims, or encumbrances of any kind. 21.ASSIGNMENT
Seller/Contractor shall not assign this contract, or the right to payment due hereunder, without City's prior written consent. 22.INDEMNIFICATION Seller/Contractor agrees to release, indemnify, hold harmless and defend City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, liability, lawsuits or other actions for damage or injury to persons or property arising out of the Seller/Contractor' s operations under this Agreement, or the performance of this Agreement by Seller/Contractor or its officers, employees, partners, directors or agents. 23.CONFORMITY WITH LAW AND SAFETY A. Seller/Contractor shall observe and comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes, and regulations of governmental agencies, including federal, state, municipal, and local governing bodies, having jurisdiction over the performance of this Agreement including all provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1979 and all amendments thereto, and all applicable federal, state, municipal, and local safety regulations. Performance by Seller/Contractor must be in accordance with these ordinances, codes, and regulations. Seller/Contractor shall release, defend, indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all liability, fines, penalties, and consequences resulting from any non-compliance or violations of such laws, ordinances, codes, or regulations. B. If a death, serious personal injury, or substantial property damage occurs in connection with the performance of this Agreement, Seller/Contractor shall immediately notify the City by telephone. If any accident occurs in connection with the performance of this Agreement, Seller/Contractor shall promptly submit to City a written report, in such form as may be required by City. This report must include the following information: (1) the name and address of the injured or deceased person(s); (2) the name and address of Seller/Contractor’s subcontractor, if any; (3) the name and address of Seller/Contractor’s liability insurance carrier; and (4) a detailed description of the accident, including whether any of City’s equipment, tools, or material were involved. 24.NON-DISCRIMINATION
Seller/Contractor hereby agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, sex, pregnancy, marital status, disability, or sexual orientation. 25.ATTORNEY FEES If any action at law or inequity is brought to enforce or interpret any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit, in addition to any other relief to which it may be entitled. Said fees may be fixed by the court in the same action, or in a separate action brought for that purpose. 26.GOVERNING LAW
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of The State of California. 27.AMENDMENTS
The terms and conditions of this Agreement shall not be altered or otherwise modified except by a duly executed written amendment to this agreement. 28.ENTIRE AGREEMENT A. The terms and conditions of this Agreement, including City's bid specifications and vendor’s invoice, and any other documents expressly incorporated by reference herein represent the entire Agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof, and this Agreement shall supersede any and all other prior agreements regarding the subject matter between City and Seller/Contractor, either oral or written. No other agreement, statement, or promise relating to the subject matter of this Agreement shall be valid or binding except upon a duly executed written amendment to this Agreement. B. Should any conflicts arise between the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the terms and conditions of documents expressly incorporated herein, including vendor’s invoice, the terms and conditions of this Agreement and City's bid
specifications shall control.

Signed: ___________________________________________
Title: _____________________________________________

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
FIRE VESSEL REV 11/25/25
City of San Rafael
Fire Department
1375 5th Ave, San Rafael, CA 94901
ALL INQUIRIES REGARDING THIS RFP SHALL BE DIRECTED TO:

Jason Hatfield, Battalion Chief
Phone: (415) 485-3368
[email protected]

KEY RFP DATES
Issued: November 5, 2025
Submit Questions By: November 24, 2025; 10:00 am
December 5, 2025; 10:00 am
Proposals Due By: November 28, 2025; 10:00 am
December 10, 2025; 10:00 am
Tentative Interview/Demonstration: December 3-5, 2025
Award of Agreement: December 2025
January 2026
Tentative Delivery Date: No Later than Q2 2027
(All Times Listed are Pacific Time Zone)

FIRE VESSEL

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction ............................................................................................1 II. Scope of Services ..................................................................................1 III. Instruction to Proposers......................................................................14 IV. Proposal Package Instructions...........................................................16 V. Evaluation and Selection.....................................................................17 VI. Equal Opportunity Program Requirements........................................20 VII. Grant Requirements.............................................................................23 VIII. Indemnify, Defend, Hold Harmless .....................................................23 IX. Protests.................................................................................................24 ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment A – Statement of Company Information ...................................25 Attachment B – Fee Schedule........................................................................29 Attachment C – Proposal Questionnaire Form ............................................30 EXHIBIT:

Exhibit A – Grant Agreement............................Posted on BidExpress 1 | P a g e
I. INTRODUCTION
A. City and Fire Department Background

1. Located in Marin County, the City of San Rafael is the oldest and largest city in Marin County, with a rich cultural heritage and a diverse population of over 60,000 residents. San Rafael serves as the county seat and is a hub for commerce, culture, and community services. The city is characterized by its distinctive neighborhoods, historic downtown, and beautiful natural surroundings.

2. The San Rafael Fire Department is an all-risk fire department providing service (24/7) to the City of San Rafael, Marinwood, and adjacent waterfronts/shipping lanes. The department is considered a first-tier agency in the Area Maritime Security Plan (AMSP) and is responsible for life safety, property, and environment preservation.

Through coordinated efforts with the Local, State, and Federal partners, the San Rafael Fire Department Marine Division provides fire suppression, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), Hazmat mitigation, public education, and disaster response services.

3. Additional information about the City can be found by visiting its web site at www.cityofsanrafael.org
II. SPECIFICATIONS
I. GENERAL
A. A qualified representative shall provide training to the San Rafael Fire Department in the operation, care, and maintenance of the vessel and supplied equipment.

B. All design changes shall be documented in writing and be approved by the San Rafael Fire Department prior to any new work-taking place.

II. WORKMANSHIP and STANDARDS
A. All work is to be done to high-quality marine construction standards. All welding will be in accordance with welding procedures approved by the American Bureau of Shipping, Rules for Building, and Classing High Speed Aluminum Vessels. If the hull construction shall be welded, all welds continuous inside and outside all seams. All weld spatter, soot, and construction scars will be removed or faired. All sharp edges and corners are dressed to prevent hazards to personnel and equipment. The vessel shall be constructed of quality marine grade materials.
2 | P a g e
III. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
A. GENERAL

1. The builder shall provide engineering services, for such time as may be necessary for the technical supervision of the assembly, testing and certification of the vessel. All cost for inspection, testing, plan review, and approval shall be at the Builder’s expense.

2. The vessel shall be constructed in accordance with and comply with all applicable United States Coast Guard Rules and Regulations, Code of Federal Regulations 46, American Boating and Yachting Council, NFPA, National Marine Manufacturing Association and American Bureau of Shipping Welding standards. The most stringent standard and or code shall be selected and be used in constructing the vessel.

3. The vessel shall meet or exceed requirements for all NFPA Class IV Fire Vessels

4. The vessel shall meet or exceed all applicable federal, state, regional, and local emission standards and environmental related regulatory requirements.

5. All parts of the vessel shall be constructed of materials appropriate for the environment in which the vessel will operate.

6. Whenever possible, the manufacturer will isolate metals wherever possible to mitigate galvanic corrosion, including but not limited to bonding wires with sacrificial anodes. No hull grounding.

7. There shall be a fully insulated cabin floor to quiet sea noise and maintain cabin temperature.

8. The vessel shall be designed so that the various systems and parts are readily accessible for inspection, adjustment, maintenance, lubrication and repair.

Placement of equipment whenever possible shall allow for its removal from the vessel without having to disturb permanently installed structural members, or equipment shall be situated to allow for in-place overhaul and repair.

9. Vessel shall have a field of vision from the helm suitable for safe navigation in all operating conditions and compliant with ABYC visibility standards.

10.Vessel shall be equipped with a wheelhouse and fore cabin. Cabin shall be enclosed and engineered for at least three - person crew to allow for the largest deck space possible. All doors to cabin shall be weather tight.

11.The San Rafael Fire Department shall approve all drawings before commencement of Construction/Production schedule. Drawings shall include details of dash, cabin, and deck layout.

12.Vessel design shall maximize storage in all areas and include storage under/on decks, and in cabin

13.The quoted fire / rescue boat must be in current production. Standard recreational production boats, prototype or used fireboats will not be considered.

14.The fire / rescue boat shall have a minimum capacity rating of twelve persons and a minimum load capacity of 4000 lbs.
3 | P a g e
B. DRAFT REQUIREMENTS and HULL CONFIGURATION

1. Vessel hull material must be marine grade materials. Aluminum, fiberglass, and other commercial grade marine hull materials will be considered.

2. Internal bilge metal may be coated with corrosive resistant material such as a quartz nanocoating to prevent pitting / corrosion.

3. The fireboat draft will preferably not exceed 36” in depth (ideal draft is 22”-36”) have a beam 10 – 15’ max and a length of 36’ – 46’ max.

4. The vessel shall be extremely stable so that list is minimized during asymmetrical static loading. The vessel shall meet NFPA Class ‘A’ heeling requirements.

5. Appropriate push knees; will be incorporated into the bow design and not adversely impact visibility or appreciably affect performance. The push knee bow design shall also incorporate an anchor locker with a safe secure method of securing the anchor. The locker shall also have proper drainage.

6. The hull should have sufficient angle of deadrise to effectively navigate through wake and waves under Small Craft Advisory conditions.

7. Vessel bilges should have appropriate passageways for liquid to reach desired bilge pump. A recessed pocket for the bilge pump to collect liquid when docked is desired.

C. PILOTHOUSE

1. The pilothouse will be fully enclosed and fitted out with fixed windows, sliding windows, and a door leading out to the rear deck that can be closed protecting the crew from outside elements. All windows shall be constructed of safety glass. The pilothouse will be outfitted with a control console forward and to the starboard side. All vessel controls, gauges, etc. are installed in the control console within immediate reach of the helmsman. The cabin has good overhead clearance of 6’6” minimum. Control systems may include “joystick” style controls for maneuverability and ease of use – highly desirable. (Hamilton AVX Joystick system or similar.). Station lock or GPS anchoring while fighting fires and is also highly desirable.

2. Cabin windows shall provide 360-degree unobstructed visibility from the helm with the cabin door open or closed. All windows and cabin doors shall be weather tight, and lockable. Rear cabin door shall have an integral stainless lockset for vessel security. Windows shall provide UV protection. Rear View cameras to increase visibility is also desirable.

3. The pilot house should have a small, raised lip along the edge to prevent water from coming to the windows.

4. Cabin windshield shall be forward slanted for better visibility and glare reduction. Should include marine grade auto park windshield wipers.

5. Cabin and/or forward berth shall be constructed and sound insulated to provide adequate insulating of cabin spaces.

6. Cabin shall have rubber stress matting or ergonomic floor throughout.

7. Vessel’s cabin area shall have seat/storage spaces to port & starboard to seat four persons or be capable of accommodating backboards, there shall be an open storage area for loose light stowage of personal gear etc. 4 | P a g e

8. Helm seats shall have a minimum of 20 inches in width. The helm seat shall be an adjustable suspension type seat (Bostrom or equal) with fore and aft sliders provided. Armrests shall be operable. Fabric shall be heavy-duty and easily cleanable.

9. Interior overhead white/red courtesy lights along with 1 red map light will be installed at every station. Overhead lights should also be installed anywhere personnel could be working/walking/standing/sitting.

10. Cabin dashboard shall have sufficient space to mount an MDC/Computer screen and keyboard with watertight space for any computer infrastructure.

11. EPIRB mounted on top of pilot house

12. The vessel shall have adequate storage for vessel and fire gear to include items such as boat hook, pike pole, bolt cutters, fire axe, Halligan tool, and other assorted tools.

13. Ventilated storage for 200’ of 2 ½ inch of hose, 285 feet of 1 ¾ hose, (including 2 high rise packs), and fire accessories

14. Ventilated storage for 100’ tow line, bridle, snap hook, and chain line

15. Storage to accommodate first aid kits, AED, and protective gloves.

16. Provisions for a small trash can or incorporated into construction

17.4 Scott SCBA mounts, 2 spare SCBA mounts.

18.10 Type 2 life vests and storage for vests when not utilized

19. Location for American flag on mast that doesn’t snag or obstruct any equipment or cameras.

20. A boat identification plate shall be attached to the boat. This engraved plate shall contain required information such as the boat size, model, serial #, load capacity, max persons and manufactures information.

D. WORK DECK and EQUIPMENT

1. Deck area will have a non-skid safety surface, along with any grab handles.

The rear deck will have a large work area to facilitate dive operations, fire / medical operations and rescue operations.

2. There shall be welded cleats evenly spaced around the perimeter of the vessel.

3. Aluminum railings (preferably removable), minimum 1-1/2” will be used on the vessel for safety. A high gunwale would be accepted. The railing/gunwale will extend from the bow, to aft of the foredeck. Digital copy of removable railing drawings shall be provided to the City for future replacement.

4. There will be a removable dive ladder mounted and hinged on swim step with swim platform for dive use and survivor retrieval. The ladder shall float. 5 | P a g e

5. Adequate storage with ready access to stokes litter and rescue board.

6. A hinged watertight hatch, (Freeman or equal), shall be provided to access the anchor locker. The anchor locker shall store the anchor, chain and rode. An anchor bracket in the locker will secure the anchor. Shall have proper drainage or liquid collection spot to ease drying/cleaning.

7. There shall be a hinged watertight hatch, (Freeman or equal), on the aft deck to provide quick access to the engine room. There shall be a large weather tight engine hatch that permits easy access for removal of engines, fire pump, drive system, and general servicing with rain gutters draining overboard. The hatch shall be supported with gas shocks or a lockable foot operated mechanical latch.

8. Hatches shall be provided with a positive locking device to prevent movement during rough conditions. Hatches shall be clear opening, for better access.

9. Vessel shall be equipped with a “Tow package” (king post / Sampson post) and 150’ tow rope.

10. Fender rack for 2 fenders appropriate for vessel size and construction.

11. Holder for life ring with line appropriate for vessel size and construction.

12. Swim step shall be built or constructed in a way to help prevent damage to our dock or vessel.

13. The vessel shall be equipped for commissioning and compliance with applicable USCG and NFPA shall be included. These equipment items shall include throwable life ring, anchor with line, fenders, dock lines, boat hooks/pike poles, air horn, flare kit, and a first aid kit.

E. ELECTRICAL

1. Wiring shall be installed as per ABYC and United States Coast Guard sub chapter T part 183 Rules as a minimum. The builder shall provide an electrical schematic in the manual package. The schematic shall be a one-line diagram, follow the electrical runs as installed in the vessel, and match the labeling of the wiring runs. Wiring runs shall be concealed behind cabin walls, decorative cable trays, or loom. All hull contact points or penetrations shall be loomed or fitted with grommets, anti-chafe or bulkhead fittings to prevent damage to conductors that could lead to hull corrosion and be liquid tight. Exposed wiring will not be accepted. All conductors will be sized according to their load and length, with respect to ABYC allowable voltage drop. In machinery space all connectors smaller than 10 AWG shall be of the heat shrink type to minimize the risk of corrosion. All connectors larger than 10 AWG shall be covered with 6 | P a g e
heat shrink. Deutsch connectors to be utilized everywhere a crimp or connection is happening when possible. All connectors are to be of the crimp on type, wire nuts and splices will not be accepted. 12-volt DC and 120-volt AC electrical system.

2. Batteries; Maintenance free Deep cycle. Three (3) separate systems: one (1) for house and one (1) per engine for starting for a total of three (3) systems.

Isolated with selector switches to pair the systems.

3. Independent port and starboard C-9 Control Panels.

4. 12-volt dual USB accessory plugs at every seating & working area.

5. Two (2) alternators with minimum 150-amp capacity for starting system maintenance.

6. Service loops on all equipment cable.

7. Marine grade commercial distribution breaker panel with thermal magnetic over/short surge protection breakers including shielded switch covers.

8. Shore power via 120-volt AC system with 50-foot portable cable includes isolating transformer. The current dock is equipped with 30-amp service.

9. Thermally controlled engine block heaters that are energized via shore power receptacle.

10. 120-volt AC 15-amp marine GFI duplex outlets. Located at every sitting/work area including engine room.

11. Pure sine-wave inverter installed in a dry area, not in engine room.

12. All electrical equipment shall be arranged so it cannot be damaged by bilge water, if within 12" of the bilge, connections shall be watertight or contained in NMEA boxes.

F. DC SYSTEMS

1.DC Electrical breaker panels shall have sufficient and properly sized breakers for all circuits. Breaker panels shall provide four additional breakers as spares for future additions to the vessel. All breaker panels shall be backlit and have indicating lights for each breaker, with the following as a minimum:
a) Engine compartment,
b) Deck lights;
c) VHF radio;
d) 12V outlets;
e) Electronics; and
f) Fire Pump.

2. A breaker shall control all DC house power; an over current protection device with the required AIC rating shall protect the entire circuit.

3. All electrical knobs/switches/controls must have fixed labeling and/or have procedure where it is needed

4. Recessed lighting shall be provided for safety on the swim platform.

5. Underwater lighting along the perimeter of the vessel for increased safety, dive operations, and night operations.

6. The front windshields shall have a quality marine grade wiper system with the auto park feature. A motorized windshield washer system shall be provided with intermittent / momentary setting.
7 | P a g e

7. The cabin will be outfitted with air circulation fans sufficient to provide reliable and timely windshield defrosting capability. An engine mounted Air Conditioning compressor is desirable.

8. Cabin heat shall have adequate air movement and adjustable diffuser outlets to keep windshields clear when defroster is needed. The heater shall be its own stand-alone unit and not operate off the engine coolant.

9. The vessel shall have 12-volt dual USB-C accessory plugs at every seating & working station.

10. There shall be a radar arch and hinged mast installed on the aft part of the cabin roof. The following items must be able to be mounted on the mast or arch: radar dome or array, siren speaker, emergency lights, restricted in maneuverability lights, spotlight, required navigational lights, work lights, and two halyards. The mast shall be capable of being lowered by a single person and permit the boat to operate at full speed in the down position safely. The mast height shall be tall enough to provide mandatory spacing between lighting. The arch shall be capable of accommodating an open array radar antenna. The mast shall not exceed 17’ 5” from the water line when upright.

11. Batteries shall be stored in secure, properly vented, corrosion-resistant battery boxes.

12. Battery boxes shall be fully accessible. Batteries shall be arranged in 3 banks, at least one for port engine, at least one for starboard engine, and at least one for house. Batteries shall be sized accordingly for their respective loads. The builder shall provide a load analysis to verify battery sufficiency. The propulsion engine alternators will be connected to the charging system using battery isolators, allowing each source (alternator or charger) to charge each battery bank, and protecting battery banks from cross draining. House batteries shall power all required equipment for 2-4 hours without shore power or alternator charging.

13. Starting system shall be designed with an appropriate marine battery interconnect switch to allow for cross starting of each engine from port, starboard or house battery banks. The configuration shall be so you can pair just 2 or all 3 systems. 2-way switches will control power to the starter circuits.

All switches shall be mounted in an accessible area.

G. AC SYSTEMS

1. AC Electrical breaker panels shall have sufficient and properly sized breakers for all circuits, and contain an amp meter and voltmeter. Breaker panels shall provide two additional breakers as spares for future additions to the vessel.

Shore power ground shall run through a galvanic isolator to aid in the prevention of corrosion. Each AC accessory shall be breakered separately. All breaker panels shall be backlit and have indicating lights for each breaker.

2. Vessel will have an AC battery charger to maintain battery level while dockside and plugged into shore power.

3. Cabin space shall be equipped with 120-volt AC 15-amp marine GFI duplex outlets. Located at every sitting/work area including engine room. 8 | P a g e
H. ELECTRONICS and NAVIGATION EQUIPMENT
The following marine electronic equipment shall be supplied and installed by the builder:

1. Fully integrated navigation system.

2. All components NMEA standard compatible.

3. Searchlight must have 340-degree capability without obstruction. Otherwise a second will need to be added.

4. Radar open array capable of a minimum 30 nm, depth finder, chart plotter, fishfinder, chirp sonar, downscan imaging, sidescan, map, AutoPilot, Encrypted AIS, heading sensor, Minimum 12” displays.

5. The AIS system and chart plotter will share information.

6. Marine grade loud hailer with speaker and horn.

7. Thermal Camera (FLIR or similar) system is highly desirable, or provisions for Thermal Camera (make model to be determined later). Permanent mounted camera must have 300-degree capability without obstruction of view.

8. Displays and engine instrumentation to be interfaced to create redundancy if a monitor/display were to fail. The system must also be user-friendly.

9. All electronics and instrumentation are to be properly interfaced for both safety and redundancy. Including but not limited to radar, AIS, FLIR, cameras, instrumentation, etc.

10. Marine radios, three

11. 4” floating compass

12. LED emergency light bar or similar emergency lights with flashing red light, CA Harbors and Navigation Code compliant with controller

13. Whelan siren and speaker (or similar marine grade system)

14. Vessel shall be provided with a dimmer to control gauge and compass brightness during night operation.

15. Must have a minimum of 4 displays including engine instrumentation, radar/plotter, and thermal camera

16. The operator and crewperson will have their own radar/plotter display that are accessible by multiple officer heights.

17. Navigation lighting will be determined by USCG regulations for vessels of this size and service and marine grade. Approved lights will be arranged to display the correct light signals for free running, anchoring and restricted maneuverability, dive ops, and towing.

I. BILGE PUMPS

1. The vessel will be equipped with a minimum of three independent bilge pumps located in separate compartments of the hull. The submersible pumps will have a minimum capacity of 2000 GPH each as rated by the manufacturer.

Each pump will have a float switch and will be controlled by a toggle switch in the pilothouse. These switches will allow for automatic or manual activation of the pumps.

J. ALARM SYSTEMS

1. The vessel will be equipped with a high water alarm, propulsion alarm, exhaust temperature, raw water intake flow, and high temperature fire detection sensor 9 | P a g e
installed in the machinery space. Alarms will activate visual and audible warning devices at the control station in the event of a dangerous condition.

K. PAINT, MARKINGS, and PREPARATION

1. All exterior/interior colors will be determined at a later date.

2. Paint system shall be marine epoxy primers with polyurethane topcoats above the waterline and shall provide corrosion resistance from stray electrical current. The entire hull shall be sandblasted and prepared in accordance with the paint manufacture’s specifications. Topcoats shall be free of runs and have a high gloss finish. Final paint dry film thickness shall be provided in accordance with paint manufacturer’s instructions.

3. The hull will be coated with epoxy-coated primers and an Anti-fouling paint will be used on the hull below the waterline, jets or drives shall also be coated.

Paint used on the hull shall be a non-copper based hull paint.

4. Two coats bottom paint over at least three coats underwater primer or as dictated by the manufacturer.

5. The San Rafael Fire Department shall provide all identifying decal artwork for the vessel and installed by the vendor.

6. Gunwale above the waterline for aluminum hulls does not need to be painted.

7. Vessel name/# shall be visible from forward, aft, and sides.

8. The name/number shall also be visible from thermal camera that will be activated by the navigation light switch is a highly desirable quality.

L. FIRE MAIN SYSTEM and DISCHARGE OUTLETS

1. The fire main shall be made of copper nickel or stainless steel. (The agency will be open to other proven materials.) The main shall be constructed in pieces utilizing Victaulic flanges in a way to make replacement and Maintenance simplified.

2. Must be able to drain all water in the fire piping system from 1 location on the exterior of the vessel. The water must not drain into the bilge of the vessel.

M. FIRE-FIGHTING CAPABILITY

1. The vessel shall meet or exceed requirements for NFPA Type IV (4) Fire vessels:
a) Minimum of one fire pump that does not disable drive operations for either engine
b) The fireboat will be able to pump at a minimum, 2000 gallons per minute at NFPA required pressures, 150 PSI. (Higher GPM is an objective). c) Water will be delivered from a minimum of three locations on the boat. d) On station fuel capacity of 6 hours

2. All fire monitors will be operated electronically from inside the cabin. The firefighting control center shall provide complete control of the fire pump and associated automated equipment. The control center shall provide maximum visual observation of fire fighting operations, while maintaining protection from 10 | P a g e
smoke, heat, and weather. Piping shall not obstruct the vision of the operator or crew at anytime. Piping shall not be external to or exposed in the cabin.

3. Pump monitoring shall be provided and be adequate for the proper and safe operation of the pump. This shall include pump controls and discharge pressure gauge. All controls and gauges shall be mounted at the fire-fighting console to port of the helm station.

4. The pump shall have a minimum of two 2-½”-3” discharges shall be mounted on port & starboard gunwales on the aft deck. The 3” discharge piping shall be 3”-inch pipe with the main roof monitor supplied by 4” pipe. The vessel shall have a 4” discharge for shore water supply.

5. The main monitors shall be a remote control with electric nozzle and electric valve.

6. Elbows / corners in header pipes must be reinforced

7. Handheld thermal camera (TIC) with charging station, TIC must be capable of taking and storing photos
N. VESSEL FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM (preferred)

1. A built-infire suppression system may be provided. (Clean Agent). There should also be at least 1 Amerex 15 lb. dry chemical fire extinguisher and 1 Amerex 20 lb CO2 fire extinguisher is located on the boat as manual backup fire suppression.

O. HYDRANT OUTLETS

1. The vessel shall have a 4” discharge for shore water supply.

P. FIRE-FIGHTING PUMPING SYSTEM

1. Power for the pump(s) will be supplied by a separate pump engine (preferred).

If necessary, pump power may be supplied by the propulsion engines if this can be done without preventing use of the engine for maneuvering using a system such as a Hamiliton Jetfighter system or similar.

2. The marine engine's horsepower must be able to drive a fire pump to deliver a minimum of 2000 GPM. Higher GPM is desired if possible. The pumping system shall meet NFPA 1925 requirements with the exception of fire main sizing as 1925 requirements far exceeds the monitor clear openings and hull space requirements.

3. All components shall have design pressure ratings greater than the maximum pump discharge pressure.

4. The suction arrangement for the pump shall include at least one sea chest with a screened inlet, a valved outlet, and cleanout access from the working deck or engine room.

5. Open area of the screen shall be at least twice the cross-sectional area of the suction pipe.
11 | P a g e

6. Piping shall be supported from the vessel structure to carry the load of the water-filled pipe plus a minimum of 50% overload supplied at the point of support.

7. Bracing shall be provided to resist nozzle reaction of discharge devices.

8. Drains shall be provided to all portions of the discharge and distribution piping.

9. Vessel shall have a means of flushing the piping system with fresh water.

10. All piping shall be hydrostatically tested at 200 PSI for not less than one hour.

11. All pump controls and gauges shall be mounted at helm. Master discharge gauge, Vacuum gauge, pressure gauge, etc.

Q. PROPULSION DRIVE SYSTEM

1. The drive system may consist of jet drives, outboard engines, or inboard engines with a shaft/propeller. Jet drives are preferred.

2. The vessel shall be powered by multiple commercial – grade engines, (tier 3 marine diesel or better, or other environmentally compliant gasoline engines) and will be driving two water jets, outboards, or shaft/propellers. a) If water jets, drive will use impellers matched to the engine and pump ratings and RPMs.
b) There shall be a reversing marine gear suitable for the engine and jet/propeller size installed in the driveline.
c) The builder shall provide and install engines and related accessories as per engine manufacturer’s specifications for installation.
d) Vessels with a diesel engine shall be built to accommodate Tier 4 engines. e) Steering system shall comply with ABYC P-18, Steering systems for Outboard, Inboards, Stern drive and Water jet-drive Boats. The builder shall meet steering manufacture’s specifications for installation and operation. f) Tier 3 and Tier 4 Marine Diesel engines must have a diesel particulate filter (DPF)

3. Engines rated closest to continuous duty are desirable.

4. All oil on the vessel must be connected to a reverse oil changing system for ease of maintenance.

5. Jet drives shall be larger diameter appropriate for the size/type of vessel selected to address marine obstacles such as kelp.

6. The vessel will have a continuous cruise speed of no less than 35 Knots. This shall be reached with the vessel crewed with two members of the Department and fire-fighting equipment.

7. Extra set of OEM ignition keys

8. All ladders and steps into engine room shall utilize quick disconnects to remove for maintenance/repairs.

R. AUXILIARY SYSTEMS

1. Fuel System
a) Fuel tanks should be aluminum and properly sized at a minimum of 150 gallons.
b) These tanks will be built and hydrostatically tested to the Safety Standards for Small Craft specifications. Fuel tanks will be suitably baffled, fitted with 12 | P a g e
electric level gauges and isolated from the hull structure by neoprene or rubber padding. They will be strapped and supported by a support system. Racor fuel filters shall be installed for each engine with fuel shut off(s) at helm station.

Racors shall have gauge installed on t handles.
c) Engine room shall be separated from the fuel tanks by a watertight bulkhead.
d) Engine room bulkhead and hatches are acoustically and thermally insulated where possible.

2. Heating
a) Heating / defrosting capable of defrosting the window and heating the cabin for comfort.

3. Lighting
a) (LED) Navigation lights; Restricted in Maneuvering lights, Towing lights, search light (w/remote) *swim step dive lights, starboard / port and aft facing flood lights. Takedown. Courtesy and step lights through the interior and exterior of the vessel.
b) All lights on the vessel shall be LED
c) Excessive engine/fuel room lighting for Maintenance or repair in the dark d) Rechargeable flashlight and holder mounted in pilot house S. ENVIRONMENTAL / OPERATIONAL REQUIREMENTS:

1. The vessel shall be able to operate in a rated sea state of 4-6 with a hull designed to minimize hull slamming.

2. The vessel shall be able to operate without excessive wear and maintain warranty / maintenance standards under a work tempo of 2000 engine hours per year.

3. The vessel shall be able to operate in areas where kelp and other marine objects are present and be able to be easily cleared from propellers / jets.

4. The vessel will be able to operate in a saltwater environment without the expectation of out-of-water storage.

5. Bilge Clean filter system for all discharged bilge pump water

6. Manufacturer approved food grade oil, grease, and lubricants T. DESIRED WARRANTIES

1. Hull and deck: minimum 10 years on hull material, welds, and seams.

2. Engine: standard manufacturer’s warranty.

3. Pump: standard manufacturer’s warranty.

4. Propulsion Standard manufacturer’s warranty.

5. Equipment: standard one-year manufacturer’s warranty.

U. TRIALS & INSPECTIONS

1. The builder shall include the cost for lodging and meals for one (1) inspection visit for 3 people prior to final delivery. The fireboat must successfully complete the trials listed below at the builder's facility:
a) Maneuverability in various sea conditions.
b) Acceleration and deceleration maximum thrust.
13 | P a g e
c) Fire pump capabilities including master stream shape, GPM output, and effect on the boat while monitor is flowing maximum capacity of pump. d) Testing of all equipment on vessel. The successful proposer shall make repairs, corrections, or re-designs, as appropriate, at no additional cost, if the boat fails the tests during sea trials.

2. These trials shall be at the builder’s expense at its facility at a time mutually agreed upon.

3. Any deficiencies noted during the sea trials shall be corrected by the builder prior to delivery of the vessel. In the event that a materials deficiency is found during the sea trials, a second sea trial may be requested by prior to delivery and acceptance.

V. DELIVERY & TRAINING

1. Delivery of the vessel will be expected within 14 months of the award of the contract, including travel time to the San Rafael’s marine docking area.

W. MANUALS

1. Proposer shall provide two copies of the vessels service/parts manuals for the vessel as supplied to the builder by the equipment’s manufacturer. The manuals will contain a recommended spare parts listing. Systems covered shall be navigation, main propulsion, pumps, electrical, lubrication, fire-fighting systems, Must also provide hard copies of parts manuals for all equipment installed.

2. Detailed wiring & antenna schematic shall be provided. The schematic shall state the color and unique identification number. Along with the exact route that it is run and depicts any connections or splitting.

3. The proposer shall supply a detailed monthly, quarterly, and annual safety inspection check list.

4. Proposer shall provide a Maintenance plan for when items are recommended to be replaced or overhauled.

5. The proposer shall provide a cost life analysis of the vessel based on age and approximate use of 1000 hours per year. The vessel will be kept in the water and not dry docked its entire life.

6. Proposer shall provide a word or excel document with every brand, name, part # and/or serial number used on the vessel.

III. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS
A. The City is accepting electronic bid submissions. Proposals must be received no later than 10:00 AM, local time, on October 10, 2025 Submit proposal 14 | P a g e
electronically via Bid Express:
https://www.bidexpress.com/businesses/39341/home
B. It is the Consultant’s responsibility to ensure that the Proposal is received on time. BidExpress prevents proposals from being submitted after the deadline.

The City will only respond to questions in writing from Consultants. All questions regarding this RFP must be made in writing by October 20, 2025 at 10:00 AM via Bid Express. The City cannot respond to verbal questions submitted by telephone or in person. All addenda will be posted on Bid Express. By submitting a Proposal, the proposer affirms that they are aware of any addenda and have prepared their Proposal accordingly. No allowances will be made for a proposer’s failure to inform themselves of addenda content. A link to the addenda may be accessed at the following web address: https://www.bidexpress.com/businesses/39341/home C. Examination of Proposal Documents. By submitting a proposal, the Proposer represents that it has thoroughly examined and become familiar with the goods to be provided under this RFP, and that it is capable of providing required goods to achieve City’s objectives.

D. Required Proposal Documents

1. The proposal must contain the following items placed in the order listed:
a. Attachment A, Statement of Company Information
b. Attachment B, Fee Schedule
c. Attachment C, Proposal Questionnaire Form

2. The City will conduct a preliminary review of the proposals to determine if the above items are included as required in the RFP. If a proposal does not include all items fully completed, the proposal may be considered not responsive.

E. Agreement Type

1. Terms and Conditions
An example of the Terms and Conditions to be executed with the successful Proposer can be found here:
https://www.bidexpress.com/businesses/39341/home. The cover letter must state that the sample Terms and Conditions is acceptable as-is.

Please do not submit a Proposal and subsequently request changes to the Terms and Conditions. By submitting a proposal, the Proposer is accepting all the terms and conditions included in the sample, including stated insurance coverage and limitations.
15 | P a g e
F. Rights of City

1. This RFP does not commit the City to enter into an Agreement, nor does it obligate the City to pay for any costs incurred in preparation and submission of proposals or in anticipation of an Agreement. City may investigate the qualifications of any Proposer under consideration, require confirmation of information furnished by the Proposer, and require additional evidence or qualifications to perform the Services described in this RFP.

2. City reserves the right to:
a. Reject any or all proposals.
b. Issue subsequent Requests for Proposals.
c. Postpone opening for its own convenience.
d. Remedy technical errors in the Request for Proposals process. e. Approve or disapprove the use of Proposer’s Sub- Service Providers.
f. Negotiate with any, all, or none of the Proposers.
g. Solicit best and final offers from all or some of the Proposers. h. Award an Agreement to one or more Proposers.
i. Accept other than the lowest offer.
j. Waive informalities and irregularities in proposals.

G. Collusion. By submitting a proposal, each Proposer represents and warrants that its proposal is genuine and not a sham or collusive or made in the interest of or on behalf of any person not named therein; that the Proposer has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other person to submit a sham proposal, or any other person to refrain from submitting a proposal; and that the Proposer has not, in any manner, sought collusion to secure any improper advantage over any other person submitting a proposal.

H. Withdrawal of Proposals. A Proposer may withdraw their proposal before the expiration of the time for submission of proposals by going to the Bid Express and removing their submission.

IV. PROPOSAL PACKAGE INSTRUCTIONS
A.Format & Content

1. Proposers shall include the required items stated in Section III Instructions to Proposers, Paragraph D, Required Proposal Documents. 16 | P a g e

2. The proposal documents shall be submitted in Portable Document Format (PDF) format. THE PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS SHALL BE
ONE DOCUMENT ONLY.

3. The nature and form of response are at the discretion of those responding, but shall include the information listed below.

V. EVALUATION AND SELECTION
A. Evaluation Criteria/Matrix. The following criteria and matrix shall be used to evaluate proposals:

1. Compliance with the Specifications and Waterside Operational Environment (in and around San Rafael coastal waters)
a. Ability to fulfill the mission on the San Pablo Bay and near coastal waters effectively
b. Operational tempo, 24/7 response patrol, minimal downtime for maintenance and repairs
c. Suitability for the environment / Area of Responsibility (AOR) d. Size of vessel and dock space. Expectation is no larger than a 46 foot vessel (length overall)

2. Manufacturer’s Capability to Perform:
a. Ability to keep within timelines. Expectation of vessel delivery is within 14 months of execution of an agreement.
b. History (3 references, past history of vessel production with other entities)
c. Ability to provide support post delivery
d. Manufacturer’s experience with public safety (Fire, Police) Expectation is having worked with 3 other public agencies e. Vessel design is established and has track record of performance

3. Personnel & Maintenance
a. Number of people to operate / crew the vessel (minimum 2 individuals)
b. Necessary training to be provided for operational proficiency c. Specialized maintenance training to Fire Dept staff (inclusive) d. Specialized maintenance equipment needed to
calibrate/maintain/etc. is included with vessel
e. Software/hardware is included to enhance vessel maintenance and performance and is user friendly

4. Procurement & Replacement Schedule
a. Vessel performance / lifespan of vessel - Expectation is a minimum of 20 years
b. Life cycle cost of vessel is essential for City planning and budget forecasting
17 | P a g e

5. Fair and Reasonable Cost, Proposal’s price within budget a. Reasonableness of equipment costs submitted and the
competitiveness of these costs when compared with other submitted proposals
B. Evaluation Procedure

1. A Selection Review Panel, generally made up of City staff, will review the proposals and establish a list of finalists based on pre-established review criteria. The names of the Selection Review Panel members are not revealed prior to the interviews. The Selection Review Panel may interview the finalists. If interviews are conducted, the Proposer should allow approximately 1 hour for the oral interview and a question and answer session. The Proposer may be requested to lead a 10-12 minute presentation before the Selection Review Panel.

2. The Selection Review Panel will evaluate the proposals. The rating and evaluation forms prepared by Panel members will not be revealed. The scores in the evaluation matrix shown below DO NOT indicate a “winning score” and the highest score is not guaranteed selection. The final decision is at the discretion of the City and is based on the scores, reference checks, negotiated pricing, and further analysis of the proposals including any risks associated with selecting any proposal.

Evaluation Criteria Weight Firm A Firm B Firm C
Score Total Score Total Score Total
Compliance with the
Specifications and
Waterside Operational
Environment
35%
Manufacturers Capability to
Perform
25%
Fair and Reasonable Cost 20%
Procurement and
Replacement Schedule
5%
Maintenance 15%
Grand Total 100%
E. Award. When the Selection Review Panel has completed its work, the City may negotiate for the extent of services to be rendered and the method of compensation. Because City may award without conducting negotiations, the proposal submitted shall contain the Proposer’s most favorable terms and conditions.
18 | P a g e
VI. GRANT REQUIREMENTS
A. The new vessel is a project funded through the Department of Homeland Security, Port Security Grant Programs Directorate for Fiscal Year 2024.

B. Proposer shall comply with all applicable requirements of Grant Agreement No. EMW-2024-PU-05293, posted on BidExpress and on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and all Federal laws, executive orders, regulations and policies governing this program.

VII. INDEMNIFY, DEFEND, HOLD HARMLESS. Proposer will indemnify the City as stated in the Terms and Conditions, Section 22.

Seller/Contractor agrees to release, indemnify, hold harmless and defend City, its officers agents, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, liability, lawsuits or other actions for damage or injury to persons or property arising out of the Seller/Contractor' s operations under this Agreement, or the performance of this Agreement by Seller/Contractor or its officers, employees, partners, directors or agent.

VIII. PROTESTS
A. Prior to the closing date for submittal of proposals, Proposer may submit to City protests regarding the procurement process, or alleged improprieties in specifications or alleged restrictive specifications. Such protests shall be filed no later than 10 working days prior to the scheduled closing date. If necessary, the closing date of the solicitation may be extended pending a resolution of the protest. Protests dealing with alleged improprieties in the procurement or the procurement process that can only be apparent after the closing date for receipt of proposals shall be filed within five (5) working days of issuance of the Notice of Recommended Award. Protests shall contain a statement of the grounds for protests and supporting documentation. Protestor will be notified of City’s final decision prior to issuance of Award.

B. A Proposer may discuss the procurement documents with City. Such discussions, however, do not relieve Proposers from the responsibility of submitting written protests as required.

C. Requests and protests shall be addressed to: City of San Rafael Fire Department, Attn: Jason Hatfield, Battalion Chief, 1400 5 th Ave, San Rafael,
CA 94901
____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Public Works
Prepared by: April Miller
Director, Public Works
Lorena Cordova
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager Approval: ______
TOPIC: FUEL SERVICES CONTRACT
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROCURE FUEL SERVICES

THROUGH A COOPERATIVE PURCHASING PROGRAM WITH PACIFIC COAST PETROLEUM, INC. FOR UP TO THREE YEARS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $522,000 PER FISCAL YEAR, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,566,000,

WITH THE AUTHORITY TO EXTEND THE AGREEMENT FOR TWO ADDITIONAL FISCAL YEARS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $522,000 PER FISCAL YEAR,

SUBJECT TO SUBSEQUENT APPROPRIATIONS
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to procure fuel services through a cooperative purchasing program with Pacific Coast Petroleum, Inc. for up to three years in an amount not to exceed $522,000 per fiscal year, for a total amount not to exceed $1,566,000, with the authority to extend the agreement for two additional years in an amount not to exceed $522,000 per fiscal year, subject to subsequent appropriations.

BACKGROUND:

Historically, the City has received fuel services for its vehicle fleet on an as-needed basis from an existing vendor. No formal agreement is or has ever been in place for the City’s fuel services. However, the existing vendor has provided reliable, routine, and satisfactory provision of services to date. Until recently, the City’s Department of Public Works (DPW) staff decided to explore the opportunity to procure fuel services with a formal agreement, with all the standards and protections that come with a contractual obligation. DPW staff began to inquire informally with different vendors, including the existing vendor, as to what procuring those services under a formal agreement might entail. Based on that initial research and analysis, the opportunity presented itself to procure fuel services via a cooperative purchasing program with Pacific Coast Petroleum.

ANALYSIS:

Fuel Needs
As noted, the City currently receives fuel services from an existing vendor through an unofficial arrangement. The City receives fuel services for eleven (11) tanks across the City, including maintenance yards and fire stations, each with different needs. Below is the list of City fuel locations, fuel type, and tank capacity:

Agenda Item No: 2.p
Meeting Date: July 20, 2026
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
Fueling Sites/Tanks Fuel Type Tank Capacity

1. PW Corp Yard/ Tank No. 1 Regular Unleaded E87 5,200 Gallons

2. PW Corp Yard/ Tank No. 2 Renewable Diesel R99 2,000 Gallons

3. PD/FD Station 51 Renewable Diesel R99 2,000 Gallons

4. FD Station 52/ Tank No. 1 Regular Unleaded E87 765 Gallons

5. FD Station 52/ Tank No. 2 Renewable Diesel R99 745 Gallons

6. FD Station 54 Renewable Diesel R99 500 Gallons

7. FD Station 55/ Tank No. 1 Renewable Diesel R99 526 Gallons

8. FD Station 55/ Tank No. 2 Renewable Diesel R99 250 Gallons

9. FD Station 56 Renewable Diesel R99 500 Gallons

10. FD Station 57/ Tank No. 1 Regular Unleaded E87 250 Gallons

11. FD Station 57/ Tank No. 2 Renewable Diesel R99 750 Gallons Cooperative Purchase Program
Services, supplies, materials, and equipment furnished to or used by any department of the City are subject to San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter 2.55 ("Purchasing Policy"). Pursuant to Section 2.55110 (A), contracts for such services, supplies, materials, and/or equipment awarded in the amount of $75,000 or more are required to comply with competitive and formal bidding procedures. Additionally, the City Council is established as the award authority for such contracts. Under the City’s Municipal Code Section

2.55.100 (C), exceptions to competitive bidding may be granted for cooperative purchasing programs which are defined as follows:

Purchases of supplies, material, equipment or services and sales of surplus property made under a cooperative purchasing program, such as by utilizing purchasing agreements maintained by the United States government or any agency or division thereof, the State of California, County of Marin, or other public agencies, are exempt from the competitive bidding requirements of this chapter. To the extent possible, cooperative purchases joined will be competitively awarded, and documentation as to the advantage of the cooperative purchase will be retained.

In November of 2025, Pacific Coast Petroleum entered into an agreement with the City and County of San Francisco (“San Francisco”) to provide fuel services (Attachment 2). Under this cooperative purchase agreement with San Francisco, the City can procure the same fuel services, subject to our standard terms and conditions.

Contractual Agreement
At this time, City Staff is seeking City Council authorization to enter into a contractual agreement (“Agreement”) with Pacific Coast Petroleum, which submitted a proposal to provide fuel services for the City’s vehicle fleet. Thus, staff is seeking authorization to contract with Pacific Coast Petroleum for up to three years in an amount not to exceed $1,566,000. As part of the Agreement, the City seeks to establish a baseline for procuring fuel services that sets a price point, a service schedule, the locations to be serviced, and terms for emergency deliveries, among others. Additionally, the City’s standard terms and conditions would be established through this Agreement. Below is a breakdown of some of the baseline items that are key to this Agreement for the City:

Category Specifications
Pricing Standard Establishes a gasoline reference index Fuel Specifications Establishes fuel types that are to be supplied at the different City sites Price List Establishes fuel type, delivery volume and pricing for each City site Price Adjustments Establishes Oil Price Information Service as the reference and firm standard for price adjustments
Deliveries Establishes hours, timelines, and expectations for deliveries SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
With the specifications listed above, the City will have a baseline for fuel services that currently do not exist. Among other terms of the Agreement, City Staff recommends that the Agreement be established for a minimum term of three (3) years to provide stability in an unstable fuel market. Lastly, City Staff recommends two one-year options to extend beyond the three years if the formal Agreement and the working relationship with the vendor prove to be a successful endeavor and in the best interest of the City. City staff recommends two one-year options in an amount not to exceed $522,000 per fiscal year.

A copy of the draft Agreement is provided as Attachment 3.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Annually, the budgeted amount for the City’s automotive fuel is typically $522,000, which includes DPW’s costs for the City’s vehicle fleet and the Fire Department's costs for operations and emergency services.

There are adequate appropriations in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 budget to accommodate this contract.

Appropriations beyond FY 2026-27 will be included in the regular budgeting process for each subsequent fiscal year.

OPTIONS:

The City Council has the following options to consider relating to this item:

1. Adopt the resolution as presented.

2. Adopt the resolution with amendments.

3. Do not adopt the resolution.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to procure fuel services through a cooperative purchasing program with Pacific Coast Petroleum, Inc. for up to three years in an amount not to exceed $522,000 per fiscal year, for a total amount not to exceed $1,566,000, with the authority to extend the agreement for two additional years in an amount not to exceed $522,000 per fiscal year, subject to subsequent appropriations. Funding to support annual contract costs is provided in the FY 2026-27 approved budget within the Fleet Maintenance/Replacement Internal Service Fund (Fund 621). Funding to support future years’ costs will be provided through the annual budget process.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Cooperative Purchase Program with the City and County of San Francisco

3. Agreement with Pacific Coast Petroleum, Inc.

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROCURE FUEL SERVICES THROUGH A COOPERATIVE PURCHASING PROGRAM WITH PACIFIC COAST PETROLEUM, INC. FOR UP TO THREE YEARS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $522,000 PER FISCAL YEAR, FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,566,000, WITH THE AUTHORITY TO EXTEND THE

AGREEMENT FOR TWO ADDITIONAL FISCAL YEARS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $522,000 PER FISCAL YEAR, SUBJECT TO SUBSEQUENT APPROPRIATIONS WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael (“City”) maintains a vehicle fleet, including public works and emergency response vehicles, that requires a reliable supply of fuel to support City operations, including maintenance yards and fire stations; and
WHEREAS, the City currently receives fuel services for its vehicle fleet on an as-needed, informal basis from an existing vendor, and no formal agreement has ever been in place for the City’s fuel services, although the existing vendor has provided reliable, routine, and satisfactory service to date; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Department of Public Works (“DPW”) undertook to explore procuring fuel services under a formal agreement that would provide the standards and protections of a contractual obligation, and, in the course of informally inquiring with various vendors, identified the opportunity to procure fuel services through a cooperative purchasing program with Pacific Coast Petroleum, Inc. (“Pacific Coast Petroleum”); and
WHEREAS, San Rafael Municipal Code 2.55.100(C) authorizes purchases of supplies, material, equipment or services and sales of surplus property made under a cooperative purchasing program, such as by utilizing purchasing agreements maintained by the United States government or any agency or division thereof, the State of California, County of Marin, or other public agencies, without competitive bidding by the City; and
WHEREAS, in November 2025, Pacific Coast Petroleum entered into an agreement with the City and County of San Francisco (“San Francisco”) to provide fuel services, and, under the cooperative purchasing program established by that agreement, the City may procure the same fuel services, subject to the City’s standard terms and conditions; and WHEREAS, City staff seeks authorization to enter into a contractual agreement (“Agreement”) with Pacific Coast Petroleum establishing a pricing standard, fuel specifications, a price list, price adjustment methodology referencing the Oil Price Information Service, and delivery terms for the City’s fuel services; and
WHEREAS, City staff recommends that the Agreement be established for up to three (3) years to provide pricing and service stability in an unstable fuel market, in an amount not to exceed $522,000 per fiscal year, for a total amount not to exceed $1,566,000; and WHEREAS, City staff recommends that the City Council grant the authority for City staff to extend the Agreement for two additional years in an amount not to exceed $522,000 per fiscal year, if it is in the best interest of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City’s annual budgeted amount for automotive fuel is typically $522,000, which includes DPW’s costs for the City’s vehicle fleet and the Fire Department’s costs for operations and emergency services, and adequate appropriations exist in the Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget to accommodate this contract, with appropriations for subsequent fiscal years to be included in the annual budget process.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and hereby authorizes the City Manager to authorizing the City Manager to procure fuel services through a cooperative purchasing program with Pacific Coast Petroleum, Inc. for up to three years in an amount not to exceed $522,000 per fiscal year, for a total amount not to exceed $1,566,000, and grant the authority to extend for two one-year extensions in the amount not to exceed $522,000 per fiscal year, subject to subsequent appropriations for up to three years in an amount not to exceed $522,000 per fiscal year, for a total amount not to exceed $1,566,000, and grant the authority to extend for two one-year extensions in the amount not to exceed $522,000 per fiscal year, subject to subsequent appropriations.

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 20th day of July 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

Lindsay Lara, City Clerk

____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting:

Disposition:

Agenda Item No: 2.q
Meeting Date: July 20, 2026

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Public Works
Prepared by: Kelly Abey, Traffic Engineering
Technician
Sayed Fakhry, City Traffic Engineer
April Miller, Public Works Director
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: EMBARCADERO WAY ONE-WAY CONVERSION PILOT PROJECT SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIRST

AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
PARAMETRIX, INC. (PMX) FOR ADDITIONAL DESIGN, OUTREACH, AND

IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE EMBARCADERO WAY ONE-WAY CONVERSION PILOT PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,580, INCREASING THE TOTAL AMOUNT UNDER THE AGREEMENT TO $120,795 RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Parametrix, Inc. (PMX) for additional design, outreach, and implementation services associated with the Embarcadero Way One-Way Conversion Pilot Project in the amount of $26,580, increasing the total amount under the agreement to $120,795.

BACKGROUND:

Embarcadero Way, located within the City of San Rafael, is a narrow street with a steep, vegetated dropoff on the north of the street, which is contiguous with the San Rafael High School Property. This existing street connects 3rd Street to the Montecito neighborhood, which is partially located in unincorporated Marin County. It mainly serves residents, students, and faculty from the nearby high school and provides access for the neighborhood. Embarcadero Way also provides direct driveway access for two of the homes located at the easternmost end of the street. Due to its location on the edge of the City of San Rafael and unincorporated Marin County, coordination with the County on the project is underway, as changes to Embarcadero Way might affect vehicle counts on County streets.

The narrowness of the street and allowance for two-way traffic results in vehicles often backing up into a driveway or until they approach a wider section of the street to allow vehicles to pass from the opposing direction. The narrowness of the street has contributed to incidents, as reported by the Police Department and the community.

In 2022, the City began outreach efforts by notifying neighbors of the one-way conversion and soliciting feedback on the chosen vehicle travel direction. The one-way direction was chosen based on the traffic volume counts taken on Embarcadero Way in 2022. Efforts on the project were halted due to a lack of SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
capacity within the traffic team, but the project remained on the to-do list. Additionally, there were ongoing inquiries from SeeClickFix and the Police Department about the street. Once the traffic team was rebuilt, it was decided there was capacity to address this street.

To improve user conditions and safety on Embarcadero Way, the City selected PMX in Fall 2025 to assist with the design, outreach, and implementation of the Embarcadero Way One-Way Conversion Pilot Project. PMX demonstrated understanding of the City's needs and possesses relevant experience with other transportation projects within the City.

The pilot project aims to reduce vehicle-to-vehicle conflicts by circulating vehicles in one direction towards nearby streets, such as Mission Avenue, Marina Court Drive, or Sea View Avenue. To supplement the 2022 data collection, pre-project traffic data was collected in Fall 2025. Based on the traffic data, a pilot (temporary) one-way in the northeast direction (referred to as “Phase 1”) was implemented on Embarcadero Way. During this time, drivers were only permitted to drive uphill on Embarcadero Way from Marina Court Drive to Mission Avenue. The one-way direction was installed in February 2026 with striping, signage, and barricades. Two months into the one-way implementation, community feedback and additional traffic data were collected.

During Phase 1 of the project, the City received interest from the Montecito Area Residents Association (MARA) and other community members in testing a one-way on Embarcadero Way in the southwest direction. The City decided that after Phase 1 was completed in May 2026, an additional phase (Phase 2) would be added to temporarily install the one-way in the southwest direction, downhill on Embarcadero Way from Mission Avenue to Marina Court Drive. Similar to Phase 1, Phase 2 traffic data and community feedback were collected approximately two months into the three-month installation.

The City planned to keep Phase 2 in place until a final report with supporting documents was prepared and presented to the City Council for a decision on permanent installation. However, during the temporary installation of Phase 2, the City began receiving community input to remove the Phase 2 one-way installation. Additionally, the collected traffic data showed an overall increase in speeding and the number of wrong-way drivers during Phase 2. Thus, the City decided to install Phase 3 in June 2026, after Phase 2 was removed.

Phase 3 closed Embarcadero Way from Mission Avenue to Marina Court Drive to all vehicle traffic.

Bicyclists and pedestrians are permitted to travel through the segment during the closure. Installation of the Phase 3 closure of Embarcadero increases the signage and physical barriers to address the number of wrong-way drivers as noted in Phase 2, while also allowing emergency access vehicles to drive through the street when needed. The incorporation of Phase 3 also enables comprehensive pilot testing and traffic analysis of all options for the Embarcadero Way segment. During the Phase 3 closure, the final report recommendations will be developed based on the data and input collected in Phase 1 and 2. Traffic data and community input for Phase 3 will be collected in Fall 2026, once school is back in session, and incorporated into the final report recommendations. Phase 3 is planned to remain in place until early Winter 2026, when the report is finalized, and the City Council considers next steps.

ANALYSIS:

The Professional Services Agreement with PMX included one temporary test of the one-way on Embarcadero Way between Mission Avenue and Mariana Court Drive in one direction. The addition of Phases 2 and 3, along with their corresponding concept plans, traffic counts, graphics, and data collection and evaluation, was not included in PMX’s original scope of work; therefore, staff recommends an amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with PMX to include the additional design, outreach, and implementation services. Copies of the proposed agreement and the updated scope of work are provided as Attachments 2 and 3.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
The Project is consistent with the City Council’s Three-Year Strategic Plan, specifically Goal B.2.2, which is to launch and evaluate projects for traffic calming measures to improve neighborhood safety.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH:

The City has hosted an Embarcadero Way One-Way Conversion Pilot Project website since Fall 2025, which includes project information and is updated regularly as the project progresses. During Phases 1 and 2 of the project, the City hosted a survey on its website for members of the public to provide their feedback and experiences during both phases. The Phase 3 survey will be posted on the website in early Fall. Survey information, along with notices, was sent to the surrounding neighborhood on both the County and City sides before the installation of each. The notices can be found in the Project Documents section at the bottom of the project website.

Prior to installation of Phase 1, the project was presented to the San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) on December 3, 2025. It was brought back to BPAC on June 10, 2026, to present preliminary data from Phase 1 and 2 and provide an update on Phase 3.

Throughout each phase of the project, a 30”x40” poster has been posted by the entrance of Embarcadero Way to provide more information about the project to passersby.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The PMX agreement, in the amount of $94,215, to install the Embarcadero Way One-Way Conversion Pilot Project was funded through the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 Road Safety Implementation Program, which received an appropriation of $500,000 from the Gas Tax Fund (#206) as part of the City Council approved FY 2024-25 capital budget.

The amendment is for $26,580 and will provide additional design services for the Embarcadero Way OneWay Conversion Pilot Project. This amendment will be funded through the FY 2026-27 Road Safety Implementation Program, which received an appropriation of $500,000 from the Gas Tax Fund (#206) as part of the City Council approved FY 2026-27 capital budget.

Signage installation and pavement marking changes will be performed by the Streets Maintenance Division staff and will be absorbed into the Public Works Department’s FY 2025-26 and FY 2026-27 budgets.

OPTIONS:

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

1. Adopt the resolution as presented.

2. Do not adopt the resolution and provide further direction to staff.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a first amendment to the professional services agreement with Parametrix, Inc. (PMX) for additional design, outreach, and implementation services associated with the Embarcadero Way One-Way Conversion Pilot Project in the amount of $26,580, increasing the total amount under the agreement to $120,795.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution
SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4

2. Task Order Amendment with PMX
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PARAMETRIX, INC. (PMX) FOR

ADDITIONAL DESIGN, OUTREACH, AND IMPLEMENTATION SERVICES ASSOCIATED

WITH THE EMBARCADERO WAY ONE-WAY CONVERSION PILOT PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,580, INCREASING THE TOTAL AMOUNT UNDER THE AGREEMENT TO $120,795
WHEREAS, to improve user conditions and safety on Embarcadero Way, in Fall 2025, the City of San Rafael selected PMX to assist with the design and implementation of the Embarcadero Way One-Way Conversion Pilot Project; and
WHEREAS, PMX demonstrated understanding of the City's needs and possesses relevant experience with other transportation projects within the City; and WHEREAS, the City entered into a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) dated August 31, 2025, with PMX, for design, outreach, and implementation services associated with the Embarcadero Way One-Way Conversion Pilot Project, in the amount of $94,215; and WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael requires additional design services from PMX to install additional phases of the project; and
WHEREAS, City staff received a proposal from PMX for said services in a total amount of $26,580; and
WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed the proposal and found it to be complete; and WHEREAS, the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) in the amount of $94,215, to install the Embarcadero Way One-Way Conversion Pilot Project, was funded through the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 Road Safety Implementation Program, which received an appropriation of $500,000 from the Gas Tax Fund (#206) as part of the City Council approved FY 2024-25 capital budget; and
WHEREAS, the PSA amendment in the amount of $26,580 for additional design services associated with the Embarcadero Way One-Way Conversion Pilot Project will be funded through the FY 2025-26 Road Safety Implementation Program, which received an appropriation of $500,000 from the Gas Tax Fund (#206) as part of the City Council approved FY 2025-26 capital budget; and
WHEREAS, the PSA amendment will increase the total amount under the agreement to $120,795;

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Parametrix, Inc. (PMX) for additional design, outreach, and implementation services in the amount of $26,580, for a total contract amount of $120,795 in a form approved by the City Attorney.

3. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to take any and all such actions and make changes as may be necessary to accomplish the purpose of this resolution.

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 20th day of July 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

Lindsay Lara, City Clerk

____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting:

Disposition:

Agenda Item No: 2.r
Meeting Date: July 20, 2026

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Public Works
Prepared by: Grey Melgard, Senior Civil
Engineer
April Miller, Public Works Director
City Manager Approval: ______
TOPIC: 2025 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM PAVING AND STRIPING PROJECT SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 2025

PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM PAVING AND STRIPING PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. C44A26PMP1 (“PROJECT”); AWARDING AND AUTHORIZING THE

CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH AMERICAN ASPHALT REPAIR AND RESURFACING CO., INC IN THE AMOUNT OF $910,341.11; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE CONTRACT AMOUNT USING CONTINGENCY FUNDS OF $189,658.89 FOR A TOTAL NOT-TOEXCEED AMOUNT OF $1,100,000; AND AUTHORIZING THE CARRY-FORWARD OF FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE PROJECT

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH EL REINO LARA LLC DBA CAL

PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT FOR ON-CALL PAVEMENT PRESERVATION SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL’S ANNUAL PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $125,000; AND AUTHORIZING THE CARRY-FORWARD OF FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 BUDGET

APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the above-referenced resolutions to proceed with the construction of the 2025 Pavement Maintenance Program Paving and Striping Project, City Project No.

C44A26PMP1 (“Project”).

BACKGROUND:

The City’s annual pavement management program (“PMP”) provides vital updates to the City’s 333-lane mile network. One of the most important aspects of managing a road network is a continual investment toward preserving recently rehabilitated roads. These types of preservation projects represent relatively low-cost improvements that prolong the effective life of roadways in good condition.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
The City utilizes the industry standard Pavement Condition Index (“PCI”) system to identify streets needing preventative maintenance and then conducts field investigations to analyze conditions.

Additionally, the City intentionally applies an equity lens to ensure that pavement conditions are being improved in all neighborhoods across the City annually.

It should be noted that the City lacks sufficient funding to maintain its road network at the current “fair” PCI standard. Thus, annual pavement maintenance projects are selected, in part, based on a consideration of how best to invest this limited funding to extend useful life of roadways. Based on the most recent citywide roadway assessment, it is estimated that additional funding in the range of $2.5 million to $3.0 million per year would be required to prevent the city’s average PCI index to deteriorate from “fair” to “poor.”
Last year’s pavement maintenance project included crack sealing, slurry sealing, fiberized microsurfacing, and the installation of new traffic striping, crosswalks, and legends to streets located in the West San Rafael neighborhoods.

The Project includes crack sealing, slurry sealing, and the installation of new traffic striping, crosswalks, and legends to the current standards for streets located in the Terra Linda neighborhoods. The Project also includes the installation of the Nova Albion Bikeway and Pathway Gap Closure project, funded by the Transportation Authority of Marin’s (TAM) Safe Pathways grant.

ANALYSIS:

American Asphalt Repair Resurfacing Co., Inc. Construction Agreement On May 13, 2026, the Project was advertised in accordance with San Rafael Municipal Code Chapter

11.50. The plans and specifications, deemed reasonable by the City Engineer, are available at the Department of Public Works.

On June 5, 2026, the following bids were received and read aloud:

Name of Bidder Bid Total
American Asphalt Repair Resurfacing
Co., Inc. $910,341.11
Sierra Nevada Construction, Inc. $934,007.00
Pavement Coatings Co. $1,023,450.02
VSS International, Inc. $1,024,211.00
Public Works staff reviewed the construction bids, and the low bid from American Asphalt Repair Resurfacing Co., Inc. in the amount of $910,341.11 was found to be both responsive and responsible.

City staff recommends awarding the construction agreement to American Asphalt Repair Resurfacing Co., Inc. in the amount of $910,341.11 and recommends that the City Council authorize a construction contingency of $189,658.89, approximately 20%, for a total appropriated amount of $1,100,000. Staff does not anticipate major scope changes for the project; however, the contingency will provide some financial assurance for minor striping changes within the project, street selection variation based on utility coordination, and varying quantities based on the actual amount of slurry product placed. For example, recently enacted Assembly Bill 413 prohibits the stopping, standing, or parking of a vehicle within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any marked or unmarked crosswalk. The City anticipates some additional striping and parking modifications on impacted streets to comply with this Bill.

The Public Works Director would be authorized to issue any change order to the contract within the total contingency amount. The Construction Agreement is in a form approved by the City Attorney.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
CAL Pavement Professional Services Agreement
CAL Pavement provides inspection, planning, and public outreach services for the Project before and during construction. These services are vital for the successful delivery of the Project and provide staff with updated technical recommendations and specifications for future PMP projects.

The Project is consistent with the City Council’s Three-Year Strategic Plan, specifically Goal B.1.4, which is to execute a comprehensive pavement management program to maintain road quality at a “Fair” Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating across the City’s roadway network.

PUBLIC OUTREACH:

In December 2025, staff presented an information plan and the 2025-2027 Three-Year Pavement Management Plan (“Plan”) to the City Council. The Plan was developed in partnership with CAL Pavement Management and is based on a full network inventory and field assessment conducted in late 2024 and early 2025. The Plan is available on the City’s Pavement Management Program website. An interactive map is also available on the website for residents to view each year’s planned roadways. Staff presented maps of proposed streets within the Plan during the October 2025 Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) for public feedback.

In March 2026, a mailer was sent to residents within the Project limits advising them of the upcoming Project. The mailer advised residents to complete any improvements that may have an impact on the street, including sanitary lateral or water service upgrades, curb and gutter replacements, and driveway improvements, before the start of the Project in Summer 2026.

Additionally, a written construction notification will be mailed to residents and property owners within a 300-ft (minimum) radius of the project limits describing the Project and its impacts, along with a Frequently Asked Questions sheet about the City’s annual pavement management program and the proposed roadway treatments.

The City’s website will be updated with additional scheduling and traffic information throughout the construction of the Project.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

In July 2026, a notice of exemption (NOE) was filed with the County of Marin and the State Clearinghouse for the Project for categorical exemption based on existing facilities (CEQA Guidelines §15301).

FISCAL IMPACT:

The recommendation included in this staff report would authorize expenditures not-to-exceed $1,100,000 with American Asphalt Repair Resurfacing Co., Inc. and expenditures not-to-exceed $125,000 with Cal Pavement in support of the 2025 Pavement Maintenance Program Paving and Striping Project.

Appropriations in the amount of $3,000,000 supporting the PMP and associated projects were included in the FY 2025-26 Budget approved by the City Council on June 2, 2025. City Council action is requested as part of this item to authorize the carry-forward of the approved FY 2025-26 budget for the Project and PSA.

OPTIONS:

The City Council has the following options to consider relating to this item:

1. Adopt the resolutions as presented.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4

2. Do not adopt the resolutions and provide further direction to staff.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the above-referenced resolutions to proceed with the construction of the 2025 Pavement Maintenance Program Paving and Striping Project, City Project No.

C44A26PMP1 (“Project”).

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution - Formal Construction Contract with American Asphalt Repair Resurfacing Co., Inc.

2. Draft Formal Construction Contract with American Asphalt Repair Resurfacing Co., Inc.

3. Resolution - Professional Services Agreement with El Reino Lara LLC DBA CAL Pavement Management

4. Draft Professional Services Agreement with El Reino Lara LLC DBA CAL Pavement Management RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE 2025 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM PAVING AND STRIPING PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. C44A26PMP1 (“PROJECT”); AWARDING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT WITH AMERICAN ASPHALT REPAIR AND RESURFACING CO., INC IN THE AMOUNT OF $910,341.11; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AMEND THE CONTRACT AMOUNT USING CONTINGENCY FUNDS OF $189,658.89 FOR A TOTAL NOT-TOEXCEED AMOUNT OF $1,100,000; AND AUTHORIZING THE CARRY-FORWARD OF FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE PROJECT
WHEREAS, on the 13th day of May 2026, pursuant to due and legal notice published in the manner provided by law, inviting sealed bids or proposals for the work hereinafter mentioned, as more fully appears from the Affidavit of Publication thereof on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of San Rafael, California, the City Clerk of said City did publicly open, examine, and declare all sealed bids or proposals for doing the following work in said City, to wit:
“2025 Pavement Management Program Paving and Striping Project” City Project No. C44A26PMP1
(hereinafter referred to as the “Project”) in accordance with the plans and specifications, therefore, on file in the office of the Department of Public Works; and
WHEREAS, the bid of $910,341.11 from American Asphalt Repair Resurfacing Co., Inc., at the unit prices stated in its bid, was and is the lowest bid for said work and said bidder is the lowest responsible bidder; and
WHEREAS, staff has recommended an additional 20% of the bid price for a contingency in the amount of $189,658.89, resulting in a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $1,100,000; and WHEREAS, a notice of exemption was filed with the County of Marin and the State Clearinghouse on July 6, 2026, for the Project for categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15301; and WHEREAS, the Project is a component of the City of San Rafael’s Annual Pavement Management Program which provides vital updates to the City’s 333-lane mile network; and WHEREAS, the fiscal year (FY) 2025-26 budget approved by the City Council on June 2, 2025 included appropriations in the amount of $3,000,000 within the Gas Tax Fund (#206) for the Annual Pavement Management Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby authorizes the carry-forward of $1,100,00 in FY 2025-26 budget appropriations (Fund 206) for the Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The plans and specifications for the Project, which are on file in the Department of Public Works, are hereby approved.

3. The bid of American Asphalt Repair Resurfacing Co., Inc. is hereby accepted at the unit prices stated in its bid.

4. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the contract for the Project, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with American Asphalt Repair Resurfacing Co., Inc., for the bid amount stated in its bid, and is authorized to execute any amendment(s) up to the construction contingency amount of $189,658.89 (approximately 20% of the contract value) for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $1,100,000.

5. The Director of Public Works or designee is hereby authorized to take any and all such actions and make changes as may be necessary to accomplish the purpose of this resolution.

6. The City Council authorizes the carry-forward of $1,100,000 in FY 2025-26 budget appropriations (Fund 206) provided for this purpose.

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 20th day of July 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

Lindsay Lara, City Clerk

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH EL REINO LARA LLC DBA CAL PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT FOR ON-CALL PAVEMENT PRESERVATION SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL’S ANNUAL PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $125,000; AND AUTHORIZING THE CARRY-FORWARD OF FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 BUDGET

APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael requires on-call inspection services for pavement preservation projects and dig outs from CAL Pavement to deliver the 2025 Pavement Maintenance Program Paving and Striping Project, City Project No. C44A26PMP1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Project”); and WHEREAS, staff received a proposal from CAL Pavement for said services in a total amount not to exceed $125,000; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the proposal and found it to be complete and within industry standards; and
WHEREAS, the Project is a component of the City of San Rafael’s Annual Pavement Management Program which provides vital updates to the City’s 333-lane mile network; and WHEREAS, the fiscal year (FY) 2025-26 budget approved by the City Council on June 2, 2025, included appropriations in the amount of $3,000,000 within the Gas Tax Fund (#206) for the Annual Pavement Management Program; and
WHEREAS, the City Council hereby authorizes the carry-forward of $125,000 in FY 2025-26 budget appropriations (Fund 206) for the agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows:

1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute a Professional Services Agreement with El Reino Lara LLC DBA CAL Pavement Management for design and planning services in the amount of $125,000 in a form approved by the City Attorney.

2. The Director of Public Works is hereby authorized to take any and all such actions and make changes as may be necessary to accomplish the purpose of this resolution.

3. The City Council authorizes the carry-forward of $125,000 in FY 2025-26 budget appropriations (Fund 206) provided for this purpose.

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 said City on Monday, the 20th day of July 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

Lindsay Lara, City Clerk

____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: _______________________
Disposition: ___________________________
Agenda Item No: 3.a
Meeting Date: July 20, 2026

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: City Manager’s Office
Prepared by:

Paul Navazio, Interim City Manager
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: NOVEMBER 2026 BALLOT MEASURE: REVENUE ENHANCEMENT - REAL

PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX RATE
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY A MEASURE TO MODIFY CHAPTER 3.22 OF THE SAN RAFAEL

MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX RATE AND ADD AN OVERSIGHT PROVISION; AUTHORIZING AND REQUESTING THAT THE COUNTY OF MARIN CONSOLIDATE AND CONDUCT THE ELECTION;

DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS AND

AUTHORIZING MAYOR KATE AND COUNCILMEMBER BUSHEY TO FILE A BALLOT

ARGUMENT AND REBUTTAL FOR THE MEASURE
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution calling for a General Municipal Election on November 3, 2026, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of the City a measure to modify Chapter 3.22 of the San Rafael Municipal Code to increase the real property transfer tax rate and add an oversight provision; Authorizing and requesting that the County of Marin consolidate and conduct the election; Directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis and authorizing Mayor Kate and Councilmember Bushey to file a ballot argument and rebuttal for the measure.

BACKGROUND:

The City of San Rafael, like many other jurisdictions in California, faces a challenging fiscal environment as costs to support baseline programs and services generally outpace overall revenue growth. Moreover, the City lacks sufficient funding to address significant deferred maintenance and infrastructure replacement needs. While the newly adopted Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-27 General Fund budget required several balancing measures to address a baseline deficit of $1.0 million, the City’s General Fund forecast continues to project modest deficits through FY 2029-30, with the deficit estimated to grow to $2.0-$3.0 million.

As presented at the July 15, 2026, City Council meeting, the FY 2026-27 budget provides for a balanced, prudent spending plan in support of baseline programs and services, priority projects and initiatives as SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
well as investments in capital infrastructure. However, many areas remain where the City lacks sufficient funding to meet community demands and long-term infrastructure needs.

The most significant funding deficiencies remain in the area of deferred maintenance and capital replacement of city assets, including streets and roads, sidewalks, storm drain infrastructure, parks and city facilities. In short, the City lacks sufficient and reliable funding to support investments in maintenance and replacement of capital infrastructure and thus relies largely on one-time, outside funding sources (i.e., grants), where available. In addition, increased service-level demands, particularly in the area of public safety, continue to place additional pressures on existing resources, resulting in a gradual deterioration of service levels and increased response times. These structural funding deficiencies are further compounded by cost pressures driven by post-pandemic inflation, increased fuel, energy, and utility costs, buoyed by ongoing uncertainty in the general economy.

At the February 2, 2026 City Council Meeting, staff presented the City Council with a Fiscal Sustainability Framework outlining both near-term operational adjustments and longer-term revenue strategies to address these structural challenges. As part of that framework, staff identified November 2026 as an opportunity to seek a potential revenue enhancement measure, via either a discretionary general purpose tax or, alternatively, a dedicated special tax to generate additional funding to support the City's identified unmet priority needs:

The following table, presented to the City Council in conjunction with the adoption of the FY 2026-27 final budget. summarizes some of the areas of structural funding deficiencies:

Public Safety:

SAFE Team. In the wake of the successful pilot of the Specialized Assistance for Everyone (SAFE) Team as an alternate response to frontline public safety personnel, staff recognizes that this resource is better trained, suited, and equipped to navigate and deliver services related to mental health, substance abuse, and unsheltered and housing services available to individuals in need. Despite the success of this alternative response, the City does not have an ongoing source of funding to support the SAFE Team.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
The SAFE Team responds to more than 3,000 calls for service (CFS) involving community members in crisis related to mental health, substance abuse, or homelessness. Combined, these represent roughly 8% of all calls for service the Police Department responds to annually. Operationally, these types of calls for service are repetitive and generally require two police officers and, in many cases, Fire Department or medical support services for an extended period. With the utilization of the SAFE Team, such calls result in a peaceful resolution with the transport of or placement option for the individual.

As demonstrated, the SAFE Team has the capability to deal with a wide range of mental health-related crises, including conflict resolution, welfare checks, substance abuse, and potential suicide threats.

Relying on trauma-informed de-escalation and harm reduction techniques, Alternative Response Teams are designed to respond to the following:
• Individuals who are intoxicated or under the influence of controlled substances. • Transports for mental health services.
• Counseling, support, and intervention for depressed or suicidal individuals. • Assisting the public with emergency shelter resources. • Transportation to detox services for intoxicated people. • Welfare checks (when no crime is suspected).
• Reports of intoxicated subjects in public places.
• Reports of disoriented subjects.
• Non-emergency medical evaluations.
• Transports for non-emergency medical care.

Staff, the City Council, as well as neighborhood groups and community members, have called for an increase to their hours of operation, which are currently only from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm daily. SAFE Team services would be greatly enhanced with extended coverage earlier in the morning and later into the evening as calls for service demand.

Community Services Officers. As the Police Department seeks to leverage Differential Police Response (DPR) strategies, categorizing service calls to match the urgency of the situation with the most appropriate response provides for more effective delivery of public safety services, decreased emergency response times, and more available time for sworn officers in the field.

Utilization of civilian service officers or Community Service Officers (CSOs) allows properly trained, nonsworn resources to facilitate non-emergency calls for service. Such calls typically include traffic control, minor accident investigations, investigation of minor criminal offenses with no suspect information, as well as other service calls not requiring a sworn police officer. Deploying Community Service Officers for such calls for service allows other sworn personnel to remain available for more urgent calls for service with a reduced response time. Non-sworn Community Service Officers, to enhance police department operations, would provide more optimal resource coordination, improved service delivery, and increased community satisfaction.

The San Rafael Police Department currently employs two Community Service Officers in administrative support functions. Additional CSO staffing would more effectively position the department in the ongoing management of calls for service and public safety service delivery.

Emergency Medical Service (EMS) Delivery. The San Rafael Fire Department has long been committed to providing exceptional emergency medical and fire protection services to the community. Today, nearly 80 percent of the Department's emergency responses are medical in nature, reflecting a significant shift SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
in service demands over the past several decades. While the Department continues to provide a high level of care to residents and visitors, the current emergency response system is operating under increasing strain. Despite increased call volume, higher-density residential development, and the expansion of senior housing and assisted living facilities, the Department has not added permanent frontline emergency response resources in decades.

To better understand the long-term sustainability of the City's EMS delivery system, the San Rafael Fire Department commissioned an independent operational assessment. The study concluded that the Department's current deployment model is increasingly challenged by steadily rising demand for ambulance transport services and will continue to face additional pressure as the community grows.

The study found that the Department's current deployment of two dedicated paramedic ambulances is insufficient to consistently meet industry-recognized response time objectives. Increasingly, both ambulances are committed to simultaneous incidents, requiring the activation of backup ambulances staffed by engine company personnel. While this cross-staffing model ensures that ambulance service remains available, it removes fire engines from service, reducing the Department's ability to respond to structure fires, rescues, and other emergencies requiring a full firefighting response.

The independent analysis identified several critical findings, including:
• Approximately 33.8 percent of the time that one incident is active, a second incident is occurring simultaneously, frequently requiring both primary ambulances to be committed. • During peak daytime hours, ambulance and engine utilization rates approach levels that reduce system reliability and operational resilience.
• Two dedicated ambulances cannot consistently provide citywide ambulance coverage within recommended response time standards.
• The frequent use of cross-staffed backup ambulances significantly reduces firefighting coverage throughout the City by placing engine companies out of service while transporting patients.

To address these deficiencies, the study recommends expanding the Department's EMS system by adding a third dedicated firefighter/paramedic ambulance operating 24 hours per day, seven days per week. The study also recommends expanding the Department's existing Basic Life Support (BLS) peakhour ambulance program to operate seven days per week from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. This unit would continue to respond to lower-acuity medical incidents and interfacility transports, preserving advanced life support resources for life-threatening emergencies while improving overall system efficiency.

Incremental funding would help support additional front-line emergency response personnel and apparatus needed to begin to meet current and future service demands. These investments would strengthen both emergency medical services and fire suppression capabilities by reducing the need to remove engine companies from service for ambulance transports, improving ambulance response times, and ensuring that adequate firefighting resources remain available throughout the community.

Infrastructure:

Annual Street and Roads Maintenance. The City’s most recent Pavement Condition Index (PCI) placed the City’s roads at 61 or “fair” condition. In order to maintain this “fair” condition, the City would need to augment existing annual funding by $2.5 - $3.0M. Without this funding, the conditions of the City’s roads and its PCI index will continue to decline into the “at risk” category. Of note, the City’s PCI has declined SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
steadily since 2022, underscoring how existing funding levels are not keeping up with roadway maintenance needs.

Sidewalk Repairs. The City’s annual Sidewalk Repair Program includes concrete shaving and repair of sidewalks to help ensure pedestrian safety and compliance with Americans with Disabilities (ADA) requirements. Historically, the City has budgeted, on average, $300,000 per fiscal year on the Sidewalk Repair Program, which has funded the shaving or repair of approximately 1.5-2 miles of sidewalk annually. Staff estimates that there are between 250 and 300 miles of sidewalk within the City and the Program would need to augment existing annual funding by $1.5 million to increase the annual shaving and repair rate to approximately 12 miles of sidewalk annually, which would allow staff to perform shaving on the entirety of City sidewalks in about 20 years.

Community and Neighborhood Parks. The majority of the City’s funding for existing park infrastructure comes from Measure A, a countywide sales tax renewed by voters in 2022. While Measure A provides approximately $560,000 per year for City park improvements, recent evaluations of existing park infrastructure needs show that San Rafael’s park system requires approximately $1.5 million annually to be adequately maintained. This has resulted in an ongoing capital funding shortfall of approximately $1.0 million.

The City’s 2023 Parks and Recreation Master Plan identified sports courts, pathways, playgrounds, irrigation, and other recreation amenities that are failing or at the end of life at many city parks. Without additional resources, the City will be unable to adequately address the existing failures, and the continued deterioration of park amenities will continue to exacerbate the issue.

The recommendation to advance a revenue enhancement measure for consideration at the November 2026 general election is intended to address areas of need an supports the City's fiscal sustainability framework as expressly identified in the City Council's Three-Year Strategic Plan under Goal F.3, which directs the City to implement comprehensive strategies ensuring fiscal sustainability through maintaining balanced budgets, renewal of existing voter-approved tax measures and exploring new revenue opportunities.

ANALYSIS:

Between June 18, 2026, and June 29, 2026, the City’s polling consultant conducted a survey of likely voters to inform a potential November ballot measure. This included voter sentiment related to an increase in the City’s existing Property Transfer Tax as well as a new Public Safety Parcel Tax.

High-level summary of survey results:
• At a high-level, 81% of likely November 2026 voters in San Rafael agree that the City is a "great place to live."
• 71% of those surveyed feel "safe and well-protected from crime." • These levels of general contentment are reflected in modest levels of those who feel the city needs additional funding (though many are admittedly unsure). • Against this backdrop, we asked survey respondents about two potential revenue measures—a parcel tax generating funds specifically for public safety services and a real property transfer tax (RPTT) measure generating funds for the City's general fund. o The public safety parcel tax would have a two-thirds (66.67%) vote threshold. o The RPTT measure would have a majority vote threshold (50%+1) • Both measures received initial support in the survey around 50%, specifically 51% for the public safety parcel tax and 50% for the general-purpose RPTT.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
• After presenting pros and cons for each measure, the public safety parcel tax reached a highwater mark of 60%, still well short of its vote threshold of 2/3 of the majority of voters. The generalpurpose RPTT measure reached 56%. Criticisms dropped support for both. • These results drew staff to focus more on the majority vote threshold RPTT measure. Though while still clearly challenging, the survey did find that a majority were open to supporting such a measure, meaning it showed the greatest viability between the two. Some of the top spending/investment priorities with a high degree of support for a general-purpose measure were:
o maintaining 911 emergency response times,
o addressing the impacts of homelessness,
o street/road maintenance,
o maintaining safe places for children to play,
o preventing stormwater drainage system flooding,
o improving traffic flow, and
o overall maintaining the City's financial stability.

Based on an evaluation of potential revenue measures, informed by the results of the recent polling, staff is recommending that the City Council consider placing a measure on the November 2026 ballot that would authorize an increase to the City's existing real property transfer tax rate from the current 0.2% ($2.00 per $1,000 assessed value) to 1.0% ($10.00 per $1,000 assessed value). This increase is estimated to generate approximately $6.0 million in new annual General Fund revenue (from the current $1.5 million to an estimated total of $7.5 million per year), until ended by voters. The real estate property transfer tax is only paid upon the sale of a property and would support a broad range of essential city services, including 911 emergency response, road maintenance, and safe and clean parks and public areas. The measure, as proposed, would also include a provision related to annual audits and public spending disclosure, consistent with the City’s other existing voter-approved tax measures.

This staff recommendation is further supported by a comparison of other charter cities within the region (and state) that currently impose a real estate transfer tax. Of these cities, San Rafael’s property transfer tax rate (0.2%) is amongst the lowest, while the proposed increase to 1.0% would place San Rafael’s tax rate in the mid-range, and well below those cities with tax rates in the range of 1.5% to 3.0%, or higher.

Moreover, in comparison to other cities with real estate property transfer taxes, San Rafael’s real estate property tax revenues are consistently below the average in terms of revenue as a percentage of overall general fund revenues and real estate transfer tax revenues per capita.

By seeking an increase in the real estate property transfer tax rate from 0.2% to 1.0%, the resulting increase in General Fund revenues would significantly aid in addressing priority unfunded needs, help make-up for the comparatively low allocation percentage of local property taxes retained by the City (currently 12.2%), and further the City’s goal of fiscal sustainability by contributing to a broader diversification of the City’s general fund revenue sources, predominantly reliant on property tax and sales tax revenues.

By adopting the attached Resolution, the Council would call for a general election to submit the real estate property transfer tax measure to the voters at the November 3, 2026, election, request consolidation of the City’s election with other elections occurring on that date, request election services from the County, direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure for the voter materials and authorize Mayor Kate and Councilmember Bushey to prepare and file an argument and rebuttal in favor of the measure. .

The resolution also establishes the following ballot language to be submitted to the voters:

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 7
San Rafael Essential Services Protection Measure. To provide locally controlled funding for essential city services, such as fire protection, paramedics, rapid 9-1-1 emergency response times; preventing street/road deterioration; addressing impacts of homelessness/litter/illegal dumping; and other services, shall the City of San Rafael’s measure be adopted increasing the current real property transfer tax rate from 0.2% to 1% (only paid upon sale), generating approximately $7,500,000 annually until ended by voters, with annual audits and public spending disclosure?
Yes
No
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq., “CEQA,” and 14 Cal. Code Reg. §§ 15000 et seq., “CEQA Guidelines”). This tax submitted to the voters is a general tax that can be used for any legitimate governmental purpose. It is not a commitment to any particular action, nor does it authorize any private activity, but merely taxes such activity as otherwise occurs. As such, under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), the tax is not a project within the meaning of CEQA because it creates a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. If revenue from the tax is used for a purpose that would have either such effect, the City will undertake the required CEQA review for that project. Therefore, CEQA analysis is not required at this time.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost to the City of placing this measure on the November 3, 2026, ballot is estimated to bring the total cost of the election in the range of $125,000 to $157,500. Funding to cover the anticipated cost of the election is provided in the approved FY 2026-27 budget, via General Fund appropriations within the City Clerk’s Elections Program (General Fund – contract services) budget.

OPTIONS:

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

1. Adopt the proposed resolution calling for a general election on November 3, 2026, to submit the real estate property transfer tax measure to the voters.

2. Do not approve the Resolution.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution calling for a General Municipal Election on November 3, 2026, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of the City a measure to modify Chapter 3.22 of the San Rafael Municipal Code to increase the real property transfer tax rate and add an oversight provision; Authorizing and requesting that the County of Marin consolidate and conduct the election; Directing the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis and authorizing Mayor Kate and Councilmember Bushey to file a ballot argument and rebuttal for the measure.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Attachment A to the Resolution: Ordinance
1 RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL CALLING FOR A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 3, 2026, FOR THE PURPOSE OF

SUBMITTING TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY A MEASURE TO MODIFY CHAPTER 3.22 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX RATE AND ADD AN OVERSIGHT PROVISION; AUTHORIZING

AND REQUESTING THAT THE COUNTY OF MARIN CONSOLIDATE AND CONDUCT THE ELECTION; DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS

AND AUTHORIZING MAYOR KATE AND COUNCILMEMBER BUSHEY TO FILE A BALLOT

ARGUMENT AND REBUTTAL FOR THE MEASURE
WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of San Rafael, Article IV, Section 1, authorizes the City Council to call a municipal election; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael (“City”), like many jurisdictions throughout California, faces a challenging fiscal environment over the next five years, with the newly adopted Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2026-27 General Fund budget requiring several balancing measures to address a baseline deficit of $1.0 million, and baseline General Fund forecasts projecting continued deficits through FY 2029-30, growing to an estimated shortfall of $2.0 to $3.0 million; and WHEREAS, addressing the City’s fiscal sustainability is expressly identified in the City Council’s Three-Year Strategic Plan under Goal F.3, which directs the City to implement comprehensive strategies ensuring fiscal sustainability through balanced budgets, explore new revenue streams, and renew existing tax measures; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has already called for a general municipal election to be held on November 3, 2026, for candidate elections, and is now calling to submit to the voters at the general municipal election on November 3, 2026, a ballot measure proposing the adoption of an ordinance modifying Chapter 3.22 of the San Rafael Municipal Code to increase the rate of the real property transfer tax and add an oversight provision ("Measure"); and WHEREAS, Elections Code section 9280 authorizes the City Council to direct the City Attorney to prepare an impartial analysis of any City measure, and Elections Code section 9285 authorizes the City Council to designate members of the City Council to file a written argument, and a rebuttal argument, for or against any City measure; and WHEREAS, under the proposed Measure, the City’s real estate transfer tax, which is due upon the transfer of real property, would be increased from two dollars per thousand dollars of assessed value to ten dollars per thousand dollars of assessed value and provide that the City’s Voter Approved Tax Oversight Committee, established by Resolution No. 15118 to have oversight over the expenditures generated by the real estate transfer tax; and WHEREAS, the proposed ballot measure would generate approximately $6.0 million in increased annual general fund revenue, until ended by the voters, for an approximate total of $7,500,000 annual revenue to fund essential City services including 911 emergency response, road maintenance, and safe and clean parks and public areas; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Rafael may request the Board of Supervisors of the County of Marin to consolidate the municipal election with any other election conducted on the same date; and
2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Rafael may request election services from the Registrar of Voters of Marin County, California.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of San Rafael finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct, and they are hereby incorporated by reference into this Resolution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:

Section 1. Call for Election. That pursuant to the requirements of the California Elections Code, Sections 306 and 9222, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of San Rafael, a municipal election for the purpose of submitting to the voters of the City of San Rafael a ballot initiative entitled “San Rafael Essential Services Protection Measure.” As required by Elections Code section 13247, the abbreviated form of the Measure that is to appear on the ballot is specified below in Section 2 of this Resolution.

The City’s designated Elections Official is hereby authorized and directed to make any changes to the proposition, text of the ballot label below, or this resolution as required to conform to any requirements of law.

Section 2. Ballot Language. The following question shall be submitted to the voters on the ballot:

San Rafael Essential Services Protection Measure. To provide locally controlled funding for essential city services, such as fire protection, paramedics, rapid 9-1-1 emergency response times; preventing street/road deterioration; addressing impacts of
homelessness/litter/illegal dumping; and other services, shall the City of San Rafael’s measure be adopted increasing the current real property transfer tax rate from 0.2% to 1% (only paid upon sale), generating approximately $7,500,000 annually until ended by voters, with annual audits and public spending disclosure?
Yes
No
This question requires the approval of a majority of City of San Rafael voters voting on the Measure at the election to become effective. If the Measure is so approved by the City of San Rafael voters, then the Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit A shall become effective ten (10) days following the date the vote is declared by the City Council in accordance with Elections Code section 9217.

Section 3. Text of Measure. The complete text of the Measure to be submitted to the voters for approval is attached to this resolution as Exhibit A. The text of the Measure shall be printed in the ballot materials and be available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office and on the City’s website at www.cityofsanrafael.org.

Section 4. Publication of Measure. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause notice of the Measure to be published once in the official newspaper of the City of San Rafael, in accordance with the California Elections Code section 12111 and California Government Code section 6063, and is further directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form, and manner as required by law.
3 Section 5. Request to Consolidate and Conduct Election and Canvass Returns. (a) Pursuant to the Elections Code commencing with Section 10400, the City Council hereby requests, consents, and agrees that the County of Marin shall take all actions which are necessary or appropriate in connection with the election, including, but not limited to, printing and mailing sample ballots, arguments and applications for absentee ballots, canvassing election returns and certifying the results of the election to the Council. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002, the Board of Supervisors of Marin County is requested to permit the Registrar of Voters to render all services specified by Elections Code Section 10418 relating to the election. The City hereby agrees to reimburse Marin County in full for any services performed by the County for the City upon presentation of an invoice to the City.
(b) The election on the Measure shall be held and conducted, the voters canvassed and the returns made, and the results ascertained and determined as provided herein. The election shall be held in accordance with the Elections Code of the State of California. As required by Elections Code section 10403, the City of San Rafael acknowledges that the consolidated election will be held and conducted in the manner prescribed in Section 10418 of the Elections Code.
(c) The election on the Measure shall be held in the City of San Rafael in the County of Marin on November 3, 2026, as required by law, and the County of Marin is authorized to canvass the returns of the election with respect to the votes cast in the City of San Rafael and certify the results to the City Council of the City of San Rafael. (d) At the next regular meeting of the City Council of the City of San Rafael occurring after the returns of the election for the Measure have been canvassed and the results have been certified to the City Council, or at a special meeting called for such purpose if required by law, the City Council shall cause to be entered in its minutes a statement of the results of the election.

Section 6. Submission of Ballot Arguments. The City Council hereby adopts provisions for the filing of ballot arguments and rebuttal arguments for the measure as set forth in California Elections Code sections 9282 et seq. All arguments for and against the Measure shall be filed with the City Clerk pursuant to the timelines set forth in the County of Marin’s Election Calendar for the November 3, 2026, Statewide Direct Primary Election as published on their website: https://www.marincounty.gov/departments/elections/election-information/electionschedule?language=en"). All arguments for and against the measure shall be signed, with printed name(s) and signature(s) of the author(s) submitting it, or if submitted on behalf of an organization, the name of the organization, and the printed name and signature of at least one of its principal officers who is the author of the argument. Mayor Kate and Councilmember Bushey are authorized to prepare and file an argument in favor of the Measure and a rebuttal for the Measure.

Section 7. Impartial Analysis. In accordance with California Elections Code section 9280, the City Council directs the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the Measure to the City Attorney, who shall prepare an impartial analysis showing the effect of the measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure. The City Attorney’s impartial analysis may not exceed 500 words.

Section 8. Services of the City Clerk. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to take all steps necessary to place the Measure on the ballot, including giving further or additional notice of the election as required by law, and to cause the ordinance or measure to be printed. A copy of the ordinance or measure shall be made available to any voter upon request. As required by Elections Code section 12111, the City Clerk shall cause a synopsis of the measure to be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least one time not later than one week before the November 3, 2026, election. The notice shall be headed “Measure to Be Voted On” 4 and be in the form described in Elections Code section 12111.

Section 9. Canvass Returns of the Election. The Marin County Elections Department is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of the election, including this ballot measure.

Section 10. Filing of a Copy of Resolution. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the Board of Supervisors and the Election Department of the County of Marin.

Section 11. Election Held Pursuant to Law. In all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections.

Section 12. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption.

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 20th day of July 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

Lindsay Lara, City Clerk
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL AMENDING CHAPTER 3.22 OF THE SAN RAFAEL MUNICIPAL CODE TO

INCREASE THE RATE OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX AND ADD AN OVERSIGHT

PROVISION
SECTION 1. TITLE
This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the "San Rafael Real Property Transfer Tax Ordinance."
SECTION 2. FINDINGS
The City Council of the City of San Rafael hereby makes the following findings in connection with the adoption of this Ordinance:

WHEREAS, The City of San Rafael provides essential municipal services to residents, businesses, and visitors, including fire suppression and emergency response, law enforcement, street maintenance and repair, stormwater infrastructure, parks and open space, library services, and community programs.

WHEREAS, The City faces structural deficits in its General Fund projected to reach approximately $2.0 million to $3.0 million by fiscal year (FY) 2028-29, due to lacking sufficient and reliable funding to support investments in maintenance and replacement of capital infrastructure, increased service-level demands, particularly in the area of public safety, continue to place additional pressures on existing resources cost pressures driven by post-pandemic inflation, increased fuel, energy and utility costs, buoyed by ongoing uncertainty in the general economy.

WHEREAS, By seeking an increase in the real estate property transfer tax rate from 0.2% to 1.0%, the resulting increase in General Fund revenues would significantly aid in addressing priority unfunded needs, help make-up for the comparatively low allocation percentage of local property taxes retained by the City (currently 12.2%), and further the City’s goal of fiscal sustainability by contributing to a broader diversification of the City’s general fund revenue sources, predominantly reliant on property tax and sales tax revenues.

WHEREAS, A real property transfer tax is a one-time levy on the transfer of ownership of residential and commercial real estate pursuant to a purchase or sale. Payment of the one-time Real Estate Property Transfer Tax is the joint responsibility of the parties to a real estate transaction—the buyer(s) and seller(s).

WHEREAS, after careful evaluation of the City’s financials, evaluation of viable potential revenue enhancement measures, and community surveys assessing the public’s views and priorities, the City Councils finds that increasing the rate of the existing Real Property Transfer Tax from .2% to 1% and submitting a measure to the voters, with a recommendation for approval, is the most prudent, reasonable, and fiscally responsible action in order for the City to maintain current service levels and quality.

WHEREAS, this Ordinance shall become effective ten days after the vote is declared by the City Council pursuant to Elections Code Section 9217; WHEREAS, if adopted, the City’s Voter-Approved Tax Oversight Committee, established by City Council Resolution No. 15118, will provide the resident oversight to review the collection and expenditure of tax revenues generated under the authority of this Chapter.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 3. AMENDMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE
Section 3.22.020 of Chapter 3.22 of the San Rafael Municipal Code is amended to read, with additions shown in underline and deletions shown in strikethrough, as follows:

3.22.020 Imposition of tax.

A tax is imposed on each transfer, by deed, instrument or writing, by which any lands, tenements or other real property located in the city are sold, granted, assigned, transferred or otherwise conveyed to, or vested in, a purchaser or purchasers thereof, or any other person or persons at or by the direction of said purchaser or purchasers, when the value of the consideration exceeds one hundred dollars, said tax to be at the rate of two ten dollars for each one thousand dollars or fractional part of one thousand dollars of the value of the consideration.

Section 3.22.235 is added to Chapter 3.22 of the San Rafael Municipal Code, with the additions shown in underline as follows:

3.22.235 Oversight Committee
The City’s Voter Approved Tax Oversight Committee, as established by City Resolution No. 15118, and as may be amended, shall submit a report on at least an annual basis to the City Council evaluating whether the proceeds from this tax are being properly expended for the purposes set forth in this Chapter. Proceeds from this tax shall be subject to the City's generally applicable independent annual audit procedures and requirements.

SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY
If any provision of this Ordinance, or application thereof to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this chapter are declared to be severable.

SECTION 6. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).

The approval of this ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq., “CEQA,” and 14 Cal. Code Reg. §§ 15000 et seq., “CEQA Guidelines”). This tax submitted to the voters is a general tax that can be used for any legitimate governmental purpose. It is not a commitment to any particular action nor does it authorize any private activity, but merely taxes such activity as otherwise occurs. As such, under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), the tax is not a project within the meaning of CEQA because it creates a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. If revenue from the tax is used for a purpose that would have either such effect, the City will undertake the required CEQA review for that project. Therefore, CEQA analysis is not required at this time.

SECTION 7. EFFECTIVE AND OPERATIVE DATES
This ordinance shall be effective ten days after the date on which the City Council has declared that the voters of the City of San Rafael have approved the ordinance by a vote of no less than a majority of the votes cast by the electors voting on the tax measure set forth in this ordinance at the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026.

SECTION 8. CERTIFICATION AND PUBLICATION
Upon approval by the voters, the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this ordinance and shall cause it to be published, in full or in summary form, according to law.
____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting:

Disposition:

Agenda Item No: 3.b
Meeting Date: July 20, 2026

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Public Works
Prepared by: Kelly Abey, Traffic Engineering
Technician
Sayed Fakhry, City Traffic Engineer
April Miller, Public Works Director
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: CHANGE IN SPEED LIMIT ON EIGHTEEN SAN RAFAEL ROADWAY SEGMENTS SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE REGARDING SPEED LIMIT CHANGES ON 18

SAN RAFAEL ROADWAY SEGMENTS OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 22357 AND 22358 OF THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE; CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINE 15061(b)(3)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council introduce the Ordinance, waive further reading, and refer to it by title only.

BACKGROUND:

The purpose of setting speed limits is to promote safety on roadways while ensuring fair enforcement of vehicle speeds under California law. According to the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22350, drivers are required to operate their vehicles at speeds that are “reasonable and prudent,” taking into consideration factors such as weather, visibility, traffic, road conditions, and the safety of others. The 85th percentile speed that is used for determining posted speed limits—defined as the speed at or below which 85% of vehicles travel—is generally used to determine what is “reasonable and prudent.” CVC Section 22352 defines prima facie speed limits, which are presumed speed limits even if not explicitly indicated by a posted sign, for certain roadways. A prima facie speed limit of 25 miles per hour (mph) applies to roadways that meet the CVC definition of business districts, residence districts, school zones, and areas immediately adjacent to senior centers.

For roadways outside these categories, CVC Section 22358 permits local jurisdictions to establish speed limits that are determined to be reasonable and safe based on an engineering and traffic survey (E&TS) conducted in accordance with CVC Section 627. Furthermore, under CVC Section 40802, posted speed limits must be updated every seven (7) years to remain enforceable. The update interval of the E&TS can be extended to 14 years when a registered engineer confirms no significant changes in roadway or traffic conditions. Posted speed limits without a current E&TS are enforceable by the Police Department by pacing, but not by radar.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
An E&TS consists of engineering measurements of prevailing free-flow speeds on relevant roadway segments, a review of the collision history, and a review of roadside conditions not readily apparent to passing motorists. Speed surveys identify the 85th-percentile speed, which has historically been the primary factor used to establish the speed limit in accordance with the CVC.

California Assembly Bill 43 (AB 43), signed into law in October 2021, requires E&TS reports to consider the presence and safety of vulnerable roadway users, such as bicyclists and pedestrians, when establishing speed limits. Under AB 43, a "safety corridor" is a roadway segment within an overall roadway network where the highest number of serious injury and fatality crashes occurs and that meets certain other requirements (CVC Section 22358.7). Local jurisdictions are permitted to reduce speed limits by an additional 5 mph within safety corridors where the findings of an E&TS justify such reductions.

The City’s E&TS were scheduled to expire in October 2025; therefore, the City entered into an agreement with traffic engineering consultant W-Trans to conduct a citywide E&TS update, shown in Attachment 1.

The updated E&TS complies with CVC regulations and guidelines established by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA_MUTCD) for Setting Speed Limits (2026). Additionally, City staff entered into an agreement with Parametrix to conduct a supplemental study to evaluate the possibility of reducing downtown speed limits through the application of AB 43 under CVC Section 22358.7, whose provisions became effective on July 1, 2024. The downtown area was prioritized for the first phase (Phase 1) of AB 43 implementation because it serves as both a key business district and as a hub for pedestrian and bicycle activity in the city. Importantly, the 2024 Marin County Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) indicates that many streets in downtown San Rafael experience elevated collision rates.

The LRSP also identifies that unsafe vehicle speed is the most common primary collision factor leading to injuries in San Rafael. The report indicates that reducing speed limits along high collision network segments would not only improve safety outcomes for vulnerable roadway users but also enhance the overall pedestrian experience and support economic vitality. The high concentration of pedestrian and bicycle-generating land uses underscores the importance of ensuring safety in an environment that supports vibrant commercial uses and significant foot traffic.

During the February 18, 2025 City Council meeting, the updated E&TS speed surveys were approved.

The surveys are summarized in Attachment 2. The ordinance to reduce speed limits on 24 roadways in downtown San Rafael was introduced and was adopted at the March 3, 2025 City Council meeting. The speed limit changes that went into place as a part of Phase 1 of AB 43 implementation resulted in a generally contiguous 20 mph ‘zone’ in downtown, including the east-west corridors of Mission Avenue, Fifth Avenue, and Fourth Street, as well as north-south streets west of US Highway 101 between Mission Avenue and Second Street. Each recommended speed limit constituted a five-mph reduction compared to the existing conditions in downtown west of US Highway 101, except for Second and Third Streets between Hayes Street and Heatherton Street, which retain a 25-mph speed limit.

ANALYSIS:

While working to complete Phase 1 of AB 43 implementation by installing new speed limit signs on downtown streets, the City began evaluating possible speed limit reductions in additional areas of the City as part of Phase 2 of AB 43 implementation. The strategy and speed surveys are summarized in Attachment 3. The proposed roadways are outside downtown and located near land uses that generate high volumes of vulnerable roadway users, such as parks, community centers, schools, senior housing, and designated bicycle facilities. When determining the proposed locations for Phase 2 speed limit reductions, community input from the City’s issue reporting platform, SeeClickFix, was considered, along with the online survey posted on the City’s project website during Phase 1 and ongoing conversations with the San Rafael Police Department.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
Based on the E&TS results and additional inputs as stated, speed limits are recommended for a five-mph reduction on the following 18 roadway segments outside of the downtown area listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Recommended Speed Limit Reductions
Roadway Segment
Current
Speed
Limit
Proposed
Speed
Limit
1 Andersen Drive (Lindaro Street to Francisco Boulevard West) 35 30 2 Andersen Drive (Bellam Boulevard to Sanitary Treatment Plan) 35 30 3 B Street (Woodland Avenue to Second Street) 25 20
4 Canal Street/Spinnaker Point Drive (Harbor Street to Bedford Cove) 25 20 5 Fifth Avenue (Western Extent to H Street) 25 20
6 Fourth Street (Western City Limit to Second Street) 35 30 7 Fourth Street (Hetherton Court to Union Street) 25 20 8 Grand Avenue (Mission Avenue to Francisco Boulevard East) 25 20 9 Greenfield Avenue/West End Avenue (Western City Limit to Marquard Avenue)
25 20
10 Kerner Boulevard (Canal Street to Bellam Boulevard) 25 20 11 Lincoln Avenue (Red Rock Way to Linden Lane) 30 25
12 Lindaro Street (Third Street to Woodland Avenue) 25 20 13 Los Gamos Drive (Lucas Valley Road to Southern Terminus) 30 25 14 Mission Avenue (Hetherton Street to Embarcadero Way) 25 20 15 Point San Pedro Road (Marina Boulevard to Porto Bello Drive) 40 35 16 Third Street (Grand Avenue to Eastern City Limit) 35 30 17 Woodland Avenue (B Street to Du Bois Street) 25 20
18 Woodland Avenue (Du Bois Street to Auburn Street) 30 25 In each case of recommended reduced speed limits, it was determined that the resulting speed limit facilitates the orderly movement of traffic and is reasonable and safe, under CVC Section 22358. The recommended speed limit reduction on Point San Pedro is being coordinated with the County of Marin to promote continuous speed limits through the corridor of road.

The implementation of AB 43 Phase 1 and 2 speed limit reductions, in conjunction with other recent and planned infrastructure improvements in downtown San Rafael, are anticipated to create a safer and more inviting environment for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists alike. The recommended speed limits are part of a comprehensive approach to improve traffic safety and slow vehicle speeds, helping to foster a more livable and accessible community.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed speed limit modifications are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The adoption of the proposed ordinance is not a “Project” under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a), in that the action does not have a potential for a direct physical change or reasonably indirect physical change in the environment. In the event that the action is considered a “Project” under CEQA, the action is exempt from CEQA under section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Ordinance or its implementation would have a significant effect on the environment (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b)(3)).

COMMUNITY OUTREACH:

AB 43 Phase 1 preliminary results and locations of speed limit reductions in the downtown area were shared on the project website and presented to the San Rafael Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) on October 2, 2024. The community and committee members were supportive of the speed limit reduction efforts and expressed interest in expanding the areas to which AB 43 would apply.

As such, City staff worked with Parametrix to conduct supplemental E&TS and to incorporate additional downtown streets into the speed limit reduction recommendations. The updated speed limit reduction results were presented to the Police Advisory and Accountability Committee (PAAC) on January 15, 2025, and to City Council on February 18, 2025. The final speed limit ordinance was adopted at the City Council meeting on March 3, 2025.

The community and committees again expressed support for the speed limit reduction efforts and interest in evaluating speed limit reduction in other areas of the City. As a result, AB 43 Phase 2 proposed locations for speed limit reductions on San Rafael roadways outside of downtown were presented at the BPAC meeting on December 3, 2025, and at the PAAC meeting on April 15, 2026.

The City has hosted an Assembly Bill 43 (AB 43) Strategy website since October 2024 that includes information on AB 43 and frequently asked questions. An online form remains open for residents to provide their input on Phases 1 and 2 of AB 43 implementation.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The cost to install new speed limit signs and pavement marking changes to be performed by the Streets Maintenance Division staff will be absorbed by the department’s fiscal year 2026-27 budget.

OPTIONS:

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

1. Introduce the Ordinance, waive further reading of the Ordinance, and refer to it by title only, as presented.

2. Do not introduce the Ordinance and provide alternative direction to staff.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council introduce the Ordinance, waive further reading, and refer to it by title only.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. City of San Rafael Updated Engineering and Traffic Survey (E&TS) November 2024

2. City of San Rafael AB 43 Strategy and Downtown Speed Limits Report (Phase 1)

3. City of San Rafael AB 43 Strategy and Locations Outside of Downtown Speed Limits Report (Phase 2)

4. Draft Ordinance Regarding Speed Limit Change on 18 San Rafael roadway segments pursuant to Sections 22357 and 22358 of the California Vehicle Code.

5. Public Hearing Notice

DOWNTOWN

SAN RAFAEL
Tamalpais
Grand
Lincoln Ave
Mission Ave
5th Ave
D St
E St
Shaver
F St
G St
H St
C St
B St
A St
4th St
3rd St
2nd St
20 25
30 City of San Rafael AB 43 Strategy
Downtown Speed Limits
Prepared for City of San Rafael
January 2025
SAN RAFAEL\

THE CITY WITH A MISSION
Parametri~
City of San Rafael AB 43 Strategy and Downtown Speed Limits January 2025 │ iii
Contents
Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Statutory Speed Limits ........................................................................................................................... 3 Speed Limits Established by E&TS ......................................................................................................... 4 Speed Survey Operational Procedures ................................................................................................... 7 Roadway Characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 8 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Collision Review ...................................................................................................................................... 8 Downtown San Rafael AB 43 Results .................................................................................................... 9 References .......................................................................................................................................... 11

TABLES
Table 1: List of Roadway Segments and Recommended Speed Limits ...................................................2 Table 2 Additional Speed Limit Reduction on Local Agency Roadways ...................................................6 Table 3 Summary Table of Speed Limit Recommendations.................................................................. 10

APPENDICES
Appendix: Engineering and Traffic Survey Forms
1 Overview
This report presents the results of an evaluation of speed limits in downtown San Rafael reflecting California Assembly Bill No. 43 (AB 43) and results of Engineering and Traffic Surveys (E&TS). AB 43 provides jurisdictions with more flexibility when establishing speed limits in order to account for the presence of vulnerable roadway users and for the purpose of improving roadway safety outcomes.

AB 43, effective in 2022, amends the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and revises the process by which an E&TS is prepared. An E&TS is an engineering study used for setting roadway speed limits based on prevailing speeds (or 85th percentile speed) and a review of roadway traffic conditions and history.

AB 43 allows for reduction of speed limits after considering safety, land uses, and concentration levels of people walking and riding bicycles, especially from vulnerable groups such as children, seniors, persons with disabilities, and individuals experiencing homelessness. AB 43 also allows lowered speed limits on sections of roadways in a “business activity district,” such as neighborhood downtowns.

The 2024 Marin County Local Road Safety Plan indicates that many streets in downtown San Rafael experience elevated collision rates, and that reducing vehicle speeds could improve safety outcomes of vulnerable road user groups. Slower vehicle speeds offer drivers more reaction time and reduce the required distance to stop a traveling vehicle and can not only make the street safer for people inside and outside a vehicle, but they also facilitate a calmer and more enjoyable street environment overall. As such, the City of San Rafael has undertaken work to evaluate speed limits in the downtown area, where most of the city’s vehicle collisions resulting in injury or fatality occur, and where the most roadways that meet the CVC definition of “business activity district” are located.

This report evaluates speed limits in downtown San Rafael in the context of AB 43. In doing so, roadways that meet the definition of “business activity district” were identified, and recent E&TS results were analyzed for appropriate speed limit reductions. The resulting speed limit recommendations are shown below in Table 1.
2 January 2025 │
Table 1: List of Roadway Segments and Recommended Speed Limits Roadway Between
Recommended Speed
Limit (mph)
Mission Avenue H Street Hetherton Street 20
Fifth Avenue H Street Hetherton Street 20
Fourth Street Marquard Avenue Hetherton Street 20
Third Street Hayes Street Hetherton Street 25
Second Street Hayes Street Hetherton Street 25
Second Street Marquard Avenue Hayes Street 30
H Street Mission Avenue Fourth Street 20
G Street Mission Avenue Second Street 20
F Street Fifth Avenue Latham Street 20
Shaver Street Fourth Street Second Street 20
E Street Mission Avenue Second Street 20
D Street Fifth Avenue Second Street 20
C Street Mission Avenue Second Street 20
B Street Mission Avenue Second Street 20
A Street Fifth Avenue Second Street 20
Lootens Place Fifth Avenue Third Street 20
Cijos Street Fourth Street Third Street 20
Lincoln Avenue Mission Avenue Second Street 20
Tamalpais Avenue Mission Avenue Second Street 20
Source: Parametrix, 2025
3 Statutory Speed Limits
There are three primary classifications of statutory speed limits in California, including absolute speed limits, prima facie speed limits, and intermediate speed limits. An absolute speed limit indicates the speed above which it is unlawful to drive regardless of roadway conditions or other factors. All California roadways are subject to an absolute speed limit of 55 miles per hour (mph) on two-lane undivided roadways and 65 mph on all other roadways, as outlined in the CVC §22349. A prima facie speed limit is a presumed speed limit appropriate for certain roadway contexts.

Residential and business districts have a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. Intermediate speed limits between absolute and prima facie speed limits can be established on the basis of an E&TS in accordance with the CVC §22357 and §22358.

Along roadways that lack a posted speed limit, the roadway is subject to a statutory “prima facie” speed limit as established in the CVC §22352. The prima facie speed limit sets one of two speed limits covering six classes of location:

1. 15 mph – uncontrolled railway crossings; blind, uncontrolled intersections; and alleyways.

2. 25 mph – business district or residence district without other posted speed limits; school zones; and areas immediately around senior centers.

The following conditions outlined in the CVC §235 define a business district as the portion of a roadway:
• Upon one side of which, for a distance of 600 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by buildings in use for business, or • Upon both sides of which, collectively, for a distance of 300 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is so occupied.

The following conditions listed in the CVC §515 define a residence district as the portion of a roadway:
• Upon one side of which, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures, or
• Upon both sides of which, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures.

Business and residence districts may be longer than the distances specified in the above definitions if the ratio of businesses or residential dwellings to the length of the roadway exists. CVC §240 includes additional requirements to be applied in determining whether a roadway is within a business or residence district.

Additionally, the CVC §22358.4(b) includes provision for a local authority to declare a prima facie speed limit of 20 or 15 mph in school zones under certain circumstances. The CVC §22358.9 allows 4 January 2025 │
for establishment of a prima facie speed limit of 25 or 20 mph in a “business activity district” that meets at least three of the four following requirements:

1. No less than 50 percent of the contiguous property fronting the highway consists of retail or dining commercial uses, including outdoor dining, that open directly onto sidewalks adjacent to the highway.

2. Parking, including parallel, diagonal, or perpendicular spaces located alongside the highway.

3. Traffic control signals or stop signs regulating traffic flow on the highway, located at intervals of no more than 600 feet.

4. Marked crosswalks not controlled by a traffic control device.

Speed Limits Established by E&TS
As outlined in the CVC §22357 and §22358, where statutory speed limits are not appropriate for roadway, traffic, or land use conditions, road authorities have the power to establish speed limits different from the statutory absolute or prima facie speed limit. Speed limits of 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, or 60 mph must be established by an E&TS and be approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer. The E&TS determines the recommended speed limits along each surveyed roadway segment.

In accordance with the CVC §627, the E&TS consists of engineering measurements of the prevailing free-flow speeds along survey segments, a review of the collision history reports, and a review of existing roadside conditions including the identification of any conditions not readily apparent to the motorist. An E&TS may also consider additional factors such as residential density and safety of bicyclists and pedestrians, with increased consideration for vulnerable pedestrian groups including children, seniors, persons with disabilities, users of personal assistive mobility devices, and the unhoused.

Speed limits are established at or near the 85th percentile speed (also known as the critical speed), which is defined as the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. Statistically the 85th percentile represents one standard deviation above the average speed and establishes the upper limit of what is considered reasonable and prudent (CAMUTCD Section 2B.13).

According to the CVC §22358.6(a), an E&TS shall establish posted speed limits at the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic.

As per the CVC, exceptions to the establishment of speed limits at the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile are permissible only in the following cases as described in items 1 – 4 below.

Determination must be made based on results of an E&TS and determination of reasonable or safe speed limits. Chapter 2 (“Signs”) of the CA MUTCD further establishes guidelines for setting a speed limit that provides a rational and defensible speed limit determination with the use of an E&TS. 5 1. Speed limit reduction from 85th percentile by increments of 5 mph • If the 85th percentile speed is rounded up, then it can be rounded down by 5 mph: For cases in which the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed would require rounding up, a local authority may decide to instead round down the speed limit to the nearest 5 mph increment below the 85th percentile speed. (CVC §22358.6(c)) • If the 85th percentile speed is rounded down, an additional 5 mph reduction can be applied for conditions not readily apparent to driver: For cases in which the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed would require a rounding down, a local authority may lower the speed limit by 5 mph from the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed in compliance with CVC §627, §22358.5 and the CA MUTCD and if the reasons for the lower speed limit are documented. (CVC §22358.6(b))
• An additional 5 mph reduction can be applied if street is a “Safety Corridor” or adjacent to a “high bicycle / pedestrian generator”:
1 If a local authority, after completing an engineering and traffic survey, finds that the speed limit is still more than is reasonable or safe, the local authority may, by ordinance, determine and declare a prima facie speed limit that has been reduced an additional five miles per hour for either of the following reasons below (CVC §22358.7):
o The portion of highway has been designated as a safety corridor. A local authority shall not deem more than one-fifth of their streets as safety corridors. (CVC §22358.7(a)(1))
▪ The CA MUTCD, Table 2B-105(CA) lists factors for consideration when identifying safety corridor roadways, including crash severity, mode, disadvantaged community status, vulnerable populations, school proximity, and crash density.
o The portion of highway is adjacent to any land or facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians, especially those from vulnerable groups such as children, seniors, persons with disabilities, and the unhoused. (CVC §22358.7(a)(2))
▪ The CA MUTCD, Table 2B-106(CA) lists requirements to determine if a facility generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians. Examples include certain land uses, transit factors, presence of pedestrian / bicyclist infrastructure, and demographic factors.

As per the CVC §22358.6(e), the total reduction in the speed limit pursuant to the three items listed above shall not exceed 12.4 miles per hour from the 85th percentile speed. The CA MUTCD further clarifies the options to apply speed limit reduction from the 85th percentile speed with several examples, which are replicated in Table 2:
1 As per the CVC §22358.7, a local authority may not lower a speed limit as authorized by this section until June 30, 2024
6 January 2025 │
Table 2 Additional Speed Limit Reduction on Local Agency Roadways 85th Percentile
Speed
(mph)
Rounding to nearest
5 mph increment
(CVC 22358.6(a))
If rounding to nearest
is up, may round
down
(CVC 22358.6(c))
If rounding to nearest
is down, may
additionally lower by
5 mph
(CVC 22358.6(b))
If Safety Corridor or
adjacent to high
concentration of
bicyclists &
pedestrians, may
additionally lower by
5 mph
(CVC 22358.7)*

47.5 – 50.0 50 45 No 40

45.1 – 47.4 45 No 40 35

42.5 – 45.0 45 40 No 35

40.1 – 42.4 40 No 35 30
Source: California Department of Transportation, 2023.

Note: CVC Section 22358.7 is applicable to local agency roadways and private properties subjected to the CVC; they are not applicable to the State Highway System

2. Retain existing or restore immediately prior adopted speed limit A local authority may, by ordinance, retain the currently adopted speed limit or restore the immediately prior adopted speed limit if that speed limit was established with an engineering and traffic survey and if a registered engineer has evaluated the section of roadway and determined that no additional general purpose lanes have been added to the roadway since completion of the traffic survey that established that speed limit. (CVC §22358.8) 7 Speed Survey Operational Procedures
Speed surveys were conducted on certain roadway segments that were not included in the 2024 report Engineering and Traffic Surveys for the City of San Rafael. These roadway segments include:
• Fifth Avenue between H Street and Hetherton Street
• H Street between Mission Avenue and Fourth Street
• G Street between Mission Avenue and Second Street
• F Street between Fifth Avenue and Latham Street
• E Street between Mission Avenue and Second Street
• D Street between Fifth Avenue and First Street
• C Street between Mission Avenue and Second Street
• Tamalpais Avenue between Mission Avenue and Second Street Speed surveys were conducted in compliance with regulations set forth in the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and were based on the guidelines for setting proper speed limits established by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as documented in the California Manual for Setting Speed Limits (2020). The E&TS consists of engineering measurements of the prevailing freeflow speeds along survey segments, a review of the collision history reports, and of existing roadside conditions, including the identification and description of any conditions not readily apparent to the motorist.

Technical experts conducted field surveys of existing vehicle speeds along the E&TS roadway segments. The data was collected in September, October, and November 2024 on clear weather weekdays with dry pavement conditions. The surveys were done during off-peak hours to capture traffic speeds under free-flow conditions. Vehicle speeds along the E&TS segments were collected using a portable calibrated radar gun. The surveyor was strategically located to remain inconspicuous to avoid influencing driver speeds. Surveyor locations were selected so that prevailing speeds could be considered representative of the speed zone section. For each segment, the surveyor distanced themselves from nearby traffic signals and stop signs to minimize their effects on vehicular travel speeds.

The surveyor read speeds directly from the radar gun and recorded the free-flow speeds of a minimum of 100 vehicles along each roadway segment, except those segments which had exceptionally low traffic volume (such as Tamalpais Ave). The surveys captured both directions of travel along each study segment. Each direction consisted of no less than 50 vehicles. 8 January 2025 │
Roadway Characteristics
As part of the speed survey assessment, the existing conditions along the E&TS roadway segments were determined. The roadway segment lengths were measured, and observations were made on the presence of on-street parking, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities. These roadway conditions were considered during speed limit evaluations and were used to determine appropriate speed limits that would promote all roadway user safety.

Data Analysis
The sample vehicle speeds collected during the field surveys were assessed for the following statistical factors:
• Average speed – the summation of measured speeds divided by the number of observed vehicles.
• Median speed (i.e., the 50th percentile speed) – the speed above and below which 50 percent of the sample speeds lie.
• 85th percentile speed – the speed at or below which 85 percent of free-flow vehicles travel.

Also referred to as the critical speed, the 85th percentile speed is the primary factor used to determine the speed limit and may be subject to secondary factors of collision history and other conditions not apparent to drivers.
• 10 mph pace speed – the 10 mph increment of speed containing the greatest number of vehicles. The number of vehicles in the pace speed is reported as a percentage of vehicles surveyed. The pace speed aids in determining the proper speed limits. Generally, the critical speed lies within the pace speed.

Collision Review
The E&TS Survey analysis also reviewed the collision history of the roadway segments, obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). The data consisted of the most recently available five-year period of reported collision histories (January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2022). At the time of the study, 2023 data had not yet been certified in the record system.

The number of reported collisions along each roadway segment during the five-year period as well as the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were used to calculate the rate for each roadway segment.

These calculated rates were compared to the statewide average collision rates for the same type of roadway and configuration. The purpose of the comparison was to determine if the collision history along the roadway segment deviated from the statewide average and potentially represented an unusually high collision rate. The statewide average collision rates were based on the width, configuration, and terrain of each roadway segment.
9 Downtown San Rafael AB 43 Results
Speed limits are recommended for each of the roadway segments studied based on the approach adopted with AB 43 and on policies described in the CVC and CA MUTCD. The roadway segments that were determined to meet the definition of a “business activity district” as per CVC §22358.9 and are eligible for establishment of a 20-mph prima facie speed limit without requiring an engineering and traffic survey include the following:
• Fourth Street between Marquard Avenue and Hetherton Street • Shaver Street between Fourth Street and Second Street • B Street between Mission Avenue and Second Street
• A Street between Fifth Avenue and Second Street
• Lootens Place between Fifth Avenue and Third Street
• Cijos Street between Fourth Street and Third Street
• Lincoln Avenue between Mission Avenue and Second Street E&TS results and recommended speed limits for Mission Avenue and Second Street were identified from Engineering and Traffic Surveys for the City of San Rafael. Appendix A contains E&TS results for additional roadway segments evaluated in Fall 2024 as part of this study.

Table 3 summarizes recommended downtown San Rafael speed limits resulting from this study.

Each of these recommended speed limits constitutes a five-mph reduction in speed limit compared to existing conditions, with the exception of Second and Third Streets between Hayes Street and Hetherton Street, which would retain a 25-mph speed limit. These speed limits would also result in a generally contiguous 20 mph ‘zone’ in downtown that includes the east-west corridors of Mission Avenue, Fifth Avenue, and Fourth Street, as well as north-south streets west of US Highway 101 between Mission Avenue and Second Street.

These speed limit reductions, when considered in conjunction with other recent and planned infrastructure improvements in downtown San Rafael, are anticipated to create a safer and more inviting environment for all roadway users, including people walking, biking, and driving. The recommended speed limits are part of a comprehensive approach intended to improve traffic safety and slow vehicle speeds, helping to foster a more livable and accessible community.

10 January 2025 │
Table 3 Summary Table of Speed Limit Recommendations
Roadway Between
Current
Speed
Limit
85th
Percentile
Speed
Proposed
Speed
Limit
Comments

Mission Avenue H Street Hetherton
Street 25 27 20 From Engineering and Traffic Surveys
for the City of San Rafael
Fifth Avenue H Street Hetherton
Street 25 28 20 See Engineering and Traffic Survey
form in Appendix A
Fourth Street Marquard
Avenue
Hetherton
Street 25 N/A 20 From Engineering and Traffic Surveys
for the City of San Rafael
Third Street Hayes
Street
Hetherton
Street 25 N/A 25 Third Street has a prima facie speed
limit of 25 mph as per CVC 22352(b)
Second Street Hayes
Street
Hetherton
Street 25 32 25 From Engineering and Traffic Surveys
for the City of San Rafael
Second Street Marquard
Avenue
Hayes
Street 35 33 30 From Engineering and Traffic Surveys
for the City of San Rafael
H Street Mission
Avenue
Fourth
Street 25 23 20 See Engineering and Traffic Survey
form in Appendix A
G Street Mission
Avenue
Second
Street 25 23 20 See Engineering and Traffic Survey
form in Appendix A
F Street Fifth
Avenue
Latham
Street 25 21 20 See Engineering and Traffic Survey
form in Appendix A
Shaver Street Fourth
Street
Second
Street 25 N/A 20 Eligible for 20 mph speed limit in
accordance with CVC Section 22358.9
E Street Mission
Avenue
Second
Street 25 23 20 See Engineering and Traffic Survey
form in Appendix A
D Street Fifth
Avenue
First
Street 25 23 20 See Engineering and Traffic Survey
form in Appendix A
C Street Mission
Avenue
Second
Street 25 23 20 See Engineering and Traffic Survey
form in Appendix A
B Street Mission
Avenue
First
Street 25 N/A 20 Eligible for 20 mph speed limit in
accordance with CVC Section 22358.9
A Street Fifth
Avenue
Second
Street 25 N/A 20 Eligible for 20 mph speed limit in
accordance with CVC Section 22358.9
Lootens Place Fifth
Avenue
Third
Street 25 N/A 20 Eligible for 20 mph speed limit in
accordance with CVC Section 22358.9
Cijos Street Fourth
Street
Third
Street 25 N/A 20 Eligible for 20 mph speed limit in
accordance with CVC Section 22358.9
Lincoln Avenue Mission
Avenue
Second
Street 25 N/A 20 Eligible for 20 mph speed limit in
accordance with CVC Section 22358.9
Tamalpais Avenue Mission
Avenue
Second
Street 25 21 20 See Engineering and Traffic Survey
form in Appendix A
Source: Parametrix, 2025
11 References
California Assem. Bill 43, 2021-2022, Ch. 690, 2021 Cal. Stat.

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits, California Department of Transportation, 2014 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Street and Highways, California Department of Transportation, 2014
California Vehicle Code, §235, §515, §627, §22348 – 22358.9, §40802 Engineering and Traffic Surveys for the City of San Rafael, Prepared for the City of San Rafael, W-Trans, November 2024 Marin County Local Road Safety Plan, Transportation Authority of Marin, 2024 City of San Rafael AB 43 Strategy and Downtown Speed Limits City of San Rafael
January 2025 │
Appendix: Engineering and Traffic Survey
Forms
(next page)
Location:

Posted Limit: Weather:

Direction: Recorder: 13 0 0.0% 25 8 71.0%
Date: Day: 14 0 0.0% 26 5 76.0%
15 2 2.0% 27 5 81.0%
16 3 5.0% 28 4 85.0%
17 3 8.0% 29 5 90.0%
18 6 14.0% 30 4 94.0%
19 6 20.0% 31 2 96.0%
20 8 28.0% 32 2 98.0%
21 7 35.0% 33 1 99.0%
22 8 43.0% 34 1 100.0%
23 10 53.0% 35 0 100.0%
24 10 63.0% 36 0 100.0%
85th Percentile Speed:
15 to 34
18 to 27
ADT: Count Date:
5 years Land Use:
c/mvm 1.07 c/mvm
Signature:

Date:

VEHICLE SPEED DATA
Median Speed:

Both Sides
3,200
Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B106(CA) include the presence of employment centers, retail, schools, religious facilities, areas of community significance such as City Hall and the public library, transit stops, sidewalks, and numerous controlled and uncontrolled marked crosswalks. This roadway segment exhibits an excessively high collision rate.

Number of Collisions:

Segment Length (mi):

Clear
DH
11/25/2024 Wednesday
40 Cumulative Percent
Fifth Avenue between 101 and H Street
City of San Rafael
Engineering and Traffic Survey
Sidewalk: Both Sides None
Configuration: 2-ln, Bi-Dir
9/19/2023
Commercial
Terrain:

Bike Lanes:

Flat

0.25 Parking Conditions:

Street Width (ft):

Calculated Collision Rate:

SpeedNumberCumulative PercentSpeedNumber
Average Speed:

Standard Deviation:
23 SUMMARY STATISTICS
% in Pace Speed:
10 mph Pace Speed:

Skew:

Speed Range:

Total Observed:

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment in accordance with the California Vehicle Code Section 22358.7(a)(2), after the date specified in Section 22358.7(c).

On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 20 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment. 12/16/2024
25mph
Both
Statewide Avg Collision Rate:
34 6.26
23 28

4.35 100
73%
Time Period:

ANALYSIS INFORMATION

0.93 0
0 2
3 3
6 6
8 7
8 10
10 8
5 5
4 5
4 2
2 1
1 0
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 Location:

Posted Limit: Weather:

Direction: Recorder: 14 1 0.9% 26 0 99.1%
Date: Day: 15 4 4.3% 27 1 100.0%
16 6 9.5% 28 0 100.0%
17 4 12.9% 29 0 100.0%
18 10 21.6% 30 0 100.0%
19 12 31.9% 31 0 100.0%
20 10 40.5% 32 0 100.0%
21 20 57.8% 33 0 100.0%
22 19 74.1% 34 0 100.0%
23 16 87.9% 35 0 100.0%
24 9 95.7% 36 0 100.0%
25 4 99.1% 37 0 100.0%
85th Percentile Speed:
14 to 27
15 to 24
ADT: Count Date:
5 years Land Use:
c/mvm 1.07 c/mvm
Signature:

Date:

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment in accordance with the California Vehicle Code Section 22358(a).

On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 20 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment. 12/16/2024
25mph
Both
Statewide Avg Collision Rate:
13 6.45
21 23

2.64 100
95%
Time Period:

ANALYSIS INFORMATION

0.12 Average Speed:

Standard Deviation:
21 SUMMARY STATISTICS
% in Pace Speed:
10 mph Pace Speed:

Skew:

Speed Range:

Total Observed: Speed Number Cumulative
PercentSpeedNumber
City of San Rafael
Engineering and Traffic Survey
Sidewalk: Both Sides None
Configuration: 2-ln, Bi-Dir
11/7/2024
Residential
Terrain:

Bike Lanes:

Flat
-0.42
Parking Conditions:

Street Width (ft):

Calculated Collision Rate:

VEHICLE SPEED DATA
Median Speed:

Both Sides
9,200
Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B106(CA) include the presence of transit stops and sidewalks.

Number of Collisions:

Segment Length (mi):

Clear
JJ
10/24/2024 Thursday
40 Cumulative Percent
H Street between Mission Avenue and Fourth Street
0 1
4 6
4 10
12 10
20 19
16 9
4 0
1 0
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Location:

Posted Limit: Weather:

Direction: Recorder: 14 3 2.7% 26 4 98.2%
Date: Day: 15 7 8.9% 27 0 98.2%
16 5 13.4% 28 1 99.1%
17 10 22.3% 29 1 100.0%
18 14 34.8% 30 0 100.0%
19 14 47.3% 31 0 100.0%
20 16 61.6% 32 0 100.0%
21 13 73.2% 33 0 100.0%
22 9 81.3% 34 0 100.0%
23 7 87.5% 35 0 100.0%
24 3 90.2% 36 0 100.0%
25 5 94.6% 37 0 100.0%
85th Percentile Speed:
14 to 26
14 to 23
ADT: Count Date:
5 years Land Use:
c/mvm 1.07 c/mvm
Signature:

Date:

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment in accordance with the California Vehicle Code Section 22358(a).

On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 20 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment. 12/16/2024
25mph
Both
Statewide Avg Collision Rate:
12 6.87
20 23

3.14 100
88%
Time Period:

ANALYSIS INFORMATION

0.33 Average Speed:

Standard Deviation:
20 SUMMARY STATISTICS
% in Pace Speed:
10 mph Pace Speed:

Skew:

Speed Range:

Total Observed: Speed Number Cumulative
PercentSpeedNumber
City of San Rafael
Engineering and Traffic Survey
Sidewalk: Both Sides None
Configuration: 2-ln, Bi-Dir
11/7/2024
Residential
Terrain:

Bike Lanes:

Flat

0.41 Parking Conditions:

Street Width (ft):

Calculated Collision Rate:

VEHICLE SPEED DATA
Median Speed:

Both Sides
2,900
Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B106(CA) include the presence of transit stops and sidewalks.

Number of Collisions:

Segment Length (mi):

Clear
JJ
10/24/2024 Thursday
40 Cumulative Percent
G Street between Northern Extent and Second Street
0 3
7 5
10 14
14 16
13 9
7 3
5 4
0 1
1 0
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
Location:

Posted Limit: Weather:

Direction: Recorder: 11 2 2.8% 23 2 98.6%
Date: Day: 12 2 5.6% 24 1 100.0%
13 2 8.5% 25 0 100.0%
14 7 18.3% 26 0 100.0%
15 5 25.4% 27 0 100.0%
16 5 32.4% 28 0 100.0%
17 7 42.3% 29 0 100.0%
18 8 53.5% 30 0 100.0%
19 9 66.2% 31 0 100.0%
20 11 81.7% 32 0 100.0%
21 6 90.1% 33 0 100.0%
22 4 95.8% 34 0 100.0%
85th Percentile Speed:
11 to 25
13 to 22
ADT: Count Date:
5 years Land Use:
c/mvm 1.07 c/mvm
Signature:

Date:

VEHICLE SPEED DATA
Median Speed:

Both Sides
N/A
Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B106(CA) include the presence of transit stops and sidewalks.

Number of Collisions:

Segment Length (mi):

Clear
JJ
10/24/2024 Thursday
40 Cumulative Percent
F Street between Latham Street and Fifth Avenue
City of San Rafael
Engineering and Traffic Survey
Sidewalk: Both Sides None
Configuration: 2-ln, Bi-Dir
N/A
Residential
Terrain:

Bike Lanes:

Flat
-0.44
Parking Conditions:

Street Width (ft):

Calculated Collision Rate:

SpeedNumberCumulative PercentSpeedNumber
Average Speed:

Standard Deviation:
18 SUMMARY STATISTICS
% in Pace Speed:
10 mph Pace Speed:

Skew:

Speed Range:

Total Observed:

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment in accordance with the California Vehicle Code Section 22358(a).

On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 20 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment. 12/16/2024
25mph
Both
Statewide Avg Collision Rate:
3 N/A
18 21

3.22 100
90%
Time Period:

ANALYSIS INFORMATION

0.13 0
2 2
2 7
5 5
7 8
9 11
6 4
2 1
0 0
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 Location:

Posted Limit: Weather:

Direction: Recorder: 12 2 1.7% 24 9 94.0%
Date: Day: 13 1 2.6% 25 5 98.3%
14 4 6.0% 26 1 99.1%
15 6 11.2% 27 0 99.1%
16 14 23.3% 28 1 100.0%
17 15 36.2% 29 0 100.0%
18 12 46.6% 30 0 100.0%
19 14 58.6% 31 0 100.0%
20 12 69.0% 32 0 100.0%
21 9 76.7% 33 0 100.0%
22 6 81.9% 34 0 100.0%
23 5 86.2% 35 0 100.0%
85th Percentile Speed:
12 to 28
15 to 24
ADT: Count Date:
5 years Land Use:
c/mvm 1.07 c/mvm
Signature:

Date:

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment in accordance with the California Vehicle Code Section 22358(a).

On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 20 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment. 12/16/2024
25mph
Both
Statewide Avg Collision Rate:
40 26.76
19 23

3.29 100
88%
Time Period:

ANALYSIS INFORMATION

0.21 Average Speed:

Standard Deviation:
19 SUMMARY STATISTICS
% in Pace Speed:
10 mph Pace Speed:

Skew:

Speed Range:

Total Observed: Speed Number Cumulative
PercentSpeedNumber
City of San Rafael
Engineering and Traffic Survey
Sidewalk: Both Sides None
Configuration: 2-ln, Bi-Dir
11/7/2024
Commercial
Terrain:

Bike Lanes:

Flat

0.30 Parking Conditions:

Street Width (ft):

Calculated Collision Rate:

VEHICLE SPEED DATA
Median Speed:

Both Sides
3,900
Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B106(CA) include the presence of employment centers, retail, a religious facility, transit stops and sidewalks.

Number of Collisions:

Segment Length (mi):

Clear
JJ
10/24/2024 Thursday
40 Cumulative Percent
E Street between Mission Ave and Second Street
0 2
1 4
6 14
15 12
14 12
9 6
5 9
5 1
0 1
0 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
Location:

Posted Limit: Weather:

Direction: Recorder: 11 2 1.9% 23 7 86.5%
Date: Day: 12 1 2.9% 24 2 88.5%
13 2 4.8% 25 6 94.2%
14 4 8.7% 26 2 96.2%
15 10 18.3% 27 2 98.1%
16 12 29.8% 28 1 99.0%
17 7 36.5% 29 1 100.0%
18 11 47.1% 30 0 100.0%
19 6 52.9% 31 0 100.0%
20 11 63.5% 32 0 100.0%
21 7 70.2% 33 0 100.0%
22 10 79.8% 34 0 100.0%
85th Percentile Speed:
11 to 29
14 to 23
ADT: Count Date:
5 years Land Use:
c/mvm 1.07 c/mvm
Signature:

Date:

VEHICLE SPEED DATA
Median Speed:

Both Sides
5,600
Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B106(CA) include the presence of retail, sidewalks, on-street bicycle facilities, and transit stops. This roadway segment is on the City's high collision network according to the 2024 San Rafael Local Road Safety Plan.

Number of Collisions:

Segment Length (mi):

Clear

DH & SV
9/12/2024 Thursday
40 Cumulative Percent
D Street between Fifth Avenue and First Street
City of San Rafael
Engineering and Traffic Survey
Sidewalk: Both Sides Class III
Configuration: 2-ln, Bi-Dir
11/7/2024
Commercial
Terrain:

Bike Lanes:

Flat
-0.02
Parking Conditions:

Street Width (ft):

Calculated Collision Rate:

SpeedNumberCumulative PercentSpeedNumber
Average Speed:

Standard Deviation:
19 SUMMARY STATISTICS
% in Pace Speed:
10 mph Pace Speed:

Skew:

Speed Range:

Total Observed:
12/16/2024

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment in accordance with the California Vehicle Code Section 22358(a).

On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 20 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment. 25mph
Both
Statewide Avg Collision Rate:
48 16.77
19 23

4.20 52
82%
Time Period:

ANALYSIS INFORMATION

0.28 0
2 1
2 4
10 12
7 11
6 11
7 10
7 2
6 2
2 1
1 0
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 Location:

Posted Limit: Weather:

Direction: Recorder: 14 1 1.0% 26 0 94.9%
Date: Day: 15 6 7.1% 27 3 98.0%
16 5 12.1% 28 0 98.0%
17 9 21.2% 29 0 98.0%
18 11 32.3% 30 0 98.0%
19 13 45.5% 31 2 100.0%
20 10 55.6% 32 0 100.0%
21 8 63.6% 33 0 100.0%
22 17 80.8% 34 0 100.0%
23 7 87.9% 35 0 100.0%
24 5 92.9% 36 0 100.0%
25 2 94.9% 37 0 100.0%
85th Percentile Speed:
14 to 31
15 to 24
ADT: Count Date:
5 years Land Use:
c/mvm 1.07 c/mvm
Signature:

Date:

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment in accordance with the California Vehicle Code Section 22358(a).

On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 20 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment. 12/16/2024
25mph
Both
Statewide Avg Collision Rate:
42 36.82
20 23

3.29 100
92%
Time Period:

ANALYSIS INFORMATION

0.25 Average Speed:

Standard Deviation:
20 SUMMARY STATISTICS
% in Pace Speed:
10 mph Pace Speed:

Skew:

Speed Range:

Total Observed: Speed Number Cumulative
PercentSpeedNumber
City of San Rafael
Engineering and Traffic Survey
Sidewalk: Both Sides Class III
Configuration: 2-ln, Bi-Dir
11/7/2024
Commercial
Terrain:

Bike Lanes:

Flat

0.70 Parking Conditions:

Street Width (ft):

Calculated Collision Rate:

VEHICLE SPEED DATA
Median Speed:

Both Sides
2,500
Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B106(CA) include the presence of employment centers, retail, transit stops, sidewalks and on-street bicycle facilities. This roadway segment is on the City's high collision network according to the 2024 San Rafael Local Road Safety Plan.

Number of Collisions:

Segment Length (mi):

Clear

DH & SV
9/12/2024 Thursday
40 Cumulative Percent
C Street between Mission Avenue and Second Street
0 1
6 5
9 11
13 10
8 17
7 5
2 0
3 0
0 0
2 0
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
Location:

Posted Limit: Weather:

Direction: Recorder: 10 1 1.8% 22 3 96.5%
Date: Day: 11 1 3.5% 23 1 98.2%
12 2 7.0% 24 0 98.2%
13 2 10.5% 25 0 98.2%
14 4 17.5% 26 0 98.2%
15 4 24.6% 27 0 98.2%
16 7 36.8% 28 1 100.0%
17 9 52.6% 29 0 100.0%
18 7 64.9% 30 0 100.0%
19 8 78.9% 31 0 100.0%
20 4 86.0% 32 0 100.0%
21 3 91.2% 33 0 100.0%
85th Percentile Speed:
10 to 28
13 to 22
ADT: Count Date:
5 years Land Use:
c/mvm 1.07 c/mvm
Signature:

Date:

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment in accordance with the California Vehicle Code Section 22358(a).

On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 20 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment. 12/16/2024
25mph
Both
Statewide Avg Collision Rate:
31 108.89
17 20

3.20 52
89%
Time Period:

ANALYSIS INFORMATION

0.13 Average Speed:

Standard Deviation:
17 SUMMARY STATISTICS
% in Pace Speed:
10 mph Pace Speed:

Skew:

Speed Range:

Total Observed: Speed Number Cumulative
PercentSpeedNumber
City of San Rafael
Engineering and Traffic Survey
Sidewalk: Both Sides None
Configuration: 2-ln, Bi-Dir
11/7/2024
Residential
Terrain:

Bike Lanes:

Flat

0.32 Parking Conditions:

Street Width (ft):

Calculated Collision Rate:

VEHICLE SPEED DATA
Median Speed:

Both Sides
1,200
Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B106(CA) include the presence of employment centers, retail, transit stops and sidewalks. This roadway segment is on the City's high collision network according to the 2024 San Rafael Local Road Safety Plan.

Number of Collisions:

Segment Length (mi):

Clear

DH & SV
9/12/2024 Thursday
30-36
Cumulative Percent
Tamalpais Avenue between Mission Avenue and
Second Street
0 1
1 2
2 4
4 7
9 7
8 4
3 3
1 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
SPEED
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 N ova Albion Way
N
o
va
AlbionWay
-

CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
5th Ave
4th St
Greenfield/
4th St
West End Ave
Lincoln
D St
B St
Grand
Los Ranchitos
Santa Venetia
Canal St
Woodland
Lindaro
Mission
3rd St
eitas eitas
KernerKerner
AndersenAndersen
P oint San Pedro Rd
P ointSan Pedro Rd
China Camp
State Park
Boyd
Memorial
Park
Dominican
University
Pickleweed Park
25 25
20 20
20 20
20 20
20 20
30 30
30 30 35
Richmond-San Rafael Br
City of San Rafael AB 43 Strategy
Speed Limits on Roadways
Outside of Downtown
Prepared for City of San Rafael June 2026
June 2026 │ iii
Contents
Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 1 Statutory Speed Limits ........................................................................................................................... 4 Speed Limits Established by E&TS ......................................................................................................... 5 Speed Survey Operational Procedures ................................................................................................... 8 Roadway Characteristics ........................................................................................................................ 8 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 8 Collision Review ...................................................................................................................................... 9 San Rafael AB 43 Results ................................................................................................................... 10 References .......................................................................................................................................... 12

FIGURES
Figure 1: Map of Recommended Speed Limit Reductions........................................................................3 TABLES
Table 1: List of Roadway Segments and Recommended Speed Limits ...................................................2 Table 2 Additional Speed Limit Reduction on Local Agency Roadways ...................................................7 Table 3 Summary Table of Speed Limit Recommendations.................................................................. 11

APPENDICES
A Engineering and Traffic Survey Forms
B Prior Engineering and Traffic Surveys Updated Pursuant to AB 43 1 Overview
The report City of San Rafael AB 43 Strategy and Downtown Speed Limits (January 2025) presented results of an evaluation of speed limits on roadways in downtown San Rafael reflecting California Assembly Bill No. 43 (AB 43) and results of Engineering and Traffic Surveys (E&TS). This report presents the results of a similar speed limit evaluation of citywide roadways outside of downtown San Rafael.

AB 43 provides jurisdictions with more flexibility when establishing speed limits in order to account for the presence of vulnerable roadway users and for the purpose of improving roadway safety outcomes. AB 43, fully effective in 2024, amends the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and revises the process by which an E&TS is prepared. An E&TS is an engineering study used for setting roadway speed limits based on prevailing speeds (or 85th percentile speed) and a review of roadway traffic conditions and history. AB 43 allows for reduction of speed limits after considering safety, land uses, and concentration levels of people walking and riding bicycles, especially from vulnerable groups such as children, seniors, persons with disabilities, and individuals experiencing homelessness.

The 2024 Marin County Local Road Safety Plan indicates that many streets in San Rafael experience elevated collision rates, and that reducing vehicle speeds could improve safety outcomes of vulnerable road user groups. Slower vehicle speeds offer drivers more reaction time and reduce the required distance to stop a traveling vehicle and can not only make the street safer for people inside and outside a vehicle, but they also facilitate a calmer and more enjoyable street environment overall.

The City of San Rafael has previously undertaken work to evaluate speed limits in the downtown area, and this report evaluates speed limits on roadways outside of downtown San Rafael in the context of AB 43. In doing so, roadways with elevated crash rates and that are adjacent to land uses that generate high volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists were identified, and recent E&TS results were analyzed for appropriate speed limit reductions. The resulting speed limit recommendations are shown below in Table 1 and displayed on a map in Figure 1. 2 June 2026 │
Table 1: List of Roadway Segments and Recommended Speed Limits Roadway Between
Recommended
Speed Limit (mph)
Anderson Drive Lindaro Street Francisco Boulevard West 30 Anderson Drive Bellam Boulevard Sanitary Treatment Plant 30 B Street Second Street Woodland Avenue 20
Canal Street / Spinnaker Point Drive Harbor Street Bedford Cove 20 Fifth Avenue Western Extent H Street 20
Fourth Street Western City Limit Second Street 30
Fourth Street Hetherton Street Union Street 20
Grand Avenue Mission Avenue Francisco Boulevard East 20 Greenfield Avenue / West End Avenue Western City Limit Marquard Avenue 20 Kerner Boulevard Canal Street Bellam Boulevard 20
Lincoln Avenue Red Rock Way Linden Lane 25
Lindaro Street Third Street Woodland Avenue 20
Los Gamos Drive Lucas Valley Road Southern Terminus 25
Mission Avenue Hetherton Street Embarcadero Way 20
Point San Pedro Road Marina Boulevard Porto Bello Drive 35 Third Street Grand Avenue Eastern City Limit 30
Woodland Avenue B Street Du Bois Street 20
Woodland Avenue Du Bois Street Auburn Street 25
Source: Parametrix, 2026
3 Figure 1: Map of Recommended Speed Limit Reductions
4 June 2026 │
Statutory Speed Limits
There are three primary classifications of statutory speed limits in California, including absolute speed limits, prima facie speed limits, and intermediate speed limits. An absolute speed limit indicates the speed above which it is unlawful to drive regardless of roadway conditions or other factors. All California roadways are subject to an absolute speed limit of 55 miles per hour (mph) on two-lane undivided roadways and 65 mph on all other roadways, as outlined in the CVC §22349. A prima facie speed limit is a presumed speed limit appropriate for certain roadway contexts.

Residential and business districts have a prima facie speed limit of 25 mph. Intermediate speed limits between absolute and prima facie speed limits can be established on the basis of an E&TS in accordance with the CVC §22357 and §22358.

Along roadways that lack a posted speed limit, the roadway is subject to a statutory “prima facie” speed limit as established in the CVC §22352. The prima facie speed limit sets one of two speed limits covering six classes of location:

1. 15 mph – uncontrolled railway crossings; blind, uncontrolled intersections; and alleyways.

2. 25 mph – business district or residence district without other posted speed limits; school zones; and areas immediately around senior centers.

The following conditions outlined in the CVC §235 define a business district as the portion of a roadway:
• Upon one side of which, for a distance of 600 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by buildings in use for business, or • Upon both sides of which, collectively, for a distance of 300 feet, 50 percent or more of the contiguous property fronting thereon is so occupied.

The following conditions listed in the CVC §515 define a residence district as the portion of a roadway:
• Upon one side of which, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 13 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures, or
• Upon both sides of which, collectively, within a distance of a quarter of a mile, the contiguous property fronting thereon is occupied by 16 or more separate dwelling houses or business structures.

Business and residence districts may be longer than the distances specified in the above definitions if the ratio of businesses or residential dwellings to the length of the roadway exists. CVC §240 includes additional requirements to be applied in determining whether a roadway is within a business or residence district.

Additionally, the CVC §22358.4(b) includes provision for a local authority to declare a prima facie speed limit of 20 or 15 mph in school zones under certain circumstances. The CVC §22358.9 allows 5 for establishment of a prima facie speed limit of 25 or 20 mph in a “business activity district” that meets at least three of the four following requirements:

1. No less than 50 percent of the contiguous property fronting the highway consists of retail or dining commercial uses, including outdoor dining, that open directly onto sidewalks adjacent to the highway.

2. Parking, including parallel, diagonal, or perpendicular spaces located alongside the highway.

3. Traffic control signals or stop signs regulating traffic flow on the highway, located at intervals of no more than 600 feet.

4. Marked crosswalks not controlled by a traffic control device.

Speed Limits Established by E&TS
As outlined in the CVC §22357 and §22358, where statutory speed limits are not appropriate for roadway, traffic, or land use conditions, road authorities have the power to establish speed limits different from the statutory absolute or prima facie speed limit. Speed limits of 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55, or 60 mph must be established by an E&TS and be approved by a registered Civil or Traffic Engineer. The E&TS determines the recommended speed limits along each surveyed roadway segment.

In accordance with the CVC §627, the E&TS consists of engineering measurements of the prevailing free-flow speeds along survey segments, a review of the collision history reports, and a review of existing roadside conditions including the identification of any conditions not readily apparent to the motorist. An E&TS may also consider additional factors such as residential density and safety of bicyclists and pedestrians, with increased consideration for vulnerable pedestrian groups including children, seniors, persons with disabilities, users of personal assistive mobility devices, and the unhoused.

Speed limits are established at or near the 85th percentile speed (also known as the critical speed), which is defined as the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving. Statistically the 85th percentile represents one standard deviation above the average speed and establishes the upper limit of what is considered reasonable and prudent (CAMUTCD Section 2B.13).

According to the CVC §22358.6(a), an E&TS shall establish posted speed limits at the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed of free-flowing traffic.

As per the CVC, exceptions to the establishment of speed limits at the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile are permissible only in the following cases as described in items 1 – 4 below.

Determination must be made based on results of an E&TS and determination of reasonable or safe speed limits. Chapter 2 (“Signs”) of the CA MUTCD further establishes guidelines for setting a speed limit that provides a rational and defensible speed limit determination with the use of an E&TS. 6 June 2026 │

1. Speed limit reduction from 85th percentile by increments of 5 mph • If the 85th percentile speed is rounded up, then it can be rounded down by 5 mph: For cases in which the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed would require rounding up, a local authority may decide to instead round down the speed limit to the nearest 5 mph increment below the 85th percentile speed. (CVC §22358.6(c)) • If the 85th percentile speed is rounded down, an additional 5 mph reduction can be applied for conditions not readily apparent to driver: For cases in which the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed would require a rounding down, a local authority may lower the speed limit by 5 mph from the nearest 5 mph increment of the 85th percentile speed in compliance with CVC §627, §22358.5 and the CA MUTCD and if the reasons for the lower speed limit are documented. (CVC §22358.6(b))
• An additional 5 mph reduction can be applied if street is a “Safety Corridor” or adjacent to a “high bicycle / pedestrian generator”: If a local authority, after completing an engineering and traffic survey, finds that the speed limit is still more than is reasonable or safe, the local authority may, by ordinance, determine and declare a prima facie speed limit that has been reduced an additional five miles per hour for either of the following reasons below (CVC §22358.7):
o The portion of highway has been designated as a safety corridor. A local authority shall not deem more than one-fifth of their streets as safety corridors. (CVC §22358.7(a)(1))
▪ The CA MUTCD, Section 2B.21, paragraphs 12ai to 12as provide further definition for jurisdictions to apply when identifying roadways as a “Safety Corridor.” CA MUTCD Table 2B-105(CA) lists factors for consideration when identifying safety corridor roadways, including crash severity, mode, disadvantaged community status, vulnerable populations, school proximity, and crash density.
o The portion of highway is adjacent to any land or facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians, especially those from vulnerable groups such as children, seniors, persons with disabilities, and the unhoused. (CVC §22358.7(a)(2))
▪ The CA MUTCD, Section 2B.21, paragraphs 12at to 12az provide further definition for jurisdictions to determine if a facility generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians. CA MUTCD Table 2B-106(CA) lists generators of high concentrations of bicycles or pedestrians. Examples include certain land uses, transit factors, presence of pedestrian / bicyclist infrastructure, and demographic factors.

As per the CVC §22358.6(e), the total reduction in the speed limit pursuant to the three items listed above shall not exceed 12.4 miles per hour from the 85th percentile speed. The CA MUTCD further 7 clarifies the options to apply speed limit reduction from the 85th percentile speed with several examples, which are replicated in Table 2.

Table 2 Additional Speed Limit Reduction on Local Agency Roadways 85th Percentile
Speed
(mph)
Rounding to nearest
5 mph increment
(CVC 22358.6(a))
If rounding to nearest
is up, may round
down
(CVC 22358.6(c))
If rounding to nearest
is down, may
additionally lower by
5 mph
(CVC 22358.6(b))
If Safety Corridor or
adjacent to high
concentration of
bicyclists &
pedestrians, may
additionally lower by
5 mph
(CVC 22358.7)*

47.5 – 50.0 50 45 No 40

45.1 – 47.4 45 No 40 35

42.5 – 45.0 45 40 No 35

40.1 – 42.4 40 No 35 30
Source: California Department of Transportation, 2026.

Note: CVC Section 22358.7 is applicable to local agency roadways and private properties subjected to the CVC; they are not applicable to the State Highway System

2. Retain existing or restore immediately prior adopted speed limit A local authority may, by ordinance, retain the currently adopted speed limit or restore the immediately prior adopted speed limit if that speed limit was established with an engineering and traffic survey and if a registered engineer has evaluated the section of roadway and determined that no additional general purpose lanes have been added to the roadway since completion of the traffic survey that established that speed limit. (CVC §22358.8) 8 June 2026 │
Speed Survey Operational Procedures
This study utilized speed surveys conducted as part of Engineering and Traffic Surveys for the City of San Rafael (2024), supplemented with speed surveys conducted on additional roadways in 2025.

Speed surveys were conducted in compliance with regulations set forth in the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and were based on the guidelines for setting proper speed limits established by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as documented in the California Manual for Setting Speed Limits (2020). The E&TS consists of engineering measurements of the prevailing freeflow speeds along survey segments, a review of the collision history reports, and of existing roadside conditions, including the identification and description of any conditions not readily apparent to the motorist.

Technical experts conducted field surveys of existing vehicle speeds along the E&TS roadway segments. The data was collected on clear weather weekdays with dry pavement conditions. The surveys were conducted during off-peak hours to capture traffic speeds under free-flow conditions.

Vehicle speeds along the E&TS segments were collected using a portable calibrated radar gun. The surveyor was located to remain inconspicuous to avoid influencing driver speeds. Surveyor locations were selected so that prevailing speeds could be considered representative of the speed zone section. For each segment, the surveyor distanced themselves from nearby traffic signals and stop signs to minimize their effects on vehicular travel speeds.

The surveyor read speeds directly from the radar gun and recorded the free-flow speeds of a minimum of 100 vehicles along each roadway segment, except those segments which had exceptionally low traffic volume. The surveys captured both directions of travel along each study segment. Each direction consisted of no less than 50 vehicles.

Roadway Characteristics
As part of the speed survey assessment, the existing conditions along the E&TS roadway segments were determined. The roadway segment lengths were measured, and observations were made on the presence of on-street parking, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities. These roadway conditions were considered during speed limit evaluations and were used to determine appropriate speed limits that would promote all roadway user safety.

Data Analysis
The sample vehicle speeds collected during the field surveys were assessed for the following statistical factors:
• Average speed – the summation of measured speeds divided by the number of observed vehicles.
• Median speed (i.e., the 50th percentile speed) – the speed above and below which 50 percent of the sample speeds lie.
9 • 85th percentile speed – the speed at or below which 85 percent of free-flow vehicles travel.

Also referred to as the critical speed, the 85th percentile speed is the primary factor used to determine the speed limit and may be subject to secondary factors of collision history and other conditions not apparent to drivers.
• 10 mph pace speed – the 10 mph increment of speed containing the greatest number of vehicles. The number of vehicles in the pace speed is reported as a percentage of vehicles surveyed. The pace speed aids in determining the proper speed limits. Generally, the critical speed lies within the pace speed.

Collision Review
The E&TS Survey analysis also reviewed the collision history of the roadway segments, obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). The data consisted of the most recently available five-year period of reported collision histories (January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2022).

The number of reported collisions along each roadway segment during the five-year period as well as the average daily traffic (ADT) volumes were used to calculate the rate for each roadway segment.

These calculated rates were compared to the statewide average collision rates for the same type of roadway and configuration. The purpose of the comparison was to determine if the collision history along the roadway segment deviated from the statewide average and potentially represented an unusually high collision rate. The statewide average collision rates were based on the width, configuration, and terrain of each roadway segment.
10 June 2026 │
San Rafael AB 43 Results
Speed limits are recommended for each of the roadway segments studied based on the approach adopted with AB 43 and on policies described in the CVC and CA MUTCD.

Table 3 summarizes recommended San Rafael speed limits resulting from this study. Each of these 18 recommended speed limits constitutes a five-mph reduction in speed limit compared to existing conditions.

Appendix A contains E&TS results for speed surveys that were conducted in 2025, and Appendix B contains E&TS results for which speed surveys were conducted as part of Engineering and Traffic Surveys for the City of San Rafael (2024).

These speed limit reductions, when considered in conjunction with other recent and planned infrastructure improvements in San Rafael, are anticipated to create a safer and more inviting environment for all roadway users, including people walking, biking, and driving. The recommended speed limits are part of a comprehensive approach intended to improve traffic safety and slow vehicle speeds, helping to foster a more livable and accessible community. 11 Table 3 Summary Table of Speed Limit Recommendations Roadway Between
Current
Speed Limit
85th
Percentile
Speed
Proposed
Speed Limit
Applicable
E&TS Form
Anderson Drive Lindaro Street Francisco
Boulevard West 35 38 30 Appendix B
Anderson Drive Bellam
Boulevard
Sanitary
Treatment Plant 35 35 30 Appendix B
B Street Second Street Woodland
Avenue 25 26 20 Appendix A
Canal Street /
Spinnaker Point Drive Harbor Street Bedford Cove 25 26 20 Appendix A Fifth Avenue Western Extent H Street 25 29 20 Appendix B Fourth Street Western City
Limit Second Street 35 39 30 Appendix B
Fourth Street Hetherton
Street Union Street 25 26 20 Appendix A
Grand Avenue Mission Avenue Francisco
Boulevard East 25 25 20 Appendix A
Greenfield Avenue /
West End Avenue
Western City
Limit
Marquard
Avenue 25 23 20 Appendix A
Kerner Boulevard Canal Street Bellam
Boulevard 25 27 20 Appendix B
Lincoln Avenue Red Rock Way Linden Lane 30 30 25 Appendix A Lindaro Street Third Street Woodland
Avenue 25 28 20 Appendix B
Los Gamos Drive Lucas Valley
Road
Southern
Terminus 30 29 25 Appendix A
Mission Avenue Hetherton
Street
Embarcadero
Way 25 27 20 Appendix B
Point San Pedro Road Marina
Boulevard Porto Bello Drive 40 45 35 Appendix B
Third Street Grand Avenue Eastern City
Limit 35 38 30 Appendix B
Woodland Avenue B Street Du Bois Street 25 28 20 Appendix A Woodland Avenue Du Bois Street Auburn Street 30 29 25 Appendix A Source: Parametrix, 2026
12 June 2026 │
References
California Assem. Bill 43, 2021-2022, Ch. 690, 2021 Cal. Stat.

California Manual for Setting Speed Limits, California Department of Transportation, 2025 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Street and Highways, California Department of Transportation, 2026
California Vehicle Code, §235, §515, §627, §22348 – 22358.9, §40802 Engineering and Traffic Surveys for the City of San Rafael, Prepared for the City of San Rafael, W-Trans, November 2024 Marin County Local Road Safety Plan, Transportation Authority of Marin, 2024 City of San Rafael AB 43 Strategy and Speed Limits on Citywide Roadways
City of San Rafael
June 2026 │
Appendix A: Engineering and Traffic Survey
Forms
(next page)
Location:

Posted Limit: Weather:

Direction: Recorder: 13 0 1.0% 25 18 79.0%
Date: Day: 14 2 3.0% 26 7 86.0%
15 0 3.0% 27 5 91.0%
16 1 4.0% 28 4 95.0%
17 0 4.0% 29 3 98.0%
18 4 8.0% 30 0 98.0%
19 7 15.0% 31 1 99.0%
20 4 19.0% 32 1 100.0%
21 9 28.0% 33 0 100.0%
22 7 35.0% 34 0 100.0%
23 13 48.0% 35 0 100.0%
24 13 61.0% 36 0 100.0%
85th Percentile Speed:
15 to 34
18 to 27
ADT: Count Date:
5 years Land Use:
c/mvm 1.07 c/mvm
Signature:

Date:

VEHICLE SPEED DATA
Median Speed:

Both Sides
3,200
Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B106(CA) include employment centers, a community center, a park, presence of retail, sidewalk presence, and multiple controlled and uncontrolled marked crosswalks. This roadway segment exhibits a collision rate that is multiple times the statewide average.

This roadway is identified as a Safety Corridor per CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1) and CA MUTCD Section 2B.21 paragraphs 12ai-12as.

Number of Collisions:

Segment Length (mi):

Clear
SV
9/16/2025 Tuesday
40 Cumulative Percent
B Street between Second Street and Woodland Avenue
City of San Rafael
Engineering and Traffic Survey
Sidewalk: Both Sides None
Configuration: 2-ln, Bi-Dir
8/17/2023
Commercial
Terrain:

Bike Lanes:

Flat
-0.51
Parking Conditions:

Street Width (ft):

Calculated Collision Rate:

SpeedNumberCumulative PercentSpeedNumber
Average Speed:

Standard Deviation:
23 SUMMARY STATISTICS
% in Pace Speed:
10 mph Pace Speed:

Skew:

Speed Range:

Total Observed:

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment in accordance with the California Vehicle Code Section 22358.7(a)(2), after the date specified in Section 22358.7(c).

On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 20 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment. 3/25/2026
25mph
Both
Statewide Avg Collision Rate:
47 8.65
24 26

3.48 100
87%
Time Period:

ANALYSIS INFORMATION

0.93 0
1 0
2 0
1 0
4 7
4 9
7 13
13 18
7 5
4 3
0 1
1 0
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 Location:

Posted Limit: Weather:

Direction: Recorder: 13 0 0.0% 25 11 82.0%
Date: Day: 14 2 2.0% 26 4 86.0%
15 0 2.0% 27 6 92.0%
16 3 5.0% 28 4 96.0%
17 3 8.0% 29 1 97.0%
18 8 16.0% 30 1 98.0%
19 5 21.0% 31 1 99.0%
20 14 35.0% 32 0 99.0%
21 16 51.0% 33 0 99.0%
22 8 59.0% 34 0 99.0%
23 9 68.0% 35 1 100.0%
24 3 71.0% 36 0 100.0%
85th Percentile Speed:
15 to 34
18 to 27
ADT: Count Date:
5 years Land Use:
c/mvm 1.07 c/mvm
Signature:

Date:

VEHICLE SPEED DATA
Median Speed:

Both Sides
3,200
Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B106(CA) include a park, community center, recreation destinations, an elementary school, sidewalk presence, bikeway presence, transit stops, and numerous controlled and uncontrolled marked crosswalks. This roadway segment exhibits an excessively high collision rate and is identified as a High Collision Network segment in the Local Road Safety Plan. This roadway is identified as a Safety Corridor per CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1) and CA MUTCD Section 2B.21 paragraphs 12ai-12as.

Number of Collisions:

Segment Length (mi):

Clear
SV
7/31/2025 Thursday
40 Cumulative Percent
Canal Street / Spinnaker Point Drive between Harbor
Street and Bedford Cove
City of San Rafael
Engineering and Traffic Survey
Sidewalk: Both Sides None
Configuration: 2-ln, Bi-Dir
9/19/2023
Residential
Terrain:

Bike Lanes:

Flat

0.49 Parking Conditions:

Street Width (ft):

Calculated Collision Rate:

SpeedNumberCumulative PercentSpeedNumber
Average Speed:

Standard Deviation:
22 SUMMARY STATISTICS
% in Pace Speed:
10 mph Pace Speed:

Skew:

Speed Range:

Total Observed:

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment in accordance with the California Vehicle Code Section 22358.7(a)(2), after the date specified in Section 22358.7(c).

On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 20 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment. 3/25/2026
25mph
Both
Statewide Avg Collision Rate:
111

15.21 21
26 3.75
100
84%
Time Period:

ANALYSIS INFORMATION

1.25 0
0 0
2 0
3 3
8 5
14 16
8 9
3 11
4 6
4 1
1 1
0 0
0 1
0 0
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 Location:

Posted Limit: Weather:

Direction: Recorder: 13 1 2.0% 25 12 83.0%
Date: Day: 14 0 2.0% 26 7 90.0%
15 1 3.0% 27 5 95.0%
16 3 6.0% 28 2 97.0%
17 3 9.0% 29 2 99.0%
18 3 12.0% 30 0 99.0%
19 7 19.0% 31 1 100.0%
20 9 28.0% 32 0 100.0%
21 10 38.0% 33 0 100.0%
22 10 48.0% 34 0 100.0%
23 16 64.0% 35 0 100.0%
24 7 71.0% 36 0 100.0%
85th Percentile Speed:
15 to 34
18 to 27
ADT: Count Date:
5 years Land Use:
c/mvm 1.07 c/mvm
Signature:

Date:

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment in accordance with the California Vehicle Code Section 22358.7(a)(2), after the date specified in Section 22358.7(c).

On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 20 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment. 3/25/2026
25mph
Both
Statewide Avg Collision Rate:
49 18.65
23 26

3.47 100
86%
Time Period:

ANALYSIS INFORMATION

0.32 Average Speed:

Standard Deviation:
22 SUMMARY STATISTICS
% in Pace Speed:
10 mph Pace Speed:

Skew:

Speed Range:

Total Observed: Speed Number Cumulative
PercentSpeedNumber
City of San Rafael
Engineering and Traffic Survey
Sidewalk: Both Sides None
Configuration: 2-ln, Bi-Dir
8/25/2025
Commercial / Residential
Terrain:

Bike Lanes:

Flat
-0.39
Parking Conditions:

Street Width (ft):

Calculated Collision Rate:

VEHICLE SPEED DATA
Median Speed:

Both Sides
4,500
Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B106(CA) include employment centers, presence of retail, transit stops, sidewalk presence, bikeway presence, and numerous marked crosswalks. This roadway segment exhibits an excessively high collision rate and is identified as a High Collision Network segment in the Local Road Safety Plan. This roadway is identified as a Safety Corridor per CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1) and CA MUTCD Section 2B.21 paragraphs 12ai-12as.

Number of Collisions:

Segment Length (mi):

Clear
SV
7/31/2025 Thursday
40 Cumulative Percent
Fourth Street between Hetherton Street and Union Street 1 0
1 3
3 3
7 9
10 10
16 7
12 7
5 2
2 0
1 0
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
Location:

Posted Limit: Weather:

Direction: Recorder: 13 0 0.0% 25 3 87.0%
Date: Day: 14 4 4.0% 26 4 91.0%
15 5 9.0% 27 6 97.0%
16 8 17.0% 28 0 97.0%
17 14 31.0% 29 1 98.0%
18 11 42.0% 30 0 98.0%
19 4 46.0% 31 2 100.0%
20 9 55.0% 32 0 100.0%
21 14 69.0% 33 0 100.0%
22 4 73.0% 34 0 100.0%
23 5 78.0% 35 0 100.0%
24 6 84.0% 36 0 100.0%
85th Percentile Speed:
15 to 34
15 to 24
ADT: Count Date:
5 years Land Use:
c/mvm 1.07 c/mvm
Signature:

Date:

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment in accordance with the California Vehicle Code Section 22358.7(a)(2), after the date specified in Section 22358.7(c).

On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 20 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment. 3/25/2026
25mph
Both
Statewide Avg Collision Rate:
74 14.91
20 25

3.99 100
80%
Time Period:

ANALYSIS INFORMATION

0.32 Average Speed:

Standard Deviation:
20 SUMMARY STATISTICS
% in Pace Speed:
10 mph Pace Speed:

Skew:

Speed Range:

Total Observed: Speed Number Cumulative
PercentSpeedNumber
City of San Rafael
Engineering and Traffic Survey
Sidewalk: Both Sides None
Configuration: 2-ln, Bi-Dir
8/25/2025
Commercial/ Residential
Terrain:

Bike Lanes:

Flat

0.59 Parking Conditions:

Street Width (ft):

Calculated Collision Rate:

VEHICLE SPEED DATA
Median Speed:

Both Sides
8,500
Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B106(CA) include employment centers, presence of retail, transit stops, sidewalk presence, bikeway presence, and numerous marked crosswalks. This roadway segment exhibits an excessively high collision rate and is identified as a High Collision Network segment in the Local Road Safety Plan. This roadway is identified as a Safety Corridor per CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1) and CA MUTCD Section 2B.21 paragraphs 12ai-12as.

Number of Collisions:

Segment Length (mi):

Clear
SV
7/31/2025 Thursday
40 Cumulative Percent
Grand Avenue between Mission Avenue and Francisco
Boulevard East
0 4
5 8
14 11
4 9
14 4
5 6
3 4
6 0
1 0
2 0
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
Location:

Posted Limit: Weather:

Direction: Recorder: 13 4 7.8% 25 0 88.2%
Date: Day: 14 4 15.7% 26 2 92.2%
15 4 23.5% 27 2 96.1%
16 0 23.5% 28 1 98.0%
17 5 33.3% 29 1 100.0%
18 3 39.2% 30 0 100.0%
19 0 39.2% 31 0 100.0%
20 6 51.0% 32 0 100.0%
21 8 66.7% 33 0 100.0%
22 6 78.4% 34 0 100.0%
23 4 86.3% 35 0 100.0%
24 1 88.2% 36 0 100.0%
85th Percentile Speed:
15 to 34
14 to 23
ADT: Count Date:
5 years Land Use:
c/mvm 1.07 c/mvm
Signature:

Date:

VEHICLE SPEED DATA
Median Speed:

Both Sides
400
Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B106(CA) include employment centers, presence of retail, transit stops, sidewalk presence, bikeway presence, and numerous marked crosswalks. This roadway is identified as a Safety Corridor per CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1) and CA MUTCD Section 2B.21 paragraphs 12ai-12as.

Number of Collisions:

Segment Length (mi):

Clear
SV
7/31/2025 Thursday
30 Cumulative Percent
Greenfield Ave / West End Avenue between Western
City Limit and Marquard Avenue
City of San Rafael
Engineering and Traffic Survey
Sidewalk: Both Sides None
Configuration: 2-ln, Bi-Dir
8/25/2025
Residential
Terrain:

Bike Lanes:

Flat

0.12 Parking Conditions:

Street Width (ft):

Calculated Collision Rate:

SpeedNumberCumulative PercentSpeedNumber
Average Speed:

Standard Deviation:
20 SUMMARY STATISTICS
% in Pace Speed:
10 mph Pace Speed:

Skew:

Speed Range:

Total Observed:

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment in accordance with the California Vehicle Code Section 22358.7(a)(2), after the date specified in Section 22358.7(c).

On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 20 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment. 3/25/2026
25mph
Both
Statewide Avg Collision Rate:
1 2.54
20 23

4.22 50
78%
Time Period:

ANALYSIS INFORMATION

0.54 0
4 4
4 0
5 3
0 6
8 6
4 1
0 2
2 1
1 0
0 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 Location:

Posted Limit: Weather:

Direction: Recorder: 13 0 0.0% 25 28 22.4%
Date: Day: 14 0 0.0% 26 35 40.3%
15 0 0.0% 27 34 57.7%
16 0 0.0% 28 31 73.5%
17 0 0.0% 29 22 84.7%
18 0 0.0% 30 4 86.7%
19 0 0.0% 31 8 90.8%
20 1 0.5% 32 5 93.4%
21 2 1.5% 33 3 94.9%
22 1 2.0% 34 4 96.9%
23 1 2.6% 35 3 98.5%
24 11 8.2% 36 1 99.0%
85th Percentile Speed:
15 to 34
24 to 33
ADT: Count Date:
5 years Land Use:
c/mvm 1.07 c/mvm
Signature:

Date:

VEHICLE SPEED DATA
Median Speed:

One side
11,490
Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B106(CA) include the presence of retail, schools, sidewalk presence, bikeway presence, and numerous controlled and uncontrolled marked crosswalks. This roadway segment exhibits a collision rate that is multiple times the statewide average.

Number of Collisions:

Segment Length (mi):

Clear
SV
3/12/2026 Thursday
40 Cumulative Percent
Lincoln Ave between Red Rock Way to Linden Lane
City of San Rafael
Engineering and Traffic Survey
Sidewalk: Both Sides None
Configuration: 2-ln, Bi-Dir
3/4/2026
Residential
Terrain:

Bike Lanes:

Flat

1.05 Parking Conditions:

Street Width (ft):

Calculated Collision Rate:

SpeedNumberCumulative PercentSpeedNumber
Average Speed:

Standard Deviation:
27 SUMMARY STATISTICS
% in Pace Speed:
10 mph Pace Speed:

Skew:

Speed Range:

Total Observed:

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment in accordance with the California Vehicle Code Section 22358.7(a)(2), after the date specified in Section 22358.7(c).

On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 25 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment. 3/25/2026
30 mph
Both
Statewide Avg Collision Rate:
116

6.91 27
30 2.87
200
92%
Time Period:

ANALYSIS INFORMATION

0.8 0
0 1
2 1
1 11
28 35
34 31
22 4
8 5
3 4
3 1
2 0
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
36 37
38 Location:

Posted Limit: Weather:

Direction: Recorder: 13 0 1.0% 25 9 33.0%
Date: Day: 14 0 1.0% 26 15 48.0%
15 0 1.0% 27 13 61.0%
16 0 1.0% 28 16 77.0%
17 2 3.0% 29 11 88.0%
18 2 5.0% 30 5 93.0%
19 2 7.0% 31 1 94.0%
20 0 7.0% 32 3 97.0%
21 3 10.0% 33 1 98.0%
22 3 13.0% 34 2 100.0%
23 3 16.0% 35 0 100.0%
24 8 24.0% 36 0 100.0%
85th Percentile Speed:
15 to 34
21 to 30
ADT: Count Date:
5 years Land Use:
c/mvm 1.07 c/mvm
Signature:

Date:

RECOMMENDATION
On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 25 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment. 3/25/2026
30mph
Both
Statewide Avg Collision Rate:
6 1.68
27 29

3.67 100
86%
Time Period:

ANALYSIS INFORMATION

0.7 Average Speed:

Standard Deviation:
26 SUMMARY STATISTICS
% in Pace Speed:
10 mph Pace Speed:

Skew:

Speed Range:

Total Observed: Speed Number Cumulative
PercentSpeedNumber
City of San Rafael
Engineering and Traffic Survey
Sidewalk: Both Sides None
Configuration: 2-ln, Bi-Dir
8/29/2023
Residential
Terrain:

Bike Lanes:

Flat
-0.95
Parking Conditions:

Street Width (ft):

Calculated Collision Rate:

VEHICLE SPEED DATA
Median Speed:

Both Sides
2,800
Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B106(CA) include employment centers, health/medical facilities, sidewalk presence, bikeway presence, transit stops, and multiple uncontrolled marked crosswalks.

Number of Collisions:

Segment Length (mi):

Clear
SV
7/31/2025 Thursday
40 Cumulative Percent
Los Gamos Drive between Lucas Valley Road and Southern
Terminus
0 0
2 2
2 0
3 3
3 8
9 15
13 16
11 5
1 3
1 2
0 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 35
Location:

Posted Limit: Weather:

Direction: Recorder: 13 0 0.0% 25 14 67.0%
Date: Day: 14 0 0.0% 26 6 73.0%
15 2 2.0% 27 9 82.0%
16 0 2.0% 28 9 91.0%
17 3 5.0% 29 5 96.0%
18 4 9.0% 30 1 97.0%
19 4 13.0% 31 2 99.0%
20 4 17.0% 32 1 100.0%
21 10 27.0% 33 0 100.0%
22 8 35.0% 34 0 100.0%
23 11 46.0% 35 0 100.0%
24 7 53.0% 36 0 100.0%
85th Percentile Speed:
15 to 34
20 to 29
ADT: Count Date:
5 years Land Use:
c/mvm 1.07 c/mvm
Signature:

Date:

VEHICLE SPEED DATA
Median Speed:

Both Sides
5,600
Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B106(CA) include the presence of retail, schools, sidewalk presence, bikeway presence, and numerous controlled and uncontrolled marked crosswalks. This roadway segment exhibits a collision rate that is multiple times the statewide average. This roadway is identified as a Safety Corridor per CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1) and CA MUTCD Section 2B.21 paragraphs 12ai-12as.

Number of Collisions:

Segment Length (mi):

Clear
SV
7/31/2025 Thursday
40 Cumulative Percent
Woodland Avenue between B Street and Du Bois Street
City of San Rafael
Engineering and Traffic Survey
Sidewalk: Both Sides None
Configuration: 2-ln, Bi-Dir
9/19/2023
Residential
Terrain:

Bike Lanes:

Flat
-0.20
Parking Conditions:

Street Width (ft):

Calculated Collision Rate:

SpeedNumberCumulative PercentSpeedNumber
Average Speed:

Standard Deviation:
24 SUMMARY STATISTICS
% in Pace Speed:
10 mph Pace Speed:

Skew:

Speed Range:

Total Observed:

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment in accordance with the California Vehicle Code Section 22358.7(a)(2), after the date specified in Section 22358.7(c).

On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 20 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment. 3/25/2026
25mph
Both
Statewide Avg Collision Rate:
34 3.58
24 28

3.67 100
83%
Time Period:

ANALYSIS INFORMATION

0.93 0
0 2
0 3
4 4
4 10
8 11
7 14
6 9
9 5
1 2
1 0
0 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 33
34 Location:

Posted Limit: Weather:

Direction: Recorder: 13 0 1.0% 25 16 42.0%
Date: Day: 14 0 1.0% 26 13 55.0%
15 1 2.0% 27 7 62.0%
16 0 2.0% 28 11 73.0%
17 1 3.0% 29 18 91.0%
18 1 4.0% 30 3 94.0%
19 2 6.0% 31 2 96.0%
20 5 11.0% 32 0 96.0%
21 1 12.0% 33 3 99.0%
22 1 13.0% 34 0 99.0%
23 9 22.0% 35 1 100.0%
24 4 26.0% 36 0 100.0%
85th Percentile Speed:
15 to 34
20 to 29
ADT: Count Date:
5 years Land Use:
c/mvm 1.07 c/mvm
Signature:

Date:

RECOMMENDATION
On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 25 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment. 3/25/2026
30 mph
Both
Statewide Avg Collision Rate:
18 4.89
26 29

3.80 100
85%
Time Period:

ANALYSIS INFORMATION

0.36 Average Speed:

Standard Deviation:
26 SUMMARY STATISTICS
% in Pace Speed:
10 mph Pace Speed:

Skew:

Speed Range:

Total Observed: Speed Number Cumulative
PercentSpeedNumber
City of San Rafael
Engineering and Traffic Survey
Sidewalk: Both Sides None
Configuration: 2-ln, Bi-Dir
9/19/2023
Residential
Terrain:

Bike Lanes:

Flat
-0.81
Parking Conditions:

Street Width (ft):

Calculated Collision Rate:

VEHICLE SPEED DATA
Median Speed:

Both Sides
5,600
Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B106(CA) include sidewalk presence, bikeway presence, and numerous controlled and uncontrolled marked crosswalks. This roadway segment exhibits a collision rate that is multiple times the statewide average. This roadway is identified as a Safety Corridor per CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1) and CA MUTCD Section 2B.21 paragraphs 12ai-12as.

Number of Collisions:

Segment Length (mi):

Clear
SV
7/31/2025 Thursday
40 Cumulative Percent
Woodland Avenue between Du Bois Street and Auburn
Street
0 0
1 0
1 1
2 5
1 1
9 4
16 13
7 11
18 3
2 0
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
City of San Rafael AB 43 Strategy and Speed Limits on Citywide Roadways
City of San Rafael
2 June 2026 │
Appendix B: Prior Engineering and Traffic
Surveys Updated Pursuant to AB 43
(next page)
Segment: Between: and:

Bicycle Lanes:

Sidewalks:

Land Use:

Character:

Terrain:
200
38 mph
33 mph
27-37 mph
74%
3/25/2026
Date
Additional Roadway Characteristics or Conditions Not Readily Apparent to the Driver:

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This roadway segment was assessed in 2024, and re-evaluated in accordance with California Assembly Bill 43 and related updates to the California Vehicle Code. The Engineering and Traffic Survey establishes an enforceable speed limit for 7 years from the original E&TS date of November 2024, provided the requirements of the California Vehicle Code Section 40802(c) are adhered to. In accordance with Assembly Bill 43 (AB 43) and the provisions of California Vehicle Code Section 22358.7(a)(2), it is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment after the date specified in Section 22358.7(c).

On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 30 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment.

Recommended Speed Limit:
30 mph
David J. Parisi, PE, TE
Additional information provided on the next sheet.

Collision Rate (c/mvn): 1.85 Percent in Pace:

Segment Length (mi): 1 85th Percentile Speed:

Collisions: 10 50th Percentile Speed:

Statewide Average Rate: 1.07 (c/mvm)
Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B-106(CA) include schools, multi-use trail recreation facilities, transit stops, bikeway presence, sidewalk presence, and pedestrian crosswalks. This roadway is identified as a Safety Corridor per CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1) and CA MUTCD Section 2B.21 paragraphs 12ai-12as.

Configuration: Undivided Urban

OBSERVATIONS AND EVALUATION
Volume (ADT): 7,400 Vehicles Sampled:

Parking: None Flat
Evaluation Period (yr): 2 10 mph in Pace:

Posted Limit: 35 mph Bike lane both sides
Width: 42 feet One side
Travel Lanes: 2 Commercial
City of San Rafael

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Anderson Drive Lindaro Street Francisco Boulevard West

Segment: Between: and:

Bicycle Lanes:

Sidewalks:

Land Use:

Character:

Terrain:
263
35 mph
31 mph
25-35 mph
77%
3/25/2026
Date
Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B-106(CA) include presence of retail, bikeway presence, sidewalk presence, and an uncontrolled pedestrian crosswalk. This roadway is identified as a Safety Corridor per CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1) and CA MUTCD Section 2B.21 paragraphs 12ai-12as.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This roadway segment was assessed in 2024, and re-evaluated in accordance with California Assembly Bill 43 and related updates to the California Vehicle Code. The Engineering and Traffic Survey establishes an enforceable speed limit for 7 years from the original E&TS date of November 2024, provided the requirements of the California Vehicle Code Section 40802(c) are adhered to. In accordance with Assembly Bill 43 (AB 43) and the provisions of California Vehicle Code Section 22358.7(a)(2), it is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment after the date specified in Section 22358.7(c).

On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 30 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment.

Recommended Speed Limit:
30 mph
David J. Parisi, PE, TE
Additional information provided on the next sheet.

Collision Rate (c/mvn): 0.54 Percent in Pace:

Segment Length (mi): 0.8 85th Percentile Speed:

Collisions: 2 50th Percentile Speed:

Statewide Average Rate: 1.07 (c/mvm)
Additional Roadway Characteristics or Conditions Not Readily Apparent to the Driver:

Configuration: 2-way LT lane Urban

OBSERVATIONS AND EVALUATION
Volume (ADT): 6,300 Vehicles Sampled:

Parking: Both sides Flat
Evaluation Period (yr): 2 10 mph in Pace:

Posted Limit: 35 mph Bike lane both sides
Width: 60 feet Both sides
Travel Lanes: 2 Commercial, Industrial
City of San Rafael

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Anderson Drive Bellam Boulevard Sanitary Treatment Plant

Segment: Between: and:

Bicycle Lanes:

Sidewalks:

Land Use:

Character:

Terrain:
211
29 mph
25 mph
20-30 mph
86%
3/25/2026
Date
City of San Rafael

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY

OBSERVATIONS AND EVALUATION
Fifth Avenue Western Extent H Street
Posted Limit: 25 mph Not present
Width: 39 feet Both sides
Travel Lanes: 2 Residential
Configuration: Undivided Urban
Parking: Both sides Flat
Volume (ADT): 4,900 Vehicles Sampled:

Segment Length (mi): 1.2 85th Percentile Speed:

Collisions: 4 50th Percentile Speed:

This roadway segment was assessed in 2024, and re-evaluated in accordance with California Assembly Bill 43 and related updates to the California Vehicle Code. The Engineering and Traffic Survey establishes an enforceable speed limit for 7 years from the original E&TS date of November 2024, provided the requirements of the California Vehicle Code Section 40802(c) are adhered to. In accordance with Assembly Bill 43 (AB 43) and the provisions of California Vehicle Code Section 22358.7(a)(2), it is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment after the date specified in Section 22358.7(c).

On the basis of an engineering and traffic investigation, as reported above, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 20 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment.

Evaluation Period (yr): 2 10 mph in Pace:

Collision Rate (c/mvn): 0.93 Percent in Pace:

Statewide Average Rate: 1.07 (c/mvm)

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Additional Roadway Characteristics or Conditions Not Readily Apparent to the Driver:

Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B-106(CA) include an elementary school, presence of retail, bikeway presence, sidewalk presence, and numerous uncontrolled pedestrian crosswalks. This roadway is identified as a Safety Corridor per CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1) and CA MUTCD Section 2B.21 paragraphs 12ai-12as.

Recommended Speed Limit:
20 mph
David J. Parisi, PE, TE
Additional information provided on the next sheet.

Segment: Between: and:

Bicycle Lanes:

Sidewalks:

Land Use:

Character:

Terrain:
252
39 mph
34 mph
29-39 mph
69%
3/25/2026
Date
Statewide Average Rate: 0.75 (c/mvm)
Additional Roadway Characteristics or Conditions Not Readily Apparent to the Driver:

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This roadway segment was assessed in 2024, and re-evaluated in accordance with California Assembly Bill 43 and related updates to the California Vehicle Code. The Engineering and Traffic Survey establishes an enforceable speed limit for 7 years from the original E&TS date of November 2024, provided the requirements of the California Vehicle Code Section 40802(c) are adhered to. In accordance with Assembly Bill 43 (AB 43) and the provisions of California Vehicle Code Section 22358.7(a)(2), it is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment after the date specified in Section 22358.7(c).

On the basis of the 2024 engineering and traffic investigation, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 30 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment.

Recommended Speed Limit:
30 mph
David J. Parisi, PE, TE
Additional information provided on the next sheet.

Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B-106(CA) include presence of retail, a senior center, a religious facility, transit stops, sidewalk presence, and pedestrian crosswalks. This roadway is identified as a Safety Corridor per CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1) and CA MUTCD Section 2B.21 paragraphs 12ai-12as.

Evaluation Period (yr): 2 10 mph in Pace:

Collision Rate (c/mvn): 0.79 Percent in Pace:

Segment Length (mi): 0.5 85th Percentile Speed:

Collisions: 11 50th Percentile Speed:

Posted Limit: 35 mph Not present
Width: 101 feet One side
Travel Lanes: 5 Commercial
City of San Rafael

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Fourth Street Western City Limit Second Street
Configuration: Divided Urban

OBSERVATIONS AND EVALUATION
Volume (ADT): 38,100 Vehicles Sampled:

Parking: One side Flat

Segment: Between: and:

Bicycle Lanes:

Sidewalks:

Land Use:

Character:

Terrain:
205
27 mph
23 mph
18-28 mph
77%
3/25/2026
Date
Statewide Average Rate: 1.07 (c/mvm)
Additional Roadway Characteristics or Conditions Not Readily Apparent to the Driver:

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This roadway segment was assessed in 2024, and re-evaluated in accordance with California Assembly Bill 43 and related updates to the California Vehicle Code. The Engineering and Traffic Survey establishes an enforceable speed limit for 7 years from the original E&TS date of November 2024, provided the requirements of the California Vehicle Code Section 40802(c) are adhered to. In accordance with Assembly Bill 43 (AB 43) and the provisions of California Vehicle Code Section 22358.7(a)(2), it is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment after the date specified in Section 22358.7(c).

On the basis of the 2024 engineering and traffic investigation, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 20 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment.

Recommended Speed Limit:
20 mph
David J. Parisi, PE, TE
Additional information provided on the next sheet.

Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B-106(CA) include a public park and community center, transit stops, sidewalk presence, and multiple uncontrolled pedestrian crosswalks. This roadway is identified as a Safety Corridor per CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1) and CA MUTCD Section 2B.21 paragraphs 12ai-12as.

Evaluation Period (yr): 2 10 mph in Pace:

Collision Rate (c/mvn): 15.41 Percent in Pace:

Segment Length (mi): 0.5 85th Percentile Speed:

Collisions: 18 50th Percentile Speed:

Posted Limit: 25 mph None
Width: 54 feet Both sides
Travel Lanes: 2 Residential
City of San Rafael

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Kerner Boulevard Canal Street Bellam Boulevard
Configuration: Divided Urban

OBSERVATIONS AND EVALUATION
Volume (ADT): 3,200 Vehicles Sampled:

Parking: Both sides Flat

Segment: Between: and:

Bicycle Lanes:

Sidewalks:

Land Use:

Character:

Terrain:
223
28 mph
23 mph
17-27 mph
77%
3/25/2026
Date
Statewide Average Rate: 1.07 (c/mvm)
Additional Roadway Characteristics or Conditions Not Readily Apparent to the Driver:

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This roadway segment was assessed in 2024, and re-evaluated in accordance with California Assembly Bill 43 and related updates to the California Vehicle Code. The Engineering and Traffic Survey establishes an enforceable speed limit for 7 years from the original E&TS date of November 2024, provided the requirements of the California Vehicle Code Section 40802(c) are adhered to. In accordance with Assembly Bill 43 (AB 43) and the provisions of California Vehicle Code Section 22358.7(a)(2), it is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment after the date specified in Section 22358.7(c).

On the basis of the 2024 engineering and traffic investigation, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 20 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment.

Recommended Speed Limit:
20 mph
David J. Parisi, PE, TE
Additional information provided on the next sheet.

Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B-106(CA) include employment centers, a public park, a senior center, sidewalk presence, and multiple pedestrian crosswalks. This roadway is identified as a Safety Corridor per CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1) and CA MUTCD Section 2B.21 paragraphs 12ai-12as.

Evaluation Period (yr): 2 10 mph in Pace:

Collision Rate (c/mvn): 6.04 Percent in Pace:

Segment Length (mi): 0.34 85th Percentile Speed:

Collisions: 6 50th Percentile Speed:

Posted Limit: 25 mph None
Width: 44 feet Both sides
Travel Lanes: 2 Commercial
City of San Rafael

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Lindaro Street Third Street Woodland Avenue
Configuration: Undivided Urban

OBSERVATIONS AND EVALUATION
Volume (ADT): 4,000 Vehicles Sampled:

Parking: Both sides Flat

Segment: Between: and:

Bicycle Lanes:

Sidewalks:

Land Use:

Character:

Terrain:
201
27 mph
23 mph
17-27 mph
84%
3/25/2026
Date
Statewide Average Rate: 1.07 (c/mvm)
Additional Roadway Characteristics or Conditions Not Readily Apparent to the Driver:

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This roadway segment was assessed in 2024, and re-evaluated in accordance with California Assembly Bill 43 and related updates to the California Vehicle Code. The Engineering and Traffic Survey establishes an enforceable speed limit for 7 years from the original E&TS date of November 2024, provided the requirements of the California Vehicle Code Section 40802(c) are adhered to. In accordance with Assembly Bill 43 (AB 43) and the provisions of California Vehicle Code Section 22358.7(a)(2), it is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment after the date specified in Section 22358.7(c).

On the basis of the 2024 engineering and traffic investigation, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 20 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment.

Recommended Speed Limit:
20 mph
David J. Parisi, PE, TE
Additional information provided on the next sheet.

Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B-106(CA) include employment centers, schools, transit stops, sidewalk presence, and multiple uncontrolled pedestrian crosswalks. This roadway is identified as a Safety Corridor per CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1) and CA MUTCD Section 2B.21 paragraphs 12ai-12as.

Evaluation Period (yr): 2 10 mph in Pace:

Collision Rate (c/mvn): 5.60 Percent in Pace:

Segment Length (mi): 0.9 85th Percentile Speed:

Collisions: 25 50th Percentile Speed:

Posted Limit: 25 mph None
Width: 38 feet Both sides
Travel Lanes: 2 Mixed
City of San Rafael

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Mission Avenue Hetherton Street Embarcadero Way
Configuration: Undivided Urban

OBSERVATIONS AND EVALUATION
Volume (ADT): 6,800 Vehicles Sampled:

Parking: Discontinuous Flat

Segment: Between: and:

Bicycle Lanes:

Sidewalks:

Land Use:

Character:

Terrain:
200
45 mph
41 mph
35-45 mph
78%
3/25/2026
Date
Statewide Average Rate: 0.64 (c/mvm)
Additional Roadway Characteristics or Conditions Not Readily Apparent to the Driver:

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This roadway segment was assessed in 2024, and re-evaluated in accordance with California Assembly Bill 43 and related updates to the California Vehicle Code. The Engineering and Traffic Survey establishes an enforceable speed limit for 7 years from the original E&TS date of November 2024, provided the requirements of the California Vehicle Code Section 40802(c) are adhered to. In accordance with Assembly Bill 43 (AB 43) and the provisions of California Vehicle Code Section 22358.7(a)(2), it is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment after the date specified in Section 22358.7(c).

On the basis of the 2024 engineering and traffic investigation, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 35 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment.

Recommended Speed Limit:
35 mph
David J. Parisi, PE, TE
Additional information provided on the next sheet.

Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B-106(CA) include sidewalk presence, bikeway presence, and an uncontrolled pedestrian crosswalk. This roadway is identified as a Safety Corridor per CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1) and CA MUTCD Section 2B.21 paragraphs 12ai-12as.

Evaluation Period (yr): 2 10 mph in Pace:

Collision Rate (c/mvn): 1.23 Percent in Pace:

Segment Length (mi): 0.26 85th Percentile Speed:

Collisions: 4 50th Percentile Speed:

Posted Limit: 40 mph Bike lane both sides
Width: 78 feet Both sides
Travel Lanes: 4 Residential
City of San Rafael

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Point San Pedro Road Marina Boulevard Porto Bello Drive Configuration: Divided Urban

OBSERVATIONS AND EVALUATION
Volume (ADT): 17,100 Vehicles Sampled:

Parking: None Flat

Segment: Between: and:

Bicycle Lanes:

Sidewalks:

Land Use:

Character:

Terrain:
200
38 mph
33 mph
29-39 mph
79%
3/25/2026
Date
Statewide Average Rate: 0.64 (c/mvm)
Additional Roadway Characteristics or Conditions Not Readily Apparent to the Driver:

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This roadway segment was assessed in 2024, and re-evaluated in accordance with California Assembly Bill 43 and related updates to the California Vehicle Code. The Engineering and Traffic Survey establishes an enforceable speed limit for 7 years from the original E&TS date of November 2024, provided the requirements of the California Vehicle Code Section 40802(c) are adhered to. In accordance with Assembly Bill 43 (AB 43) and the provisions of California Vehicle Code Section 22358.7(a)(2), it is recommended to lower the posted speed limit by 5 mph along this roadway segment after the date specified in Section 22358.7(c).

On the basis of the 2024 engineering and traffic investigation, and in accordance with the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Sections 22348 through 22413, and pertinent provisions found in Sections 627, 22358, and 40802, a speed limit of 30 mph is hereby determined to be reasonable and appropriate for this street segment.

Recommended Speed Limit:
30 mph
David J. Parisi, PE, TE
Additional information provided on the next sheet.

Adjacent land uses and facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians as per CA MUTCD Table 2B-106(CA) include employment centers, retail, schools, transit stops, sidewalk presence, bikeway presence, and multiple pedestrian crosswalks. This roadway is identified as a Safety Corridor per CVC Section 22358.7(a)(1) and CA MUTCD Section 2B.21 paragraphs 12ai-12as.

Evaluation Period (yr): 2 10 mph in Pace:

Collision Rate (c/mvn): 1.34 Percent in Pace:

Segment Length (mi): 0.27 85th Percentile Speed:

Collisions: 5 50th Percentile Speed:

Posted Limit: 35 mph Bike route both sides
Width: 75 feet Both sides
Travel Lanes: 4 Mixed
City of San Rafael

ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY
Third Street Grand Avenue Eastern City Limit
Configuration: Undivided Urban

OBSERVATIONS AND EVALUATION
Volume (ADT): 18,900 Vehicles Sampled:

Parking: Both sides Flat

1 ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL REGARDING SPEED LIMIT CHANGES ON 18 SAN RAFAEL ROADWAY SEGMENTS OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 22357 AND 22358 OF THE

CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

DIVISION 1. FINDINGS.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 22357 of the California Vehicle Code, the City of San Rafael may determine that a speed limit greater than 25 miles per hour (mph) on certain streets would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 22358 of the California Vehicle Code, the City of San Rafael may determine that a speed limit of 15 or 20 miles per hour (mph) on certain streets would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe; and WHEREAS, the existing speed limits on the roadway segments are listed below in Table 1 under Current Speed Limits; and
WHEREAS, engineering and traffic studies (E&TS) have been prepared for these roadway segments consistent with Section 627 of the California Vehicle Code and identify recommended maximum speed limits, and based thereon, the City’s Traffic Engineer has determined and recommended that the maximum speed limit on these streets should be changed to the following Proposed Speed Limits listed in Table 1 to facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic, and would be reasonable and safe;
Table 1. Recommended Speed Limit Reductions
Roadway Segment
Current
Speed
Limit
Proposed
Speed
Limit
1 Andersen Drive (Lindaro Street to Francisco Boulevard West)
35 30
2 Andersen Drive (Bellam Boulevard to Sanitary Treatment Plan)
35 30
3 B Street (Woodland Avenue to Second Street) 25 20
4 Canal Street/Spinnaker Point Drive (Harbor Street to Bedford Cove)
25 20
5 Fifth Avenue (Western Extent to H Street) 25 20
6 Fourth Street (Western City Limit to Second Street) 35 30 7 Fourth Street (Hetherton Court to Union Street) 25 20 2 8 Grand Avenue (Mission Avenue to Francisco Boulevard East)
25 20
9 Greenfield Avenue/West End Avenue (Western City Limit to Marquard Avenue)
25 20
10 Kerner Boulevard (Canal Street to Bellam Boulevard) 25 20 11 Lincoln Avenue (Red Rock Way to Linden Lane) 30 25
12 Lindaro Street (Third Street to Woodland Avenue) 25 20 13 Los Gamos Drive (Lucas Valley Road to Southern Terminus) 30 25 14 Mission Avenue (Hetherton Street to Embarcadero Way) 25 20 15 Point San Pedro Road (Marina Boulevard to Porto Bello Drive)
40 35
16 Third Street (Grand Avenue to Eastern City Limit) 35 30 17 Woodland Avenue (B Street to Du Bois Street) 25 20
18 Woodland Avenue (Du Bois Street to Auburn Street) 30 25

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

DIVISION 2. SPEED LIMIT ESTABLISHED.

The speed limit on the roadway segments is hereby decreased to the proposed speed limits listed in the proposed speed limit column in Table 1 above and shall be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the street.

DIVISION 3. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA).

The City Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is not a "Project" under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378(a), in that this action does not have a potential for a direct physical change or reasonably indirect physical change in the environment.

In the event the action is considered a “Project” under CEQA, the action is exempt from CEQA under section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Ordinance or its implementation would have a significant effect on the environment (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b)(3)).

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 Council 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 be declared invalid.

DIVISION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE; PUBLICATION.
3 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.

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was first read and introduced at a regular meeting of the San Rafael City Council on the 20th day of July 2026 and was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the San Rafael City Council on the 17th day of August 2026 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________
KATE COLIN, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk

CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
1400 FIFTH AVENUE
CITY CLERK, ROOM 209
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901
Marin Independent Journal
103 Shoreline Parkway, Suite 201
San Rafael, CA 94901
415-382-7335
[email protected]
Account Number:

Ad Order Number:

Customer's Reference
/ PO Number:
2070419
0006979196
Publication Dates:

Publication: Marin Independent Journal
07/10/2026
Amount: $223.28
r.BP7-11/10/16 1
Invoice Text: CITY OF SAN RAFAEL

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL You are invited to attend the City Council
hearing on the following proposed ordinance:

DATE/TIME: Monday, July 20, 2026, at 6:00 P.M.

LOCATION: City Council Chambers, City Hall, 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901

VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION
The public may participate either by attending the meeting in person or by teleconference by visiting https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/departments/public-meetings/ for the call-in phone number and meeting ID listed on the agenda, or using Zoom app to connect to this meeting ID.

PURPOSE:

INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE REGARDING SPEED LIMIT CHANGES ON 18 SAN RAFAEL ROADWAY SEGMENTS

OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN
PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 22357 AND 22358 OF THE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE; CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINE 15061(b)(3) To consider a proposed ordinance regarding speed limit changes on 18 roadway segments in locations outside of downtown San Rafael pursuant to sections 22357 and 22358 of the California Vehicle Code and adopting findings of fact supporting the amendments. The
recommended speed limit reductions are the continuation of a comprehensive approach to improving traffic safety and slow vehicle speeds, helping to foster a more livable and accessible community.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of the proposed ordinance is not a "Project" under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378(a), in that this action does not have a potential for a direct physical change or reasonably indirect physical change in the
environment. In the event that the action is considered a "Project" under CEQA, the action is exempt from CEQA under section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this ordinance or its implementation would have a significant effect on the environment (14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15061(b)(3)).

WHAT WILL HAPPEN:

Staff will provide a presentation, members of the public can provide comments/questions, and the City Council will consider all public testimony, deliberate, and determine how to proceed with the recommendation provided by staff.

IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND:

You may submit comments regarding the
proposed item by 4:00 p.m. the day of the
hearing to Lindsay Lara, City Clerk, City of San Rafael, 1400 Fifth Avenue, San Rafael, CA 94901, or by email to [email protected]. You can also hand deliver a letter prior to the public hearing. The City Clerk 's office will forward your comments to the City Council and publish correspondence received to the agenda online. Comments received after 4:00 p.m. will be forwarded to the City Council and posted online the following day.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For additional information regarding the above, you can contact Sayed Fakhry, City Traffic Engineer for the City of San Rafael at (209) 215-5196 or [email protected]. Office hours are Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. You can also view the staff report after 4:00 p.m. on the Friday before the meeting at https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/city-council-meetings/ /s/ Lindsay Lara
Lindsay Lara
City Clerk
City of San Rafael
To be published in the Marin IJ on: Friday, July 10, 2026. r.BP7-11/10/16 2
Legal No.

Marin Independent Journal
103 Shoreline Parkway, Suite 201
San Rafael, CA 94901
415-382-7335
[email protected]
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid: I am over the age of eighteen years,
and not a party to or interested in the above matter. I am the principal clerk of the printer of the MARIN
INDEPENDENT JOURNAL, a newspaper of general
circulation, printed and published daily in the County of Marin, and which newspaper has been adjudged a
newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Marin, State of California, under date of FEBRUARY 7, 1955, CASE NUMBER 25568; that the
notice, of which the annexed is a printed copy (set in type not smaller than nonpareil), has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in
any supplement thereof on the following dates, to-wit:
07/10/2026
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated this 10th day of July, 2026.

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Marin
Signature

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
0006979196
2070419

CITY OF SAN RAFAEL
1400 FIFTH AVENUE
CITY CLERK, ROOM 209
SAN RAFAEL, CA 94901
r.BP7-11/10/16 1
r.BP7-11/10/16
2 ____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: _______________________
Disposition: ___________________________
Agenda Item No: 4.a
Meeting Date: July 20, 2026

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Public Works
Prepared by: Sayed Fakhry,
City Traffic Engineer
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: CITY OF SAN RAFAEL TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM POLICY SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL’S TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM POLICY; CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378(b)(5) RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution approving the City of San Rafael Traffic Calming Program Policy.

BACKGROUND:

The City routinely receives requests from residents regarding excessive vehicle speeds and traffic volumes on neighborhood residential streets. The authority to review these requests is delegated to the City Traffic Engineer, whose duties are provided in San Rafael Municipal Code Section 5.08.060, and which states:

It shall be the general duty of the city traffic engineer to determine the installation and proper timing and maintenance of traffic control devices and signals, to conduct engineering analyses of traffic accidents and to devise remedial measures, to conduct engineering and traffic investigations of traffic conditions and to cooperate with other city officials in the development of ways and means to improve traffic conditions, and to carry out the additional powers and duties imposed by ordinances of this city… Historically, these requests have been addressed on an ad hoc basis, without a consistent, Counciladopted framework for evaluating requests, prioritizing improvements, or selecting appropriate traffic calming tools.

In 2025, the San Rafael City Council adopted a Three-Year Strategic Plan that establishes the Council’s goals and priorities and guides the City’s work plan for that period. Within the Strategic Plan, there is Goal B.2, which is to Enhance Transportation Safety Policies and Traffic Management System. Objective B2.2 states, “Launch and evaluate pilot projects for traffic calming measures to improve neighborhood safety”.

Based on this direction, staff developed a draft Traffic Calming Policy, presented it at the April 21, 2026, meeting of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), and received feedback.

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

The City receives many traffic calming requests from residents on residential streets. The Traffic Calming Program Policy will set objective guidelines and procedures for residents and staff to follow, and use the objective criteria to respond to requests, analyze, and prioritize traffic calming installations on residential streets. Key elements of the Policy include:
• Request and Petition Process
• Data Collection and Qualification
Thresholds
• Review and Approval Process
• Tiered Structure of Traffic Calming Tools
Based on Issue Complexity, Cost, and
Impact
• Post-Installation Monitoring
The Policy is intended to ensure that limited City resources are directed toward streets with demonstrated, data-supported traffic concerns, while providing residents with a transparent and predictable path for requesting improvements.

If approved, the Policy would apply to neighborhood residential streets, defined as streets with a minimum of two lanes (wider than 20 feet) in areas zoned Residential (R1 and R2). It may also be applied to lowvolume residential collector streets. The Policy may be initiated either by resident petition or by the Department of Public Works (DPW) for corridors identified through the Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program or the City's Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP).

Principles and Guidelines of the Policy:
• The Policy process applies only to neighborhood residential streets and may also be applied to low-volume residential collector streets.
• Removal of on-street parking may be necessary to implement specific traffic calming tools. • Emergency vehicle access shall be maintained on all streets where traffic calming tools/devices are installed.
• Requests for traffic calming tools shall be evaluated on a first-come, first-served basis as signed petitions are received.
• Traffic calming process begins by submitting a petition of support signed by a simple majority (50%+1) of the residents/households (one household, one signature). • Stop signs and traffic signals are not considered traffic calming measures. The installation of stop signs and traffic signals are dictated by the CA MUTCD (California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices), the official state standard for the design, installation, and maintenance of all traffic signs, road surface markings, and traffic signals.

Policy Benefits:

Adoption of a formal Traffic Calming Program Policy provides several benefits to the City and its residents:
• Consistency and Transparency: A codified, Council-adopted policy ensures that all requests are evaluated using the same objective criteria, reducing the potential for inconsistent outcomes or the perception of favoritism.
• Data-Driven Prioritization: Requiring a documented petition and a seven-day speed and volume survey ensures that traffic calming resources are directed to streets with demonstrated need, rather than isolated or anecdotal concerns.
• Community Engagement: The petition requirement and BPAC review process ensure that traffic calming measures reflect genuine, majority-supported neighborhood interest, and that the broader public has an opportunity to weigh in before installation.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
• Public Safety Safeguards: The requirement for San Rafael Fire Department approval of Tier 3 (active) devices, such as speed humps and traffic circles, helps ensure that emergency response times and access are not compromised.
• Fiscal Responsibility: The tiered structure allows lower-cost, lower-impact tools (Tier 1) to be deployed quickly without a full petition and survey process, while reserving more resourceintensive tools (Tiers 2 and 3) for locations where survey data confirms a genuine need.

Staff will bring forward any necessary implementation details, forms, and fee or funding recommendations, administratively or in future Council actions, as appropriate.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH:

The Policy was presented to BPAC at a Special meeting on April 21, 2026, and BPAC and the public provided feedback to staff, including adding a volume threshold to the criteria and tier system for traffic calming tools, and making it clear that households (owners and renters) can equally sign a petition of support.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The Policy was developed by staff within the Department of Public Works' approved budget. Therefore, the adoption of the Policy has no direct fiscal impact. Future fiscal impacts will occur on a project-byproject basis as individual traffic calming requests move through the process, including costs associated with speed and volume surveys, design, and installation of approved devices. These costs will be absorbed from the yearly budget appropriated for the Roadway Safety Implementation Program and, where applicable, presented to Council for budget authorization.

For fiscal year (FY) 2026-27, $150,000 has been budgeted for the implementation of the traffic calming program. Tier 1 improvements can typically be accomplished within this same budget. A limited number of Tier 2 and Tier 3 improvements could be accomplished within the existing budget but would likely require additional funding, or be delayed to a future fiscal year, depending on the number of requests/petitions of support received.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:

In Accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21065, “Project” means an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), organizational or administrative activities of governments are explicitly excluded from the definition of a "project" if they will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Adoption of the Policy is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, as the policy itself will not result in changes to the environment. An environmental impact assessment will be provided as part of the Council approval process for any Tier 2 and Tier 3 installation to be considered.

OPTIONS:

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

1. Staff’s recommended action (Adopt resolution adopting City of San Rafael Traffic Calming Program Policy).

2. Accept and approve Traffic Calming Policy with suggested edits/modifications.

3. Direct staff to return with more information.

4. Take no action.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution approving the City of San Rafael Traffic Calming Program Policy.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution
a. Exhibit A: City of San Rafael Traffic Calming Program Policy RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL’S TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM POLICY; CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION:

EXEMPT PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINE 15378(b)(5)
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael routinely receives requests from residents regarding excessive vehicle speeds and traffic volumes on neighborhood residential streets; and WHEREAS, historically, such requests have been addressed on an ad hoc basis, without a consistent, Council-adopted framework for evaluating requests, prioritizing improvements, or selecting appropriate traffic calming tools; and
WHEREAS, San Rafael Municipal Code Section 5.08.060 delegates the authority to the City Traffic Engineer to determine the installation of traffic control devices and to coordinate with other City officials in the development of ways to improve traffic conditions; and WHEREAS, in 2025, the San Rafael City Council adopted a Three-Year Strategic Plan establishing the Council's goals and priorities, including Goal B.2, to “Enhance Transportation Safety Policies and Traffic Management System,” and Objective B2.2, to “Launch and evaluate pilot projects for traffic calming measures to improve neighborhood safety”; and WHEREAS, consistent with this direction, City staff developed a draft City of San Rafael Traffic Calming Program Policy (“Policy”) establishing objective criteria and procedures for requesting, evaluating, prioritizing, and implementing traffic calming measures on eligible residential streets; and
WHEREAS, the draft Policy was presented to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) at a Special Meeting held on April 21, 2026, at which BPAC and members of the public provided feedback to staff, which feedback was considered in finalizing the Policy; and WHEREAS, the Policy establishes a Request and Petition Process, Data Collection and Qualification Thresholds, a Review and Approval Process, a Tiered Structure of Traffic Calming Tools based on issue complexity, cost, and impact, and Post-Installation Monitoring procedures; and
WHEREAS, the Policy applies to neighborhood residential streets, defined as streets with a minimum of two lanes (wider than 20 feet) located in areas zoned Residential (R1 and R2), and may also be applied to low-volume residential collector streets, and may be initiated by resident petition or by the Department of Public Works for corridors identified through the Safe Routes to School Program or the City's Local Roadway Safety Plan; and WHEREAS, the Policy is intended to ensure that limited City resources are directed toward streets with demonstrated, data-supported traffic concerns, while providing residents with a consistent, transparent, and predictable process for requesting improvements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), the adoption of the Policy is not a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it is an organizational and administrative action that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change to the environment, and any Tier 2 or Tier 3 installation considered under the Policy will be subject to separate environmental review as part of future Council approval.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL RESOLVES as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The City Council finds that adoption of this Resolution and the Policy is not a “project” subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), as it constitutes an organizational and administrative activity of the City that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change to the environment. Any future Tier 2 or Tier 3 traffic calming installation considered under the Policy shall be subject to separate environmental review, as applicable, at the time such installation is presented for Council approval.

3. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the City of San Rafael Traffic Calming Program Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference.

4. The City Manager, or designee, is hereby authorized and directed to implement the Policy, and fee or funding recommendations reasonably necessary to carry out the purposes of the Policy, and to bring such items forward administratively or through future Council action as appropriate.

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 20th day of July 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

Lindsay Lara, City Clerk
Exhibit A: City of San Rafael Traffic Calming Program Policy 1 July 20, 2026
Resolution # XXXX
City of San Rafael Traffic Calming Program Policy
Traffic Calming Program Goals and Intent
The primary goal of the Traffic Calming Program (TCP) is to address traffic-related concerns, such as excessive speed and volume, on neighborhood residential streets (streets with a minimum of two lanes (wider than 20’ width) where land use is Residential Zone (R1 and R2)). The goal of the Policy is to effectively manage traffic-related concerns, considering the benefits and disbenefits of traffic calming measures.

Traffic calming improvements may be installed on selected City of San Rafael streets, subject to resident input, recommendations from the City Public Works Department (DPW), and relevant public safety agencies.

Principles and Guidelines of the Traffic Calming Program • The TCP process only applies to neighborhood residential streets and may be applied to low-volume residential collector streets.
• Removal of on-street parking may be necessary to implement specific traffic calming tools.
• Emergency vehicle access shall be maintained on all streets where traffic calming tools/devices are installed.
• Requests for traffic calming tools shall be evaluated on a first-come, first-served basis as signed petitions are received.
• Traffic calming process begins by submitting a petition of support signed by a simple majority (50%+1) of the residents/households (one household, one signature). • Stop signs and traffic signals are not traffic calming measures.

Request Submission
The process contains several steps. TCP begins with an inquiry by a resident or group of residents (Applicant) to the City Traffic Engineer regarding traffic-related concerns, such as speeding. The best way to communicate with the City Traffic Engineer is through SeeClickFix (SCF). See link below:

SeeClickFix - San Rafael
2 Alternatively, the TCP can be initiated by DPW for corridors that are part of the Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program or are included in the City Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP).

Initial Review and Determination
The City Traffic Engineer will determine whether the concern falls within the scope of the Policy, including the eligibility of the street, and whether it can be resolved by installing signs, striping, channelizers, or combinations thereof. The determination will be provided to the Applicant.

Starting Traffic Calming Process
If the City Traffic Engineer determines that the traffic calming process is appropriate, DPW will begin by sending a Sample Petition of support to the Applicant via email or mail.

If traffic concerns cannot be resolved simply by adding signs, striping, channelizers, etc., a petition of support signed by the majority (50%+1) of residents in the neighborhood (block or blocks) and any cul-de-sacs that travel that block or blocks with no other options will be required to verify a widespread concern about traffic issues. The City will provide a sample petition of support. The Applicant will need to circulate the petition for signature among residents (owners & renters) living in the block(s) requesting TCP.

Upon receiving the signed petition of support, staff will schedule a speed and volume survey by a vendor for a full week, including the weekend (7 days), to see if the street(s) qualify for traffic calming. The same process applies if the DPW initiates the TCP.

A residential street will qualify for TCP:
• if 85% speed is over 7 mph of the posted speed (for a 25 mph posted speed, 85% is at or above 32 mph, for 4 hours of a day (7 am to 7 pm). • if 85% speed is over 5 mph of posted speed (for a 25 mph posted speed, 85% is at or above 30 mph, for 6 hours of a day (7 am to 7 pm).
• Or if 85% speed is at or above 30 mph over 5 mph of the posted speed (25mph) for consecutive 2 hrs. of a day at residential streets in front of entrances to the schools, community centers, parks, and senior centers/housing
• If Average Daily Traffic Volume (averaged over 7 days) or averaged over 5 workdays is equal to or exceeds 1,000 vehicles per day.

After the survey is conducted, if the street(s) do not qualify and meet the speeding or volume threshold based on the data obtained, the petitioners will be informed of the result of the survey via email, and no further action is needed. 3 If the street(s) qualify and meet the speeding or volume threshold based on the data obtained, City staff will analyze possible solutions to the traffic concerns cited in the petition of support.

These solutions will be presented to the City Advisory Traffic Committee (CATC), an internal committee composed of various City departments. Based on recommendations from CATC at this meeting, one option will be selected, and plans will be developed for implementation.

Staff will prepare the conceptual traffic calming plan to be presented to CATC. After CATC’s comments and approval, the concept plan will be presented to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) for feedback and input from the BPAC and the public. The City will notify the Applicant(s) of the BPAC meeting date.

If traffic calming devices are approved, they will be installed when funding is available.

For this Policy, three tiers of Traffic Calming are considered:

Tier 1: Not requiring a neighborhood petition of support or speed and volume survey.

Examples include Speed Warning Signs, Curve Warning Signs, Pedestrian Warning Signs, and channelizers. These types of traffic calming need only approval by the Director of Public Works and City Traffic Engineer, and in most cases, no petition and speed and volume survey are needed.

Tier 2: Passive Traffic Calming Tools such as Electronic Radar feedback signs, Bulb Outs, Chokers and Narrow Median Islands, etc., requiring petition of support from residents as explained above and a speed and volume survey and will require review by CATC and BPAC.

Tier 3: Active Traffic Calming tools such as Speed Humps, Traffic Circles, and Turn Restrictions require specific approval from the San Rafael Fire Department (SRFD) in addition to petitions of support, a speed and volume survey, and review by CATC and BPAC.

After Installation Study
After a year of installation, staff may monitor results as deemed appropriate to assess the effectiveness of specific traffic calming tools. A Before-and-after TCP speed survey should be compared to find the effectiveness of the specific tool used. Based on this evaluation by the Public Works Department, CATC may recommend modifying or removing the traffic calming measures.
4 Tools/Devices Used to Control Traffic Speed and Volume There are many traffic control tools/devices that can be used on residential neighborhood streets. They range from simple warning signs to electronic radar warning signs, bulb-outs, etc.

A list of tools/devices that are available for implementation includes:

Tier 1:
• Speed Warning Signs
• Curve Warning Signs
• Pedestrian Warning Signs
• Channelizers and Striping
Tier 2
• Electronic Speed Radar Signs
• Narrow Median Island
• Pedestrian Refuge Island
• Chokers and Bulb-outs
• Chicanes
• Traffic Islands
• Lowering speed limit to 20 mph if AB43 is applicable
Tier 3
• Turn Restrictions (only subject to approval of SRFD)
• Traffic Circles (only subject to approval of SRFD)
• Speed Humps (only subject to approval of SRFD)
By no means are these tools inclusive, as other tools/devises may become available due to changes in technology and will be added to the list.

Reapplying
If the street did not qualify for TCP based on the speed and volume survey, residents can reapply after 2 years from the notice of non-qualification.

Process for Removing Traffic Calming Devices
The City Traffic Engineer may remove or modify any installed traffic calming measures for public safety reasons without additional action.
____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: _______________________
Disposition: ___________________________
Agenda Item No: 4.b
Meeting Date: July 20, 2026

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community and Economic Development
Prepared by:

Stacey Laumann, Economic Development
Manager
Alexis Captanian, Housing Manager
Greg Minor, Assistant Director
Michael Scott, Policy Intern
City Manager Approval: ____________
TOPIC: NOMINATION OF ELIGIBLE CENSUS TRACTS FOR OPPORTUNITY ZONE 2.0 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (GO-BIZ) RECOMMENDING THE NOMINATION OF CENSUS TRACTS 06041111001, 06041112100, 06041112202, 06041112203, AND 06041112204 TO THE OPPORTUNITY ZONE 2.0 PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution in support of an application to the California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) recommending the nomination of census tracts 06041111001, 06041112100, 06041112202, 06041112203, 06041112204, (referred to in this report as 1110.01, 1121, 1122.02, 1122.03, and 1122.04, respectively) to the Opportunity Zone

2.0 program.

BACKGROUND:

Opportunity Zone 1.0
Congress established the initial Opportunity Zone (OZ 1.0) Program under the Federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 to encourage the reinvestment of capital gains into economically distressed communities. The program offers preferential federal tax treatment for capital gains invested in qualified projects located within designated low-income census tracts. Eligible investments may include new real estate construction, rehabilitation of vacant or underutilized properties, equity investments in operating businesses, and infrastructure or energy-related projects, among others. The OZ incentive is designed to reward long-term, patient capital that generates sustained economic growth, job creation, and community revitalization in historically underserved areas.

Qualified Opportunity Funds (QOFs) are investment vehicles established by a corporation or partnership for the purpose of investing in OZ property or businesses. Investment in OZ census tracts must be made through a QOF to receive the OZ program’s tax benefits, and these benefits vary in scale based upon how many years the investment stays in the QOF.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
Due to a lack of comprehensive reporting requirements, there is relatively little publicly available data on OZ 1.0 investment types or amounts. However, a Joint Committee on Taxation report published in May 2024 contains an analysis of IRS data which shows that through 2022, 62.7 percent of all qualified OZ 1.0 investment in the nation went into the Real Estate, Rental, and Leasing business sector.

Opportunity Zone 2.0
OZ 1.0 was scheduled to sunset December 31, 2026; however, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” of 2025 made the OZ program permanent (OZ 2.0). Under OZ 2.0, the U.S. Department of the Treasury will certify which census tracts qualify as OZs for the next ten years based on nominations made by governors according to the following timeline:

OZ 2.0 Census Tract Designation Timeline
• April 2026: The IRS released the official list of census tracts eligible for OZ 2.0 designation. • June 15, 2026: Application window opened for local jurisdictions to submit recommendations to the Governor.
• July 20, 20261
: Application window closes for local jurisdictions to submit recommendations to the Governor.
• August 1, 2026: Public comment period opens.
• September 30, 2026: Deadline for Governors to nominate up to 25% of their eligible lowincome census tracts for OZ status certification by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. • November 2026: The U.S. Department of the Treasury certifies nominations. • January 1, 2027: The new OZ map goes into effect for 10 years.

Selection Process in California
The Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) has opened a web-based submission form (Attachment 2) for local jurisdictions to submit recommendations to the Governor starting June 15, 2026, and it will remain open until July 20, 2026. There is no limit to the number of eligible tracts that local jurisdictions may submit for recommendation. The minimum required information will include identification of the nominating entity, a primary point of contact for follow-up, the 10-digit census tract number(s), and a brief description of how achieving OZ status for the tract(s) would align with state investment and development priorities. Local jurisdictions also have the option to provide additional information regarding their eligible tracts’ connections to Go-Biz's priority criteria, which staff details below. Finally, local jurisdictions may list ranked preferences when recommending multiple eligible tracts, but this is not required.

While only local jurisdictions are permitted to submit recommendations to the Governor, other local organizations are encouraged to coordinate and engage with local government partners to make the strongest case for nomination. State officials will open a public comment period starting August 1, 2026, regarding census tract OZ 2.0 nomination as a way for community stakeholders to provide their input via letters of support or similar means.

GO-Biz has indicated that it will prioritize nomination of tracts that show current or future alignment with the following State priorities and programs:
• California Jobs First Program Regional Plans and Programs • State affordable housing objectives and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) 1 The initial deadline for local jurisdiction recommendations was July 25th, however, on July 9th Go-BIZ announced the deadline is now July 20th at 11:59pm.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
• Presence of parcels or property that have been submitted to California’s Business Ready Sites Program
• Active or planned public investment (Tax Increment Finance districts, public grant-funded projects, etc.)
Eligible Tracts in San Rafael
The U.S. Department of the Treasury has deemed five census tracts in San Rafael eligible for OZ 2.0.

The tracts are identified in Figure 1 below as: 1110.01, 1121, 1122.02, 1122.03, and 1122.04.

Figure 1: San Rafael Eligible OZ 2.0 Census Tracts
The OZ 2.0 eligible census tracts include two census tracts in the Canal neighborhood (1122.03 and 1122.04) that have an OZ 1.0 designation in effect through December 31, 2026. These census tracts consist primarily of high-density, multi-family residential properties, with a high percentage of lowincome and Hispanic tenants. In 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1992, which increased tenant relocation assistance in these census tracts in cases of no-fault eviction, with the understanding that OZ designation could increase the risk of displacement by incentivizing major rehabilitation of existing properties. To date, staff are not aware of any major OZ 1.0-funded projects in tracts 1122.03 and 1122.04, nor are staff aware of any OZ 1.0-related resident displacement.

The remaining OZ 2.0 eligible tracts (1110.01, 1121, and 1122.02) consist of a mix of residential, commercial, and industrial properties and zoning, and are less densely populated.

Other Marin jurisdictions with identified eligible census tracts include the County of Marin and the City of Novato. Marin County staff have indicated that the County will not seek OZ 2.0 nomination but are supportive of a San Rafael application. City of Novato staff intend on presenting a recommendation to their City Council on July 14, 2026.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
ANALYSIS:

The City's OZ 2.0-eligible tracts align with the state's priorities in several ways. For example, San Rafael is a project partner in a California Jobs First catalyst program called “High Road Clean Transportation Career Pathways,” which has researched and designed a pilot workforce training program focused on creating equitable access to quality transportation careers that address the climate crisis. The program will focus on recruiting participants who live in the Canal neighborhood of San Rafael (census tracts 1122.02, 03, and 04) and trainings will be hosted in the Canal area, which features a concentration of automotive-related businesses including new and used car dealerships, mechanics, and specialty retail.

Additionally, the City has seen a significant increase in planned and active housing developments, with several projects located in or adjacent to the eligible census tracts. In particular, census tract 1110.01 (located in the Downtown area) is host to several entitled projects that are collectively expected to provide close to 500 new housing units and substantially contribute towards RHNA objectives.

Lastly, substantial future public investment is anticipated in the form of the redesign, replacement, and potential new development opportunity for the existing San Rafael Transit Center, which is located within eligible tract 1110.01 adjacent to Highway 101 between 4th Street and Second Street. The Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District owns the Transit Center and is leading the redesign effort. Project partners include the City of San Rafael, Marin Transit, Transportation Authority of Marin (TAM), and Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART).

Though it is not among the specific criteria being prioritized by GO-Biz, the upcoming Southeast San Rafael Specific Plan and the existing Downtown San Rafael Precise Plan have the potential to substantially impact the type and character of projects that might be funded through OZ 2.0 investment if that status is granted for any or all of the tracts as they are all located in areas that are covered by one of these plans.

Proposed Nomination Recommendations and Rationale
Staff recommends nominating all eligible San Rafael census tracts for OZ 2.0 designation to maximize opportunities for new investment that advance the City’s housing, economic vitality, employment, sea level rise adaptation, and revenue goals. Additionally, to position San Rafael most effectively in a competitive statewide process in which only 25 percent of eligible census tracts can be nominated by the Governor, staff recommends the following priority ranking:

1. 1122.02 – Southeast San Rafael

2. 1110.01 – Downtown San Rafael

3. 1122.04 – Waterfront Canal

4. 1122.03 – Central Canal

5. 1121 – Francisco Blvd. West / Woodland
Staff recommends prioritizing tracts 1122.02 and 1110.01 because they present the strongest opportunities for catalytic investment that aligns with the City’s economic development, housing, resilience, and revenue objectives; moreover, these two census tracts best align with the State’s stated priorities. Secondly, staff recommends tracts 1122.04 and 1122.03, which include light industrial and high-density residential uses, as an OZ 2.0 designation may encourage investment in housing and industry modernization as well as support recommendations included in the forthcoming Southeast San Rafael Specific Plan. Finally, Tract 1121 includes significant industrial and commercial land where modernization and reinvestment could strengthen local employment and business retention.

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5
Risk of Tenant Displacement and Mitigation Strategies
Displacement of low-income residents is occurring in Marin and San Rafael, particularly in areas with unsubsidized, older multifamily rental housing stock. Tax benefits available to investors through the purchase and improvement of properties in an OZ may heighten the risk of displacement for residents of rental housing, especially when the OZ designation is complemented by other pro-development policies. While the OZ 1.0 designation does not appear to have generated substantial investment in Canal Census Tracts 1122.03 and 1122.04, the upcoming Southeast San Rafael Specific Plan in conjunction with an OZ 2.0 designation could catalyze activity and investment not observed during OZ

1.0, creating additional risk of displacement for low-income tenants.

The OZ program does not provide cities with control over the types of investments generated through OZ designation; however, the City can establish its own policies to help lessen the risk of tenant displacement. For example, to mitigate the potential effects of OZ 1.0 designation, the City Council adopted two policies in Canal Census Tracts 1122.03 and 1122.04:
• As of 2021, landlords have been required to pay a substantially higher relocation assistance amount to tenants living in the Canal OZ who are evicted through a No Fault eviction. This ordinance will remain in effect only if these census tracts are re-designated through OZ 2.0; otherwise, the ordinance will expire December 31, 2026. • As of April 2024, landlords must offer tenants living in the Canal OZ temporary relocation and the right to return to their unit after substantial rehabilitation is complete. This policy was designed to allow landlords to make needed repairs while also maintaining housing stability for tenants. This protection is set to expire December 31, 2026, regardless of OZ 2.0 designation.

Without these policies, landlords will be able to evict tenants for Substantial Rehabilitation for Health and Safety, and low-income tenants will be eligible for two months’ rent per the existing citywide policy.

A citywide anti-displacement strategy may prove most effective in preventing displacement since lowincome tenants living in older multifamily housing are vulnerable to displacement regardless of OZ designation, and nearly two-thirds of San Rafael’s rental housing stock was built before 1980. In the past five years, multiple, large multifamily buildings in San Rafael have been sold without the involvement of a QOF, in some cases resulting in the eviction of tenants on the grounds of Substantial Rehabilitation for Health and Safety.

Consistent with City Council priorities identified in the Three-Year Strategic Plan, staff will return to the City Council in late summer or early fall for consideration of policy updates to help mitigate tenant displacement.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH:

Staff presented OZ 2.0 informational reports to the Economic Development and Housing Subcommittee of the City Council on April 21, 2026, and June 16, 2026. General information on San Rafael’s OZ 2.0 process is published at https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/opportunity-zone/.

Additionally, an informational meeting was held on April 30, 2026, at Al Boro Community Center and via Zoom, which was attended by City staff and approximately 15 community stakeholders, including local business and property owners and community-based organizations primarily associated with the Canal and Southeast San Rafael. Two guest speakers with experience in OZ projects presented general information and answered questions.

Finally, the Community and Economic Development Department received a letter from the San Rafael Chamber of Commerce’s East San Rafael Working Group (Attachment 3) advocating for the nomination SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 6
of all three tracts in the Canal/Southeast area of the City (1122.02, 1122.03, and 1122.04), with tract 1122.02 being their top preference.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The recommendation has no immediate fiscal impact on the City, as there is no cost, aside from staff time, to submit an application to GO-Biz through the online portal. However, subsequent nomination of San Rafael census tracts for the OZ 2.0 program has the potential to attract additional investment to the City in the future.

OPTIONS:

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

1. Adopt the resolution as presented.

2. Adopt resolution with modifications.

3. Take no action.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution in support of an application to the California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) recommending the nomination of census tracts 06041111001, 06041112100, 06041112202, 06041112203, and 06041112204 to the Opportunity Zone 2.0 program.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Instructions for the Local Authority Recommendation Form / Sample Form

3. San Rafael Chamber of Commerce Letter to Community and Economic Development Department
RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (GO-BIZ) RECOMMENDING THE NOMINATION OF CENSUS TRACTS 06041111001, 06041112100, 06041112202, 06041112203, AND 06041112204 TO THE OPPORTUNITY ZONE

2.0 PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael is committed to fostering equitable economic development, supporting local businesses, expanding workforce opportunities, and encouraging reinvestment in areas of the community facing economic challenges; and WHEREAS, Opportunity Zones are a federal capital gains tax incentive designed to mobilize long-term private investment in designated low-income and underserved communities, and the Opportunity Zone 2.0 Program offers tools that support community-serving development, including affordable and workforce housing, small business growth, mixed-use revitalization, green infrastructure, and job‑creating projects aligned with the City’s adopted plans and community priorities; and
WHEREAS, the 2025 Reconciliation Act, also known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), calls on governors to act in summer 2026 by nominating one-quarter of their lowincome census tracts for Opportunity Zone (OZ) status; and WHEREAS, the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (GO-Biz) has invited local jurisdictions to recommend eligible census tracts for consideration and nomination by the Governor of California; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael has identified Census Tracts 06041111001, 06041112100, 06041112202, 06041112203, and 06041112204 as areas that meet the State’s Opportunity Zone eligibility criteria and would significantly benefit from the catalytic investment, enhanced economic activity, and community reinvestment opportunities facilitated by the Opportunity Zone 2.0 Program; and
WHEREAS, the designation of these census tracts would advance key City goals related to economic vitality, housing affordability, climate resilience, long‑term sustainability, and inclusive community development; and
WHEREAS, the City has engaged with community partners, local businesses, nonprofit organizations, and property owners within the proposed census tracts, all of whom have expressed strong interest in pursuing new investment opportunities that align with the City’s community development priorities.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby supports the submission of an application to the California Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development recommending the nomination of Census Tracts 06041111001, 06041112100, 06041112202, 06041112203, and 06041112204 to the Opportunity Zone 2.0 Program as prioritized in the staff report for the July 20, 2026, City Council meeting; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council authorizes and directs City staff to prepare, submit, and manage all necessary application materials, supporting documentation, and communications with GO‑Biz to advance this nomination.

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 20th day of July, 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

Lindsay Lara, City Clerk

Opportunity Zones 2.0
Instructions for the Local Authority Recommendation Form Below is a PDF version of the Local Authority Recommendation Form with instructions. Please note that this document is for instructional purposes only. Instructions are stated in red text.

Please note that the Local Authority Recommendation Form must be completed in ONE sitting. The form does not include a "save" function, so applicants should be prepared to complete and submit all required information during a single session. The timing of a submission will have no impact on the consideration of the recommendation.

Questions with * will require a response.

To fill out the Local Authority Recommendation Form:

CLICK HERE (https://forms.cloud.microsoft/g/4ykYDGAjba) Completed forms must be submitted by 11:59 pm on July 25, 2026.

Submissions received after the deadline will not be considered.

Local Authority Recommendation Form
This form is to be completed by an authorized representative of a city/municipality, county, special district, regional joint powers authority, council of governments, or tribal government within California. Only census tracts that appear on the official Qualified Opportunity Zones Eligible Tract list by the U.S. Department of the Treasury (https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/tax-policy/data-transparency/qualified-opportunity-zones) may be recommended. You may also consult interactive mapping tools provided by organizations such as Novogradac (https://www.policymap.com/embed/widget/12163/DNAOEK4MOFUIAGJCCEX7MVRX9IRWBIKG) and the Economic Innovation Group (https://www.arcgis.com/apps/dashboards/c473c71f0704408f934fbdc342caf1f1) to explore eligible tracts.

BEFORE YOU BEGIN:
- Please note that this form must be completed in ONE sitting. The form does not include a "save" function, so applicants should be prepared to complete and submit all required information during a single session. The timing of a submission will have no impact on the consideration of the recommendation. - Review the latest Frequently Asked Questions document linked on the GO-Biz Opportunity Zones Program website (https://business.ca.gov/resources/infrastructure-development/opportunity-zones-incalifornia/) - Review the Local Authority Recommendation Form Instructions (this document).

Submit one form per eligible census tract being recommended. Completed forms must be submitted by 11:59 pm on July 25, 2026. Incomplete forms and submissions received after the deadline will not be considered.

Please submit all questions regarding this form to https://forms.cloud.microsoft/g/CNmhbGAkSN. Submitted questions will be reviewed and incorporated into future FAQ updates, as appropriate. A direct response will not be provided.

Continues on the next page.
1 Census Tract Identification

1. *Select the County this census tract is located within:
• Drop-down selection

2. *Recommended Census Tract:
• Text box (limited to a numerical value only)
Please include the full 11-digit Census Tract GEOID (Geographic Identifier). For example, for census tract 06001400100, you would type in “06001400100”. Census tract numbers that are incomplete or unrecognizable will not be considered.

3. List any California-based federally or non-federally recognized tribes within this census tract:
• Text box
Please separate each tribal entity with a semicolon (;) Recommending Entity

4. *Recommending Entity Name:
• Text box

5. *Recommending Entity Type: (select one)
• City/Municipality
• County
• Special District
• Regional Joint Powers Authority
• Council of Governments
• Tribal Governments

6. *Recommending Entity Address: Street Address
• Text box

7. *Recommending Entity Address: City
• Text box
Please include the city name as you would in an address. For example, for the City of Sacramento, you would type “Sacramento”.

8. *Recommending Entity Address: Zip Code
• Text box
Continues on the next page.
2 9. *Recommending Entity Website:
• Text box
Authorized Submitter Contact Information
A submitter must occupy a position within the recommending entity and be authorized to complete this form on the entity’s behalf. Outside consultants are not eligible to submit a recommendation. For example, any city employee authorized by the city may submit a recommendation on the city’s behalf.

10. *Submitter First Name:
• Text box

11. *Submitter Last Name:
• Text box

12. *Submitter Job Title:
• Text box

13. *Submitter Email Address:
• Text box

14. *Submitter Phone Number:
• Text box
Census Tract Questions

15. *Is there currently committed public investment (local, state, or federal) in the census tract you are recommending?
• Yes
• No
The funding must already be "committed." For example, if a jurisdiction is planning to apply for future public funding, but has not yet secured it, the answer would be “No.” Examples of local investment may include, but are not limited to, business improvement districts, benefit assessment districts, or local funds directed toward infrastructure and public improvement (development impact fees, local and sales use taxes, general obligation bond measures, or enterprise revenue bonds). Please DO NOT include tax increment financing (TIF) districts in this response, as Questions 20-22 specifically address TIF districts.

Continues on the next page.
3 16. IF YES TO #15: List the funding source(s), approximate date of secured investment, and a general description of the investment, including the dollar amount:
• Text box
Please separate each funding source with a semicolon (;). For example: Funding Source Name, Date, Brief Description; Funding Source Name, Date, Brief Description.

If the local investment is based on any of the examples listed in the instructions for Question 15, please include the approximate amount of annual revenue collected.

17. *Does this census tract include a site identified in a Housing Element approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for affordable housing and/or does it support the implementation of Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals? • Yes
• No
Please see the Housing Element Download Tool (https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-open-data-tools/housingelement-download-tool) for the latest Housing Elements approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

18. *Does this census tract include one or more shovel-ready sites as generally defined by the GO-Biz "Business Ready Sites" Program?
• Yes
• No
Shovel-ready sites are NOT required to be on the GO-Biz Business Ready Sites tool. Shovel-ready sites may also be existing buildings that are ready for substantial improvements. Shovel-ready sites generally include the following factors (sites are NOT required to have all factors):
• All utilities (water, sewer, electric power, telecommunications, etc.) are at the site (or within 500ft) or a formal plan must be in place to extend them to the site • Minimum of 500 kw available electrical service, 3 phase power supply, 480 voltage • Site must be zoned and fully entitled for headquarters, R&D, and/or industrial manufacturing projects • Grading completed - soil characteristics disclosed and groundwork completed • Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) certified, with no liabilities (soil/cleanup or any other remediation)

19. IF YES TO #18: Please list the site address(es):
• Text box
Please separate each address with a semicolon (;). For example: 123 Main Street, City, Zip Code; 132 Second Street, City Zip Code. Incomplete or false addresses will not be considered.

Continues on the next page.
4 20. *Is the census tract located within an existing Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District (such as an EIFD, CRIA, or CRD)?
• Yes, the TIF District is Fully Formed
• Yes, the TIF District is in Process
• No
A TIF District is considered to be “fully formed” if the district’s governing public financing authority (PFA) has officially enacted a resolution of formation and adopted the final infrastructure financing plan (IFP). A TIF District is considered to be “in process” if the local government has adopted a formal resolution of intention to the establishment.

If the census tract is located within a different type of financing district, please include that information in Questions 15 &16.

21. IF FULLY FORMED OR IN PROCESS TO #20: Provide the name of the TIF District(s):
• Text box
Please separate each TIF District with a semicolon (;).

22. IF NO TO #20: Are you exploring or considering the formation of a TIF District that will encompass this census tract within the next 6 months?
• Yes
• No

23. *Has the governing body of the recommending entity approved this recommendation via one of the following options?
• Proclamation
• Record of Action Taken
• Resolution
• No

24. IF PROCLAMATION / RECORD / RESOLUTION TO #23: Provide the relevant proclamation, record of action taken, or resolution link:
• Text box

25. List community and/or regional partners in support of this recommendation:
• Text box
Please separate each partner’s name with a semicolon (;). Letters of support will be accepted during the public comment period in August. Please note that letters of support are not required but are encouraged as a means to demonstrate stakeholder engagement.

Continues on the next page.
5 26. *Select the following strategic sectors, as defined by the California Jobs First State Blueprint, that this census tract may support (Select as many as apply):
• Aerospace & Defense (Aircraft, Shipbuilding, Space, Defense & Satellites) • Childcare
• Clean Economy (Batteries, Wind, Solar, ZEV, Critical Minerals, Hydrogen, Carbon Management) • Creative Economy
• Education & Skilled Workforce
• Financial & Professional Services
• Healthcare
• High-Tech (Semiconductors & Microelectronics, Hardware, Software & Services, Artificial Intelligence, Fusion, Robotics, Quantum)
• Housing
• Infrastructure (Broadband, Transportation Infrastructure, Transmission & Distribution, Water) • Life Sciences (Medtech, Pharma/biotech)
• Manufacturing (Advanced and/or Precision)
• Tourism & Outdoor Recreation
• Transport & Logistics
• Working Lands & Water (Agricultural Production, Food Processing, Agtech & Farm Equipment, Bioeconomy, Blue economy/tech)
• None of the above
Please note that the sectors are listed in alphabetical order with no indication of prioritization. A census tract may support a strategic sector if it has specific development projects (e.g., industrial parks, business incubators & accelerators, research & innovation hubs, etc.) that attract or expand one of the Jobs First strategic sectors.

27. Please provide a brief description (max 1,000 characters, including spaces. approximately 200 words) of how this census tract will advance the selected sectors with relevant examples:
• Text box

28. Please provide a brief description (max 1000 characters, including spaces, approximately 200 words) of how this census tract will incentivize and/or appeal to public and/or private investment opportunities:
• Text box

29. Submit one form per census tract. If you are nominating multiple census tracts, please list all census tracts in order of preference:
• Text Box
Please answer this question consistently for each form you submit. Separate each census tract number with a semicolon (;) and indicate preference by listing the census tracts in order of most preferred to least preferred. List the census tracts in the same order on each form you submit.

Continues on the next page.
6 Certification and Signature
Certification Statement
I hereby certify, on behalf of the submitting jurisdiction, that the information contained in this form is true, accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that submitting inaccurate or misleading information may result in disqualification. I am authorized by the governing body of my jurisdiction to submit this recommendation.

30. *Submitter Full Name:
• Text box

31. *Date of Submission:
• Text box
End of the form.
7 SAN RAFAEL CHAMBER
WE SUPPORT LOCAL BUSINESS, UNITE COM UNITY, AND TAKE ACTION.

May 21, 2026
Dear Paul, Micah, Stacey, and City Colleagues,
Thank you for the opportunity to meet recently to discuss the Opportunity Zone 2.0 opportunity in East San Rafael.

Following that meeting, we convened as the East San Rafael Working Group to continue the discussion with landowners and business leaders. We reached a clear and strong consensus that pursuing Opportunity Zone 2.0 is both necessary and timely for East San Rafael.

We also agreed that census tract .02 should be the first-choice tract, as it best reflects East San Rafael's economic geography, including the concentration of existing businesses and the majority of viable opportunity sites. At the same time, we reached consensus that tracts .03 and .04 are essential to any comprehensive and effective long-term sea-level rise and resilience strategy, and that, unless we receive clear guidance that only one tract may be nominated, the full East San Rafael area should be included.

We recognize that the Opportunity Zone 2.0 program presents both risks and possibilities. However, the timing of this opportunity aligns unusually well with the City's current planning and implementation work.

The Southeast San Rafael Specific Plan provides a strong foundation for coordinating policies, programs, and Investments so that Opportunity Zone designation advances shared priorities rather than working at cross-purposes. With clear local direction and alignment, this tool allows the City and community to proactively shape outcomes rather than react to market pressures.

From our perspective, Opportunity Zone 2.0 represents one of the most meaningful tools available to attract the scale and type of capital that successful implementation of the Specific Plan will require. Used thoughtfully, it can help support existing businesses, create quality jobs, advance critical infrastructure and climate resilience investments, and reduce pressures that could otherwise accelerate residential, commercial, and industrial displacement. We do not expect another opportunity of this magnitude in the foreseeable future.

We look forward to continuing the conversation and wanted to clearly communicate where the East San Rafael Working Group stands so that our upcoming meeting can be as productive as possible. We hope to use that time to discuss next steps in preparing a strong and aligned proposal for the State, and in continuing to build momentum around an Opportunity Zone that reinforces adopted City goals and delivers durable benefits for East San Rafael and the City as a whole. ~ {;,.

Karen Strolia
CEO, San Rafael Chamber Chair, East San Rafael Working Group CC: Omar Carrera, Canal Alliance
____________________________________________________________________________________

FOR CITY CLERK ONLY
Council Meeting: _______________________
Disposition: ___________________________
Agenda Item No: SA 1.a
Meeting Date: July 20, 2026

SAN RAFAEL SUCCESSOR AGENCY AGENDA REPORT
Department: Community & Economic Development
Prepared by: Micah Hinkle,
Director of Community &
Economic Development
Ariel Gutierrez,
Senior Management Analyst
City Manager Approval: ______________
TOPIC: DECLARATION OF EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND AND SALE OF ANDERSEN DRIVE REMNANT PARCEL (APN 018-180-52)
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER SAN

RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DECLARING THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT ANDERSEN DRIVE (APN 018-180-52) TO BE EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221(F)(1)(E); AND AUTHORIZING THE

SALE OF THE PARCEL TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, MARIN SANITARY

SERVICE OR OTHER ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, PURSUANT TO THE

NEGOTIATED PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $40,000 FOR THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY; CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURUSANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15312 AND 15061(B)(3)
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the Successor Agency adopt a resolution of the San Rafael Successor Agency to the Former San Rafael Redevelopment Agency declaring the real property located at Andersen Drive (APN 018-180-52) to be exempt Surplus Land under Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(E); and authorizing the sale of the parcel to the adjacent property owner, Marin Sanitary Service or other adjacent property owner, pursuant to the negotiated Purchase and Sale Agreement in an amount that does not exceed $40,000 for the value of the property.

BACKGROUND:

The San Rafael Redevelopment Agency (“Former RDA”) was dissolved on February 1, 2012, pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) x1 26, as subsequently amended by AB 1484 (collectively, the “Redevelopment Dissolution Statutes”). The City of San Rafael, acting in its capacity as the San Rafael Successor Agency (“Successor Agency”), was established to conclude the operations of the Former RDA. This responsibility includes the proper management and disposition of real property assets.

In May 2015, the Successor Agency adopted its Long-Range Property Management Plan (“LRPMP”), which the California Department of Finance later approved. The LRPMP identified APN 018-180-52, a remnant parcel located on Andersen Drive (See Figure 1), as lacking independent development potential.

It directed that this land be sold, with the proceeds distributed according to California Health & Safety SAN RAFAEL SUCCESSOR AGENCY AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2
Code Section 34191.5(c)(2)(B). This parcel is the last remaining property on the Successor Agency’s records, and its disposition is necessary to fulfill the requirements for the dissolution of redevelopment agencies.

Note: At their meeting of June 17, 2024, the San Rafael Successor Agency adopted Resolution No. 2024- 01 as required to formally dissolve the Agency pursuant to procedures established by the State of California. The resolution and supporting documentation were reviewed by the Marin County Oversight Committee and subsequently forwarded to the state Department of Finance. In the course of the state’s processing of the dissolution action, it was determined that the Successor Agency was still the property owner of record for this parcel, thus effectively halting the dissolution process, pending disposition.

Figure 1. Parcel Location
The parcel is approximately 10,454 square feet, zoned for Light Industrial/Office use, and adjacent to PG&E facilities. It was created as a remnant parcel after the completion of the Andersen Drive extension and roadway improvements project, resulting in a hillside parcel with no viable public use. Since it cannot be developed independently, the property has remained unused since its creation.

ANALYSIS:

To prepare for the disposition, the City commissioned an independent Appraisal Report (Attachment 2) for the Andersen Drive parcel. This completed appraisal establishes a fair market value of $40,000, which serves as the basis for the proposed Purchase and Sale Agreement with Marin Sanitary Service (Attachment 3), the adjacent property owner.

According to the Surplus Land Act outlined in California Government Code Section 54220 et seq., surplus government-owned property must first be offered to developers of affordable housing, park agencies, SAN RAFAEL SUCCESSOR AGENCY AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3
and other qualifying entities before it can be sold. However, California Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(E) provides an exemption for surplus land that was previously part of a street, right-of-way, or easement, allowing it to be conveyed to the owner of an adjacent property. The Andersen Drive parcel qualifies for this exemption because it was created as a remnant parcel from the Andersen Drive extension and roadway improvements project.

The Successor Agency has negotiated a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Marin Sanitary Service to sell the property at its appraised fair market value of $40,000. This agreement provides a clear path for disposition, ensures compliance with state dissolution statutes, and facilitates the timely sale of a property that has no independent public or economic utility. Should the transaction not close, the Successor Agency retains the authority to list the parcel at the appraised value, accept the highest qualified offer received, or conduct a public auction until a sale is achieved. Alternatively, the Successor Agency may sell the property to an adjacent property if there was interest.

In accordance with California Health & Safety Code Section 34191.5(c)(2)(B), proceeds from the sale, after deducting the City’s documented holding and transactional costs, will be sent to the Marin County Auditor-Controller, who will distribute the funds to the affected taxing entities in proportion to their property tax allocations.

The disposition of the Andersen Drive remnant parcel (APN 018-180-52) aligns with the Successor Agency’s Long-Range Property Management Plan, complies with the requirements of the Redevelopment Dissolution Statutes, and meets the Surplus Land Act exemption outlined in California Government Code Section 54221. As the last property held by the Successor Agency, its sale represents the final step in concluding the former San Rafael Redevelopment Agency’s operations and fulfills the legal obligation to dispose of all remaining real property assets. Approving this action will ensure compliance with state law, return proceeds to the taxing entities, and relieve the City of ongoing management duties for a parcel with no independent use.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The proposed resolution authorizing the sale of the surplus property is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to section 15312 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which exempts sales of surplus government property, except for parcels located in an area of statewide, regional, or areawide concern, or where the property has previous uses that may have generated hazardous wastes or hazardous substances. Neither exception applies to the subject property.

In addition, the proposed resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the sale of the surplus property or its implementation would have a significant effect on the environment.

COMMUNITY OUTREACH:

Since the parcel is a roadway remnant with no potential for public use and its disposition is mandated by state law, no community outreach was required or conducted.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The sale is expected to generate approximately $40,000 in one-time proceeds. After accounting for eligible holding and transactional costs, the net proceeds will be remitted to the Marin County AuditorController for distribution to the affected taxing entities. This transaction will not impact the City’s General Fund.

SAN RAFAEL SUCCESSOR AGENCY AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4
OPTIONS:

The Successor Agency has the following options to consider on this matter:

1. Adopt the resolution as presented.

2. Adopt resolution with modifications.

3. Direct staff to return with more information.

4. Take no action.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Staff recommends that the Successor Agency adopt a resolution of the San Rafael Successor Agency to the Former San Rafael Redevelopment Agency declaring the real property located at Andersen Drive (APN 018-180-52) to be exempt Surplus Land under Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(E); and authorizing the sale of the parcel to the adjacent property owner, Marin Sanitary Service or other adjacent property owner, pursuant to the negotiated Purchase and Sale Agreement in an amount that does not exceed $40,000 for the value of the property.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution

2. Appraisal Report
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE FORMER

SAN RAFAEL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DECLARING THE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT ANDERSEN DRIVE (APN 018-18052) TO BE EXEMPT SURPLUS LAND UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54221(f)(1)(E); AUTHORIZING THE SALE

OF THE PARCEL TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER, MARIN SANITARY

SERVICE OR OTHER ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER PURSUANT TO THE

NEGOTIATED PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $40,000 FOR THE VALUE OF THE PROEPRTY-; CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION: EXEMPT PURUSANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTIONS 15312 AND 15061(B)(3)
WHEREAS, the Former San Rafael Redevelopment Agency (“Former RDA”) was dissolved on February 1, 2012, pursuant to Assembly Bill x1 26, as amended by AB 1484, collectively known as the Redevelopment Dissolution Statutes; and WHEREAS, the City of San Rafael, acting as the San Rafael Successor Agency (“Successor Agency”), is responsible for winding down the operations and disposing of the Former RDA’s real property assets in accordance with state law; and WHEREAS, the Successor Agency’s Long Range- Property Management Plan (“LRPMP”), approved by the California Department of Finance, identifies the Andersen Drive remnant parcel (APN 018-180-52) as lacking independent development potential and directs that it be sold with proceeds distributed pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34191.5(c)(2)(B); and
WHEREAS, the parcel is approximately 10,454 square feet, zoned Light Industrial/Office, created as a remnant following the Andersen Drive extension and roadway improvements project, and has no viable public or independent economic use; and
WHEREAS, an independent appraisal completed on December 1, 2025, for the Successor Agency has established the fair market value of the parcel to be $40,000; and WHEREAS, the Successor Agency has negotiated a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Marin Sanitary Service, the adjacent property owner, to acquire the parcel for its appraised value; and
WHEREAS, the parcel qualifies as Exempt Surplus Land pursuant to Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(E), as it was previously part of a street, right of way, or public easement and may therefore be conveyed directly to an adjacent property owner; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Rafael Successor Agency to the Former San Rafael Redevelopment Agency does hereby resolve as follows:

1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct.

2. The sale of the real property at Andersen Drive (APN 018-180-52) is Exempt Surplus Land under Government Code Section 54221(f)(1)(E) as it constitutes a sale of a remainder parcel from a roadway project to an adjacent property owner.

3. The Successor Agency hereby approves and authorizes the sale of the parcel to Marin Sanitary Service or other adjacent property pursuant to the negotiated Purchase and Sale Agreement for the appraised fair market value of $40,000 and authorizes the City Manager or designee to execute all documents necessary to complete the transaction, in a form approved by the City Attorney or designee.

4. This action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15312 of the State CEQA Guidelines, which exempts sales of surplus government property, except for parcels located in an area of statewide, regional, or areawide concern, or where the property has previous uses that may have generated hazardous wastes or hazardous substances, and neither exception applies to the subject property. In addition, the proposed resolution is exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the sale of the surplus property or its implementation would have a significant effect on the environment.

5. The net proceeds from the sale, after deduction of eligible holding and transactional costs, shall be remitted to the Marin County Auditor-Controller for distribution to affected taxing entities in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 34191.5(c)(2)(B).

I, LINDSAY LARA, Secretary of the City of San Rafael Successor Agency, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a meeting of the Successor Agency of said City held on Monday, the 20th day of July 2026, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: MEMBERS:

NOES: MEMBERS:

ABSENT: MEMBERS:

_____________________
LINDSAY LARA, City Clerk

AGI VALUATIONS

APPRAISAL REPORT
MARIN COUNTY APN 018-180-52
14,347 SQUARE FOOT REMNANT PARCEL ON ANDERSEN DRIVE

SAN RAFAEL, CALIFORNIA
AS OF DECEMBER 1, 2025
AGI FILE NO.: 25-10-015

PREPARED FOR

CITY OF SAN RAFAEL

C/O SULLINA SMITH,

PREPARED BY

AGI VALUATIONS

VALUATIONS
December 4, 2025
City of San Rafael
c/o Sullina Smith
1400 Fifth Avenue,
San Rafael, CA 94901
Re: Valuation of Marin County APN 018-180-52
AGI File No.: 25-10-015
Ms. Smith:

In accordance with your request, I have conducted the required investigation, researched the necessary data, and made certain analyses that have enabled me to form an opinion of the real property identified as Marin County Assessor Parcel Number 018-180-52, a vacant, 14,347 square foot property located on the south side of Andersen Drive within the City of San Rafael, California. The effective date of value ofthis analysis is December 1, 2025.

This appraisal report is prepared in compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice adopted by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation. Please read the report and inform the appraiser of any errors or omissions you are aware of prior to utilizing it.

The value stated herein is based on my understanding of the property as represented to me by the client and/or the client's representatives and/or professional consultants as well as other available sources. I direct your attention to the "Introduction" and "Description of the Property" sections of this appraisal report. It is your responsibility to read the report and inform the appraiser of any errors or omissions you are aware of prior to utilizing the report or making it available to any third party.

Based on an inspection of the subject property and the investigation and analyses undertaken, I have formed the opinion subject to the assumptions and limiting conditions set forth in this report that as of December 1, 2025, the market value of the fee simple interest in the subject property is:

FORTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($40,000)
The appraisal report that follows sets forth the identification of the property, property rights appraised, assumptions and limiting conditions, pertinent facts about the subject property, comparable data, results of my investigation and analyses and the reasoning leading to the conclusions set forth.
20 Jennifer Lane ♦ Novato, CA 94947
Tel: 415-902-7579
e-mail: [email protected]
•
Should you desire a quick reference to the most important information, I direct your attention to the "Introduction" and "Executive Summary" sections ofthis report.

Respectfully submitted,

AGI VALUATIONS
([)J~~ \
David M. Harding, MAI
State Certification No. AG027868

AG/ VALUATIONS
•

AGI VALUATIONS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page
Letter of Transmittal
Table of Contents
Executive Summary................................................................................................................. 5 Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 6 Property Identification...................................................................................................... 6 Scope of the Assignment.................................................................................................. 6 Client, Intended Use, and Intended Users........................................................................ 6 Purpose of the Appraisal .................................................................................................. 6 Date of Appraisal.............................................................................................................. 6 Effective Date of Value.................................................................................................... 6 Date of Inspection ............................................................................................................ 6 Property Rights Appraised ............................................................................................... 7 Definition of Market Value .............................................................................................. 7 General Assumptions and Standard Limiting Conditions................................................ 7 Extraordinary Assumptions.............................................................................................. 9 Hypothetical Conditions................................................................................................... 9 Privacy Policy................................................................................................................... 9 Experience of Appraiser................................................................................................. 10 Local Setting .......................................................................................................................... 11 Area Map........................................................................................................................ 14 Description of the Property.................................................................................................... 18 Subject Parcel Map......................................................................................................... 20 Subject Aerial Photographs............................................................................................ 21 Subject Photographs....................................................................................................... 22 Highest and Best Use ............................................................................................................. 24 Valuation Methodology ......................................................................................................... 26 Sales Comparison Approach.................................................................................................. 28 Sale Summary & Adjustment Grid ................................................................................ 31 Certification.................................................................................................................... 33 Addenda ................................................................................................................................. 35 Qualifications of David M. Harding, MAI
Comparable Sale Individual Sale Sheets and Aerial Photographs AGI VALUATIONS Page 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Property Address: There is no known address associated with the subject property; the adjacent property to the west has an address of 1220 Andersen Drive and the property directly across
Andersen Drive from the subject (to the north/northeast) has an address of 1281 Andersen Drive.

Assessor Parcel Number: 018-180-52
Ownership: San Rafael Redevelopment Agency
Property Rights Appraised: Fee Simple Interest
Value Estimated: Market Value
Date of Value: December 1, 2025
Description: The subject property is an unimproved parcel with a total area of 14,347 square feet, or 0.329 acre. The site is irregularly shaped. The northern portions of the site are generally level and slightly above street grade and are open grasslands; the southern portions are upslope and wooded with brush and various types of mature trees. The subject property is
considered a remnant parcel, reportedly created from a public works project which occurred several decades ago.

Zoning: LI/O
Exposure / Marketing Time: 3-6 months
Highest & Best Use: Open space
Market Value Conclusion: $40,000
AGI VALUATIONS Page 6

INTRODUCTION
Property Identification
The subject property is identified as Marin County Assessor Parcel Number 018-180-52. There is no known address associated with the subject property; the adjacent property to the west has an address of 1220 Andersen Drive and the property directly across Andersen Drive from the subject (to the north/northeast) has an address of 1281 Andersen Drive.

Scope of the Assignment
In preparing this appraisal, I did the following:
• Researched information on the subject area and market conditions; • Inspected the subject property;
• Reviewed the legally permissible and physically possible uses of the subject property and concluded to its highest and best use;
• Researched numerous transactions of potential comparable sale properties; • Analyzed the market data and applied the sales comparison approach; • Prepared an appraisal report in compliance with USPAP standards.

Client, Intended Use, and Intended Users
The appraisal is to be used by the client, the City of San Rafael, for sale negotiation purposes.

Purpose of the Appraisal
The purpose of the appraisal is to estimate the market value of the fee simple interest in the subject property as of the effective date of value of this report.

Date of Appraisal
The date of the appraisal report is the date of the letter of transmittal.

Effective Date of Value
The effective date of value of this report is December 1, 2025.

Date of Inspection
The subject property was inspected by David M. Harding, MAI on November 11, 2025.

AGI VALUATIONS Page 7
Property Rights Appraised
The purpose of the appraisal is to estimate the market value of the fee simple interest in the subject property as described herein.

Fee Simple is defined by the Appraisal Institute as absolute ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate subject only to the limitations of eminent domain, escheat, police power, and taxation.

Definition of Market Value
According to the Appraisal Institute, the current definition of market value is:

The most probable price which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:

1. buyer and seller are typically motivated;

2. both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they consider their best interests;

3. a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;

4. payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and

5. the price represents the normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the sale.

General Assumptions and Standard Limiting Conditions
This appraisal has been made with the following general assumptions:
• No responsibility is assumed for the legal description provided or for matters pertaining to legal or title considerations. Title to the property is assumed to be good and marketable unless otherwise stated.
• The property is appraised free and clear of any or all liens or encumbrances unless otherwise stated.
• Responsible ownership and competent property management are assumed. • The information furnished by others is believed to be reliable, but no warranty is given for its accuracy.

AGI VALUATIONS Page 8
• It is assumed that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the property, subsoil, or structure that render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for such conditions or for obtaining the engineering studies that may be required to discover them. • It is assumed that the property is in full compliance with all applicable federal, state and local environmental regulations and laws unless the lack of compliance is stated, described, and considered in the appraisal report.
• It is assumed that all required licenses, certificates of occupancy, consents and other legislative or administrative authority from any local, state or national government or private entity or organization have been or can be obtained or renewed for any use on which the opinion of value contained in this report is based. • It is assumed that the use of the land and improvements is confined within the boundaries or property lines of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted in this report.
• The forecasts, projections, or operating estimates contained herein are based on current market conditions, anticipated short-term supply and demand factors, and a continued stable economy. These forecasts are, therefore, subject to changes with future considerations.

This report has been made with the following general limiting conditions:
• Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication. • The appraiser, by reason of this appraisal, is not required to give further consultation or testimony or to be in attendance in court with reference to the property in question unless arrangements have been previously made. The fee for this appraisal does not include payment for pretrial conferences or the taking of expert testimony at deposition or trial. • Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report (especially any conclusions as to value, the identity of the appraiser, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected or any reference to the Appraisal Institute, or to the MAI or SRA designations) shall be disseminated to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media without the prior written consent and approval of the appraiser. • This report and all information contained herein was prepared for the sole and exclusive benefit of the client, as specified herein, and is intended for their use only. No one except the client and the intended users specified herein may rely on this report for any purpose.

Any person or entity who obtained or reads this report, or a copy thereof, other than the client specified herein, expressly assumes all the risk of damages to himself or third persons arising out of reliance thereon of use thereof and waives the right to bring any action based on the appraisal, directly or indirectly, and the appraiser shall have no liability to any such person or entity.

AGI VALUATIONS Page 9
Extraordinary Assumptions
An extraordinary assumption is defined by the Appraisal Institute as:
“An assumption, directly related to a specific assignment, which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions. Extraordinary assumptions presume as fact otherwise uncertain information about physical, legal or economic characteristics of the subject property; or about conditions external to the property such as market conditions or trends; or about the integrity of data used in an analysis. An extraordinary assumption may be used in an assignment only if:
• It is required to properly develop credible opinions and conclusions; • The appraiser has a reasonable basis for the extraordinary assumption; • Use of the extraordinary assumption results in a credible analysis; and • The appraiser complies with the disclosure requirements set forth in USPAP for extraordinary assumptions.”
This analysis does not include any extraordinary assumptions.

Hypothetical Conditions
A hypothetical condition is defined by the Appraisal Institute as:
“That which is contrary to what exists but is supposed for the purpose of analysis. Hypothetical conditions assume conditions contrary to known facts about physical, legal, or economic characteristics of the subject property; or about conditions external to the property, such as market conditions or trends; or about the integrity of data used in an analysis. A hypothetical condition may be used in an assignment only if:
• Use of the hypothetical condition is clearly required for legal purposes, for purposes of reasonable analysis, or for purposes of comparison; • Use of the hypothetical condition results in a credible analysis; and • The appraiser complies with the disclosure requirements set forth in USPAP for hypothetical conditions.”
This analysis does not include any hypothetical conditions.

Privacy Policy
This is a required disclosure. AGI Valuations is committed to protecting our clients’ personal and financial information. This privacy statement addresses what nonpublic personal information we collect, what we do with it, and how we protect it.

AGI Valuations may collect and maintain several types of personal information in the course of providing you with appraisal services, such as: information we receive from you on letters of engagement, correspondence, or conversations, including, but not limited to, your name, address, phone number, information about your transactions with us, our affiliates or others, including but not limited to, payment history, parties to transactions and other financial information; information we receive from a consumer-reporting agency such as a credit history. We may disclose the AGI VALUATIONS Page 10
nonpublic personal information about you described above, primarily to provide you with the appraisal services you seek from us. We do not disclose nonpublic personal information about clients or former clients except as required or permitted by law.

Experience of Appraiser
David M. Harding, MAI has been involved in the analysis and valuation of all types of real property interests throughout Northern California over the past two decades. Mr. Harding has appraised numerous undeveloped land properties in Marin County and throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. Qualification data of David M. Harding, MAI, is included in the Addenda of this report.

AGI VALUATIONS Page 11

LOCAL SETTING
Marin County
One of the original California counties, Marin County was founded in 1850. It is located north of San Francisco, linked by the Golden Gate Bridge. Long known for its beauty and mild Mediterranean climate, the county is comprised of 521 square miles of land and is bordered to the west by the Pacific Ocean, to the south by San Francisco Bay, to the north by Sonoma County, and to the east by San Pablo Bay.

Marin is usually considered a suburban residential and recreational area, but ranching and dairy farming are major features of the rural areas of West Marin. It is also a location for “clean” industry, including firms that are active in movie and video production, computer software, communications equipment, printing, and the manufacture of plastic products, ceramics, candles, and cheese. The county has a wide variety of topography, climate, and vegetation, from the tidal flats of the Bay to the slopes of Mt. Tamalpais rising 2,600 feet above sea level, and the coastal fog that tempers the warm inland temperatures in summer.

Originally inhabited by the Coast Miwok Indians, Marin was divided into great ranchos during ownership by Mexico. The United States occupation of California began in 1846 and it became a state in 1850. At first, Marin was primarily a farming, ranching and lumber county, connected to San Francisco by ferries. In 1937, the Golden Gate Bridge was completed and the pressure for development increased, as many of those who worked in San Francisco could now easily commute from the more rural Marin.

Over the years, its progressive residents have supported the purchase of land for parks and community uses and preserved considerable ranches and farms, while placing highly restrictive controls on the potential for unbridled growth that has occurred in other metropolitan Bay Area counties. Only 11% of Marin’s land area is developed and another 5% or less is considered developable. Of the balance, 36% is agricultural, 33% parkland and 15% open space and watershed. A heritage of environmental activism has preserved 84% of Marin County as open space and agriculture land but has limited land for residential and commercial development.

Population - One characteristic of Marin County is its relatively small (compared to other Bay Area counties) population. Over the years, people who moved to Marin valued open space preservation over unbridled housing and population growth, resulting in fewer people and high premiums for approved limited housing. Consequently, the populace is affluent and viewed by many as elitist. These factors have generally resulted in a county with less density, very low housing growth, and a population that is highly educated.

As of 2020, Marin County had a population of 262,321. Since 2010, the population has increased by only 3.9% from 252,423, an average annual compounded rate of 0.39%. According to forecasts published by the California Department of Transportation and the California Economic Forecast, population growth in the county is expected to continue to be negligible, with forecasts of 270,366 residents in 2025 and 278,965 in 2035, which represent average annual compounded gains of

0.61% and 0.62%, respectively, over the 2020 total. Growth in the county is limited primarily by the lack of developable land. A large proportion of the county’s land is designated for ultra lowdensity development, and has inadequate water supply to support new development. A large AGI VALUATIONS Page 12
proportion of the county’s acreage is also designated as watershed, and county, state, and national parklands. Most of the county has hilly, rugged, and mostly forested terrain with exceptional natural beauty.

Marin is a county of generally affluent residents who are well educated. According to United States Census data, Marin County had the 13th highest median household income in the United States in 2016, at $103,845. According to the 2017 American Community Survey, 57.5% of Marin residents 25 years of age or older had attained a bachelor’s degree or higher. The county’s academic performance is substantially higher than Bay Area and statewide figures. In addition to public schools, there are numerous private schools in Marin County, particularly for grades K-12.

Housing - Due to the aforementioned low-density and natural beauty, Marin’s proximity to San Francisco, and its highly affluent population, housing prices here are some of the highest in the country.

Marin had a total of 104,990 total housing units as of the 2020 Census, with a home ownership rate of 63.6%. The majority of these housing units (63,666, or 60.6% of the total) were singlefamily detached homes.

Most homes in Marin are located within five miles of U.S. 101, the major north-south highway.

Density is greatest at the southern end of the county to accommodate the large numbers who work in San Francisco. Consequently, prices generally are greater in cities or towns near the Golden Gate Bridge, and become less expensive further north.

Economy - Like most of the Bay Area, the economy of Marin is based more on the high-tech sector than more traditional employment bases. These high-tech industries include biomedical and other biosciences, computers and electronics, telecommunications, multimedia, movie and television production, banking and finance and environmental technology. Most employers in Marin are small and medium-sized businesses.

As of August 2025, the unemployment rate in Marin County was 4.6%, lower than the state rate of 5.8%.

Transportation - Highway 101 is the critical transportation artery in Marin County. It provides north-south access from the Golden Gate Bridge to the Sonoma County border. Highway 101 experiences substantial congestion during commute times. Route 37 links the Novato area to Napa Valley and Vallejo. I-580 in San Rafael leads east across the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge to the East Bay and I-80. The Golden Gate Bridge and Highway Transportation District operates regular ferry service from Larkspur Landing to downtown San Francisco. It also operates a system of buses that provide commuter transportation to downtown San Francisco and connections between Marin and Sonoma cities. Major airports are located in both San Francisco and Oakland. Gnoss Field in Marin and a growing commercial airport near Santa Rosa in Sonoma County provide additional air links. Commercial freight rail service exists from Novato to the north and east, but not to the south.

A light rail project (SMART) linking Sonoma County to San Rafael and the Larkspur Ferry Terminal was approved by the voters in November 2008. It began service in the summer of 2017.

AGI VALUATIONS Page 13
Weather and Climate - Marin County has a moderate climate that features many days of sunshine and moderate, comfortable temperatures. Average afternoon temperatures are in the low-70’s and average lows are in the mid-40’s. While the mean annual temperature is 67º, summer temperatures can approach 100º, but breezes off San Francisco Bay and ocean fog result in cool evenings.

Coastal areas and southern Marin also experience cooling fog during the summer months. Rainfall, averaging 27.5 inches per year, is typical during the period between October and March, and almost never occurs during the summer months.

City of San Rafael
Regional Setting - San Rafael is located in the east central part of Marin County, 18 miles north of downtown San Francisco and 11 miles from the Golden Gate Bridge. The city is 38 miles south of Santa Rosa, 36 miles southwest of Napa, and 22 miles northwest of Oakland. The Pacific Ocean is approximately 10 miles to the southwest.

The city is bordered on the west by San Anselmo and Ross and on the south by Larkspur and the unincorporated communities of Kentfield and Greenbrae. Novato lies several miles to the north.

The eastern edge of the city is formed by San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. The portion of San Francisco Bay south of the San Pedro Peninsula and west of the Marin Islands is commonly referred to as San Rafael Bay.

US Highway 101, a major freeway extending from Southern California to Washington state connects San Rafael to other cities in Marin County and the North Bay. Interstate 580, an auxiliary interstate connecting Marin County to the Central Valley, provides access to the East Bay. The western anchorage of the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge is located in San Rafael. San Rafael is also home to two SMART rail stations and the largest regional bus transit center in Marin County.

San Rafael has been the largest city in Marin County since its incorporation and the county seat since 1851. Most of the county’s population resides within 10 miles of San Rafael, contributing to the city’s role as the center of Marin’s economy.

San Rafael’s identity is shaped by its topography, particularly ridgelines and shoreline. Its southern edge is defined by Southern Heights and San Quentin Ridges. Its western edge follows the Terra Linda-Sleepy Hollow Divide and its northern edge follows Big Rock Ridge. Within the city itself, an east-west ridge divides San Rafael into two areas of roughly equal size, joined by US 101 and Lincoln Avenue at Puerto Suello Hill. The area south of this divide is generally known as Central San Rafael while the area to the north is North San Rafael. Another distinct geographic feature is the San Pedro Peninsula, which extends about three miles east from Central San Rafael to Point San Pedro. While San Rafael is the largest city in the county, its density is comparable to its neighbors. The average density is 3,625 persons per square mile. However, the city includes neighborhoods with densities ten times this average, as well as suburban density and rural residential areas.

History - San Rafael was first inhabited by the Coastal Miwok people, with a peak pre-European population of about 1,500. Settlements existed in what is now downtown San Rafael (Nanaguani), Terra Linda (Ewu), and Marinwood (Shotomko-cha). The Miwok inhabited the area for thousands of years, developing a rich culture and complex language. They were sustained by abundant natural resources, including forests, creeks, marshland, and the Bay.

AGI VALUATIONS Page 14

AREA MAP
AGI VALUATIONS Page 15
European settlement began in 1817 when Asistencia San Rafael Arcangel was established by Spanish Franciscan friars. Initially built as a sanitarium for Native Americans who had succumbed to European diseases, San Rafael Arcangel became the 20th of California’s 21st missions in 1822.

By the time the missions were secularized in 1833, the Miwok population had been severely reduced and their hunter/gatherer way of life destroyed. San Rafael and its environs were partitioned into land grants, which eventually became ranches and farms.

San Rafael’s designation as the county seat in 1851 established its early position as the center of Marin County and attracted much of the North Bay’s early growth. This was accelerated by construction of a rail line from the city to the ferry depot at Point San Quentin in 1870 and other rail lines linking Marin County with points north. Increasing commerce, development, and population led San Rafael to incorporate in 1874. The city’s population increased from 600 in 1870 to 2,276 in 1880.

The late 19th century was a time of expansion for San Rafael, as the city became a resort for San Franciscans, as well as a commercial and administrative center. Picnic grounds, summer homes for the wealthy, and hotels proliferated over the following decades. Dominican College was established in 1890, further diversifying the city’s economy and culture. By 1900, the population had reached 3,879. The city continued to grow at a moderate rate in the early 20th century, with new neighborhoods developed on the fringes of downtown.

The opening of the Golden Gate Bridge in 1937 heralded a growth boom in Marin County.

Commercial train service to San Rafael ended in 1940, the same year the US 101 viaduct was completed over San Rafael Creek. San Rafael’s population increased from 8,573 in 1940 to 38,977 in 1970. Population nearly doubled between 1960 and 1970 alone and jumped again in 1972 with the annexation of Terra Linda. Development during this period was auto-oriented and suburban in scale, with large subdivisions on the San Pedro Peninsula, in North San Rafael, and areas like Sun Valley. Northgate Mall was developed in the mid-1960s, creating a second major shopping district and regional destination.

During the 1970s and 80s, San Rafael saw a shift to multi-family housing types, with more apartments and planned unit developments. At the same time, the city’s employment base increased substantially, with new office parks, light industrial uses, and retail centers. More than half of Marin County’s employment growth during this period occurred in the San Rafael Planning Area, and San Rafael emerged as a major suburban job center. By 2020, the city had 1.8 jobs for every household, substantially above the regional average of 1.5.

Growth leveled off between 2000 and 2020 as the city’s neighborhoods matured and developable land became scarce. The number of households in the city increased just 3.5% during this 20-year period, compared to 19.3% during the two prior decades. Commute patterns also changed. As housing costs increased, a larger number of those working in San Rafael began commuting from places further away, leading to increased congestion.

AGI VALUATIONS Page 16
The following chart chronicles the city’s population growth over the last 150 years.

San Rafael Population Growth, 1870-2020
Demographics - San Rafael’s future will be influenced by demographic changes, including the aging of the population and increasing racial and ethnic diversity. The median age in the city rose from 30.5 in 1970 to 41.0 in 2018. The percentage of residents over 65 rose from 9% to 19% during the same period.

San Rafael experienced a decline in the number of residents in the 25 to 44 age cohort, who represented 33% of the population in 2000 and just 26% in 2018. At the same time, the number of children (persons under 18) in the city has increased 17% in the last 20 years, after declining through the 1980s and 90s.

As a result of these trends, there is likely strong demand for housing serving older adults and millennials, including homes in “urban” living environments like downtown San Rafael. The city’s single-family housing stock will continue to turn over as residents “age out” and younger families with children move to San Rafael. There is also a substantial need for affordable family-oriented housing, especially for larger households with children.

Economy - San Rafael will continue to be shaped by global and national economic trends, including a shift in retail from brick-and-mortar storefronts to on-line sales, an increase in telecommuting and remote work, and the growth of new industries and work technologies. All of these changes have implications for land use, transportation, social equity, and economic vitality.

Economic forecasts suggest that the Bay Area will continue to be a global magnet for technology and information-driven industries in the coming decades. It will also experience continued growth in health care, education, leisure and hospitality, and professional services. More than a million new jobs are anticipated in the region between 2015 and 2040. Most of this growth will occur in AGI VALUATIONS Page 17
the South Bay and in central cities like San Francisco and Oakland. However, San Rafael will remain the economic hub of Marin County, with about one-third of the county’s jobs. The city will remain an attractive choice for mid-sized companies seeking a location near Silicon Valley/San Francisco but close to the natural amenities of Marin County and the large North Bay labor pool.

Retail businesses employed approximately 5,000 people in San Rafael in 2018 and generated $1.9 billion in taxable sales. The variety of locally available goods and services is an important part of the quality of life. The City of San Rafael itself is dependent on taxable sales as a source of revenue, particularly from auto sales, building and construction, and general consumer goods. Sales of consumer goods were already declining during the 2010s, due to online sales and changing consumer preferences. The 2020 pandemic accelerated the decline, wreaking havoc on the economy, people’s lives, and city finances. New sources of tax revenue and employment will be needed as retail evolves. A strategic approach is needed to align the city’s economic development strategies with its equity goals, particularly with respect to opportunities for career advancement and creating wealth among lower income households.

San Rafael is expected to continue its role as the county’s principal industrial center, given its location at the crossroads of US 101 and I-580 and the limited options for industrial uses elsewhere in the county. Given the lower cost of industrial sites and buildings, it will be important to conserve these properties from competing higher-value land uses, including housing. While a few sites near high-quality transit may merit consideration for other uses, most of the industrial land supply should be protected from uses that may conflict with industry or have a negative impact on industrial operations.

AGI VALUATIONS Page 18

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
Address: There is no known address associated with the subject property; the adjacent property to the west has an address of 1220 Andersen Drive and the property directly across Andersen Drive from the subject (to the north/northeast) has an address of 1281 Andersen Drive.

Assessor Parcel Number: 018-180-52
Property Rights Appraised: Fee simple interest
Access: The property has 113.13’ of frontage along the south side of Andersen Drive, although there is no developed access or curb cuts to the parcel.

Physical Characteristics: The total area of the property is 14,347 square feet, or 0.329 acre.

The site is irregularly shaped. The northern portions of the site are generally level and slightly above street grade and are open grasslands; the southern portions are upslope and wooded with brush and various types of mature trees.

Utilities: All urban utilities necessary for development are available to the site.

Soil Conditions: The property is assumed to be free of any soil contamination or hazardous substances.

Entitlements: There are no development entitlements or approvals associated with the property.

Easements & Encumbrances: A title report was not provided. Evidence of small utility easements were observed in the eastern portion of the property. The property is assumed to be clear of any easements, encumbrances, covenants, restrictions, etc. which would limit or restrict its utility or marketability.

Natural Hazards: The lower, northern portions of the property are designated Zone AE, a flood hazard designation. The property is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Earthquake Fault Zone or within a fire hazard severity zone.

Improvements: The subject property is unimproved with any structural or site improvements, and has no known development history.

Zoning: The subject property has a zoning designation of LI/O, Light Industrial / Office District, which “provides landscaped settings for light industrial uses, research and development facilities, warehousing, AGI VALUATIONS Page 19
wholesale distributing and office uses.” Development standards for properties with this designation include a minimum lot area of 6,000 square feet, a minimum lot width of 60’, and a minimum front yard setback of 20’.

The general plan designation of the subject property, Light Industrial / Office, is consistent with the zoning designation. The maximum floor area ratio for properties with this designation is

0.38. Comments: The subject property is considered a remnant parcel, reportedly created from a public works project which occurred several decades ago.

AGI VALUATIONS Page 20

SUBJECT PARCEL MAP
AGI VALUATIONS Page 21

SUBJECT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS
Aerial photograph
Aerial photograph, 3D, facing southwest
AGI VALUATIONS Page 22

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
Subject, facing south/southeast
Subject property, facing southeast
AGI VALUATIONS Page 23

SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
Level / lower portion of site, facing northwest
Upper / steep portion of site
AGI VALUATIONS Page 24

HIGHEST AND BEST USE
According to the latest edition of the Appraisal of Real Estate, a publication of the Appraisal Institute, Highest and Best Use is defined as follows:
"The reasonable, probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value."
For a property to be utilized to its Highest and Best Use, the use must meet certain criteria, namely, (1) a use that is legally permissible, (2) a use that is physically possible, (3) a use that is financially feasible, and (4) that use which is maximally productive. In determining the Highest and Best Use of a property, these criteria are usually considered sequentially.

Legally Permissible Uses
In the broad spectrum of potential uses of a property, the most restrictive parameter is often the legal limitations, both public (zoning and building codes, master plan, etc.) and private (easements, use covenants, reversions, etc.).

As discussed in the “Description of the Property” chapter of this report, the subject property is zoned LI/O, Light Industrial / Office District, which permits a variety of industrial, warehousing, and office uses.

Physically Possible Uses
The subject property has physical constraints which restrict its development potential. Although the site totals 14,347 square feet – which exceeds the 6,000 square foot minimum lot area requirement per the LI/O zoning designation – actual potential developable area is significantly smaller due to the topography of the site as well as the 20’ front setback requirement.

Financially Feasible/Maximally Productive Uses
Of the possible uses determined by the two discussions above (legally permissible and physically possible), those to be considered further must be likely to produce the highest residual land value consistent with the rate of return warranted by the market.

The combination of the small site area (relative to typical industrially zoned properties in the neighborhood, which are at least an acre) of the subject property, its irregular shape, and its topographical conditions result in limited utility potential of the property and deem it not developable as a single entity. A likely potential buyer would be an adjacent property owner or a speculative investor. If assembled with an adjacent property, it would not be considered to improve the development potential of any adjacent properties or otherwise provide any value enhancement other than a nominal contribution.

AGI VALUATIONS Page 25
As there are no financially feasible uses of the subject property, the highest and best use of the property is concluded to be for open space, consistent with the adjacent parcels to the south and southwest.

AGI VALUATIONS Page 26

VALUATION METHODOLOGY
The valuation of real estate is estimated principally through the use of three basic approaches to value:
the income approach, sales comparison approach and the cost approach. From the indicated values resulting from these approaches and the weight accorded to each, an opinion of value is reached, based upon expert judgment within the framework of the appraisal process.

The income approach involves an analysis of a property in terms of its ability to produce a net income stream and a reversionary value. This approach is concerned with estimating the present worth of future benefits that can be derived through ownership of the property. In utilizing this approach, the net income is capitalized at a rate commensurate with what is attractive to investors in order to arrive at an estimate of value. The income approach is generally most useful in valuing a property that normally would be purchased by an investor.

The sales comparison approach is based upon the assumption that a prudent buyer would not pay more for a property than it would cost to acquire a comparable substitute property. Since no two properties are identical, adjustments are necessary for differences in quality, location, size, etc., and are a function of appraisal experience and judgment. The problem with this approach is that the motives of various purchasers and sellers vary, depending upon their need for cash, their tax position, their personal likes and dislikes, available financing, and a host of other factors which must be taken into consideration.

The cost approach is based upon the premise that a property does not typically have a value higher than its replacement or reproduction cost as new. Most properties require a deduction for accrued depreciation resulting from physical deterioration, or from functional or economic obsolescence. The problem with this approach is that, practically speaking, it often can be very difficult to quantify depreciation, particularly for older properties such as the subject. Also, in situations where there is an extremely short supply of properties, there is a tendency for sale prices to exceed replacement cost.

As a final step in the valuation process, the value estimates from each of the approaches are correlated.

Based upon this correlation, or weighing process (not upon simple arithmetic averaging), the subject property's final value is estimated. The importance of one approach, or combination of approaches, becomes apparent during the valuation process from material that the appraiser has researched. This correlated amount, as of the specified valuation date, is the final value conclusion.

As the highest and best use of the subject property is concluded to be for open space, the sales comparison approach is the only appropriate approach to valuation. The income and cost approaches are not applicable in this analysis.

The valuation of remnant properties often includes a two-phased process which first involves the determination of the value of typical adjacent, developable properties, followed by an analysis of an appropriate discount attributable to the remnant characteristics of the subject property, particularly related to its limited utility potential. However, in this case, this methodology is not considered to be applicable because the market would not likely consider the discounted value of adjacent industrial properties to be relevant to value the subject property considering it would not improve the development potential of or otherwise enhance any adjacent properties, and would contribute nominally in terms of value to any adjacent property. Furthermore, considering the highest and AGI VALUATIONS Page 27
best use of the property is for use as open space, a discount for its remnant characteristics is not applicable considering that the market for buyers of open space properties, like buyers of remnant properties, are typically extremely limited, and the factors which contribute to the limited utility of the subject (small size, irregular shape, topographical conditions) are typically irrelevant to open space values.

Accordingly, in lieu of a two-phased valuation process which is often used to value remnant properties, the proper valuation methodology in this analysis is the application of a sales comparison approach involving the analysis of sales of similarly sized properties with limited utility and development potential.

AGI VALUATIONS Page 28

SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
The sales comparison approach is a method of comparing recent transactions of similar properties to the subject property. Each of the sales must be analyzed to establish the elements of comparability. The reliability of this technique depends on 1) the degree of physical comparability between the subject property and the sale properties; 2) the length of time since the sales were consummated; 3) the accuracy of the sales data; and 4) the conditions affecting the sale.

In this case, the search for potential comparable sales focused on recent transactions of properties located within San Rafeal with limited utility and development potential and within a reasonably similar size (site area) range. However, as few transactions fitting these criteria were found to be available within San Rafael, the search was expanded to include Marin County as a whole, with consideration of sales as far back as January 2022. Ultimately, a total of four sales which are considered to best shed light on the value of the subject were identified and analyzed for comparison.

The comparable sales have been analyzed and adjustments have been applied, where applicable, for the following characteristics: market conditions, location, site area (or size), and utility potential (which considers access, physical characteristics, zoning designation, proximity to utilities, etc.). None of the comparable sales required adjustments for property rights conveyed, conditions of sale, or financing terms.

Adjustments are applied qualitatively, with the exception of market conditions adjustments, which are applied quantitatively. A discussion of adjustments follows.

Market Conditions - The dates of the comparable sales utilized in the analysis range from February 2024 through April 2025. As no reliable source or index which tracks value trends for undeveloped land is available, trends in single-family sale prices are considered. In particular, market conditions adjustments are applied based on differences between the Marin County median single-family sale price for the quarter of the respective sales as compared to the median figure for the three months prior to the effective date of value of this analysis (September through November 2025). This data is presented on the following table:

Median Quarterly Single-Family Sale Price, Marin County Sale # Period Median Sale Price Indicated Adj to DOV
1 Q2 2025 $1,760,000 -9.1%
2 Q1 2025 $1,650,000 -3.0%
3 Q1 2024 $1,672,500 -4.3%
4 Q1 2024 $1,672,500 -4.3%
DOV* Sept-Nov 2025 $1,600,000 - Source: Metrolist MLS
*Median of 3 months prior to DOV (Sept – Nov 2025)
As indicated in the table, the adjustment indications for the sales range from -3.0% to -9.1%.

Location – This category is included to account for differences in general location between the sale properties and the subject. In this case, no location adjustments are warranted as all of the AGI VALUATIONS Page 29
sales are located in Marin County and open space values do not typically vary significantly throughout the county.

Site Area - The sale properties range in site area from 7,246 square feet (0.166 acre) to 16,000 square feet (0.367 acre). Adjustments are applied as warranted to account for differences in the respective site areas of the sale properties as compared to the 14,347 square feet (0.329 acre) sale property.

Utility Potential – This category includes consideration of access, physical characteristics, zoning designations, proximity to utilities, etc. which influence the utility potential of the respective sale properties. Adjustments for overall relative utility potential of the sale properties as compared to the subject are applied as warranted.

Improvements – This category is included to account for the site improvements (landscaping and partial paving) which exist on Sale 4.

The following is a discussion of the comparable sales; a summary and adjustment grid is also included on a following page, and additional details and aerial photographs of the sale properties are included in the Addenda of this report.

Comparable Sales Discussion
Sale 1 is the sale of 350 Coleman Drive in San Rafael. The property is located in the Lincoln/San Rafael Hill neighborhood of the city and consists of an undeveloped, 9,075 square foot (0.208 acre) parcel. The site is steeply downsloped from Coleman Drive, with an average slope of 41.96%.

The parcel is somewhat irregularly shaped. Vegetation consists of a roughly 50/50 mix of woodlands and grasslands. All utilities necessary for development are nearby or available to the site. Zoning is R7.5, Single Family Residential District, 7,500 square foot minimum lot area. The neighborhood is improved with a mix of single-family residences as well as approximately twenty lots to the immediate north and east of the subject which are undeveloped due to their similar physical constraints. The property was marketed for its homesite potential; however, such a use would be considered speculative considering that development of the property would involve extraordinary costs relating to the topography of the property which may deem it infeasible.

This sale occurred in April 2025. The sale price was $50,000, or $45,450 after an adjustment for market conditions. An upward adjustment is applied to account for the relatively smaller site area of the sale property as compared to the subject. A downward adjustment is warranted to account for what is considered superior utility potential of the sale property, albeit which is speculative considering its questionable development feasibility. After adjustments, this sale indicates a value for the subject of less than $45,450.

Sale 2 is located at 245 Alder Road in Bolinas. The property is an undeveloped, 8,645 square foot (0.198 acre) lot situated in a residential neighborhood adjacent to other vacant and improved lots.

The topography of the somewhat irregularly shaped lot is sloping, with a 26.24% average slope.

Vegetation is a mix of brush and trees. Zoning is C-R-B2, Residential Agriculture, 7,500 square foot minimum lot area. The property was marketed as unbuildable due to the permanent water moratorium which has restricted new development in Bolinas since 1971. Aside from water, other utilities necessary for development are available near the site.

AGI VALUATIONS Page 30
This sale occurred in February 2025. The sale price was $50,000, or $48,500 after an adjustment for market conditions. An upward adjustment is applied to account for the relatively smaller site area of the sale property as compared to the subject. A downward adjustment is warranted to account for what is considered superior utility potential of the sale property, albeit which is highly speculative considering that the current building moratorium has been in effect for decades and the only way to obtain a water meter is via auction when an existing building is destroyed or demolished, which is very rare and expensive. After adjustments, this sale indicates a value for the subject of less than $48,500.

Sale 3 is located at the end of Cypress Road in Fairfax, in a hillside location southwest of downtown. The property consists of an undeveloped, 16,000 square foot (0.367 acre) parcel which is fully wooded and very steep, with an average slope of 59.92%. The parcel is irregularly shaped.

All utilities necessary for development are nearby or available to the site. Zoning is RS-6, Single Family Residential District, 6,000 square foot minimum lot area. The development potential of the property is considered to be very speculative considering that development of the property would involve extraordinary costs relating to the topography of the property which would likely deem it infeasible.

This sale occurred in March 2024. The sale price was $41,500, or $39,716 after an adjustment for market conditions. No adjustments are warranted; as such, this sale indicates a value for the subject generally similar to $39,716.

Sale 4 is located at the southeast corner of Drakes Landing Road and Del Monte in Larkspur. The parcel totals 7,245 square feet (0.166 acre) and is adjacent to existing developed office properties to the immediate north and west. The site is gently sloping, irregularly shaped, and is improved with landscaping and a paved driveway which serves the property to the west. Zoning is C-2, Commercial District.. All utilities are available to the property. The buyer was the adjacent property owner to the west which benefits from the driveway on the sale property.

This sale occurred in February 2024. The sale price was $65,000, or $62,205 after an adjustment for market conditions. An upward adjustment is applied to account for the relatively smaller site area of the sale property as compared to the subject. Downward adjustments are warranted to account for the superior utility of the sale property related to its use as a driveway which enhances the value of the adjacent property to the west, and for the landscaping and paving improvements.

After adjustments, this sale indicates a value for the subject of less than $62,205.

AGI VALUATIONS Page 31
AGI VALUATIONS Page 32
The comparable sales have been analyzed and adjustments have been made where appropriate.

After adjustments, the sales indicate the following values for the subject:

Sale # Value Indication for the Subject
1 Less than $45,450
2 Less than $48,500
3 Generally Similar to $39,716
4 Less than $62,205
After adjustments, three sales indicate “less than” values for the subject ranging from $45,450 to $62,205, and one sale indicates a “generally similar to” value for the subject of $39,716. Given that the “less than” value indications support the “generally similar to” indication, a rounded conclusion consistent with the “generally similar to” value of $40,000 is concluded for the subject property.

AGI VALUATIONS Page 33

CERTIFICATION
I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, 1) The statements of fact contained in this appraisal report, upon which the analysis, opinions, and conclusions expressed herein are based, are true and correct. 2) The reported analysis, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional analysis, opinions, and conclusions.
3) I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. 4) I have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment.
5) I have performed no services, as an appraiser or in any other capacity, regarding the property that is the subject of this report within the three-year period immediately preceding acceptance of this assignment.
6) My compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. 7) My analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 8) A personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report was made by David M. Harding, MAI.
9) No one else provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this report. 10) The report and analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute. 11) The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.
12) As of the date of this report, David M. Harding, MAI, had completed the requirements of the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. 13) I have the knowledge and experience to complete this appraisal assignment and have appraised this property type before. Please see Appraiser's Qualifications included on the following pages for additional information about work and educational experience. •

AGI VALUATIONS
Appraisal Prepared and Reviewed by:

David M. Harding, MAI
State Certification No. AG027868
AG/ VALUATIONS Page 34
AGI VALUATIONS Page 35

ADDENDA
QUALIFICATIONS OF DAVID M. HARDING, MAI
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser (California No. AG027868) Employment History
Real Estate Appraiser, Arthur Gimmy International/ AGI Valuations (1999) Experience
Appraisal and consulting of residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural properties including:
- Various industrial and commercial properties
- Residential subdivisions
- Apartment and senior housing projects
- Net leased properties
- Telecommunication sites
- Office buildings (general and medical)
- Health care facilities
- Ranch, agricultural, mitigation, and recreational properties - Transitional and development land
Types of Appraisals
- Fair market value
- Diminution in value
- Leasehold value
- Conservation easements
- Partial interests
- Market rent estimates
- Condemned real property
Education
Bachelor of Arts, Geography
San Francisco State University- 1998
Real Estate Appraisal Certificate
Noblefields School of Real Estate, San Francisco - 1999 Appraisal Institute Courses:
- Standards of Professional Practice Parts A & B
- Basic Income Capitalization
- Advanced Income Capitalization
- Advanced Sales Comparison and Cost Approaches
- Report Writing and Valuation Analysis
- Highest and Best Use and Market Analysis
- Diminution of Value and Severance Damages
- Condemnation Appraising: Basic Principles & Applications - Valuation of Conservation Easements and Taxes
Professional Designations
Member of the Appraisal Institute

AGI VALUATIONS
SALE 1
Location: 350 Coleman Drive, San Rafael
Assessor Parcel #: 011-022-27
Grantor: Hickey Trust
Grantee: Shikbahaei, M
Document #: 2025-10972
Sale Date: 4/24/2025
Site Area (SF): 9,075
Sale Price: $50,000
Comments: The site is steeply downsloped from Coleman Drive, with an average slope of 41.96%. The parcel is somewhat irregularly shaped. Vegetation consists of a roughly 50/50 mix of woodlands and grasslands. All utilities necessary for development are nearby or available to the site. Zoning is R7.5, Single Family Residential District, 7,500 square foot minimum lot area. The neighborhood is improved with a mix of single-family residences as well as approximately twenty lots to the immediate north and east of the subject which are undeveloped due to their similar physical constraints. The property was marketed for its homesite potential; however, such a use would be considered speculative considering that development of the property would involve extraordinary costs relating to the topography of the property which may deem it infeasible.

SALE 2
Location: 245 Alder Road, Bolinas
Assessor Parcel #: 190-241-05
Grantor: Norton, Marilyn
Grantee: Nemec Trust
Document #: 2025-2929
Sale Date: 2/5/2025
Site Area (SF): 8,645
Sale Price: $50,000
Comments: The property is an undeveloped, 8,645 square foot (0.198 acre) lot situated in a residential neighborhood adjacent to other vacant and improved lots. The topography of the somewhat irregularly shaped lot is sloping, with a 26.24% average slope. Vegetation is a mix of brush and trees. Zoning is C-R-B2, Residential Agriculture, 7,500 square foot minimum lot area. The property was marketed as unbuildable due to the permanent water moratorium which has restricted new development in Bolinas since 1971. Aside from water, other utilities necessary for development are available near the site.

SALE 3
Location: End of Cypress Road, Fairfax
Assessor Parcel #: 003-164-01
Grantor: Anttila, Carina et al
Grantee: Kai, Magnolia et al
Document #: 2024-5745
Sale Date: 3/6/2024
Site Area (SF): 16,000
Sale Price: $41,500
Comments: The property is in a hillside location southwest of downtown. The property consists of an undeveloped, 16,000 square foot (0.367 acre) parcel which is fully wooded and very steep, with an average slope of

59.92%. The parcel is irregularly shaped. All utilities necessary for development are nearby or available to the site. Zoning is RS-6, Single Family Residential District, 6,000 square foot minimum lot area. The development potential of the property is considered to be very speculative that development of the property would involve extraordinary costs relating to the topography of the property which would likely deem it infeasible.

SALE 4
Location: SEC Drakes Landing Road & Del Monte, Larkspur Assessor Parcel #: 022-050-24
Grantor: Canadian American Oil Company
Grantee: O’Neill / Mullin, LLC
Document #: 2024-3660
Sale Date: 2/7/2024
Site Area (SF): 7,245
Sale Price: $65,000
Comments: The parcel totals 7,245 square feet (0.166 acre) and is adjacent to existing developed office properties to the immediate north and west. The site is gently sloping, irregularly shaped, and is improved with landscaping and a paved driveway which serves the property to the west. Zoning is C-2, Commercial District.. All utilities are available to the property. The buyer was the adjacent property owner to the west which benefits from the driveway on the sale property.

← All documents from this meeting