Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fire Impact Fee topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Corte Madera adopts urgency fire-impact fee to fund equipment and stations for Central Marin Fire Authority
Summary
Council adopted an urgency ordinance and associated resolutions to impose a new fire-protection development impact fee (square-foot basis) to fund equipment and facility needs tied to projected housing growth; the proposal includes a 50% fee reduction for qualifying low/very-low-income units and exempts small ADUs.
The Corte Madera Town Council adopted an urgency ordinance and related resolutions to impose a new development impact fee to support Central Marin Fire Authority (CMFA) equipment and facility needs tied to projected population growth to 2040. Staff and consultant Matrix advised that the fee was required to preserve current service levels as housing units approved or in review could quickly consume much of the town’s projected RHNA allocation.
Central Marin Fire Chief Ruben Martin described the fee’s purpose: "These development impact fees do is allow us to now assess this fee to new developments that are coming in that can allow for the fire department to now continue to maintain the growth to provide that adequate level of service," he said. Matrix consultant Khushbu explained the methodology—two components (Corte Madera-specific facilities and CMFA equipment) and a square-foot basis for residential fees to comply with AB 602.
Staff proposed a 50% fee reduction for units qualifying as low- or very-low-income and noted state law exempts ADUs under 750 square feet. Council sought clarity on revenue estimates. Matrix provided a range: if roughly 1,000 potential future units were charged under the study assumptions, the fee would generate about $4.5M–$5.5M attributable to future growth; the full study identified roughly $32.5M in facilities/equipment needs with a proportionate share assigned to new development.
Council members debated affordability incentives and whether the urgency ordinance should include the 50% reduction; proponents argued including the discount would help attract affordable components to market-rate projects and could be needed to preserve negotiations on current applications. Opponents sought more time to analyze the permanent ordinance language.
Outcome: the council adopted the urgency ordinance (which requires four-fifths vote and was carried as presented), introduced the permanent ordinance for later adoption, and approved the resolution establishing the fee schedule. Staff said the urgency ordinance will need renewal on a 30‑day cadence until the permanent ordinance is adopted (staff targeted December 2 for permanent-adoption consideration). Fees would apply only to new, not-entitled development and would take effect immediately under the urgency ordinance for qualifying preliminary applications.
Next steps: staff will return with the permanent ordinance and final schedule; the council asked for additional fiscal analysis (range scenarios and project-level impacts) when the permanent ordinance returns.
