2.5% for all base
rates
Percentage Fee Plan check beyond 2 submittals @
staff hr rate
4 Building Third Party Plan Check Fee (not including 3rd Party Fee)
50% of permit fee on top of 3rd Party
costs
50% of permit fee
on top of 3rd
Party costs
Percentage Fee
This fee is in addition to the 3rd Party
fee and covers internal plan check
costs including assignment to 3rd
party, review of 3rd party plan check,
response to applicant, architect and
engineering questions, etc.
5 Stop Work Fee for working without a permit; retroactive permit penalty fee
Up to 5 times value of Permit Fee;
(Minimum $500)
Up to 5 times
value of Permit
Fee; (Minimum
$500)
Per project Penalty
Determined by the Department
Director or Building Official. 0-5
times based on stop work
circumstances. If work stops
immediatley and the owner
addresses issues promptly, the fee
may be waived or 1-3 times the
permit fee. However, if work
continues and owner is
uncooperative, fee may be up to 5
times the permit fee.
6 Energy Fees - projects affecting heated space 15% of Bldg Permit Fee 15% of Bldg Permit Fee Percentage Fee
7 Code Compliance Fee $314.00 $330.00 Per hour Fee
8 Plumbing Permit 15% of Bldg Permit fee or $157 if not associated w/other work
15% of Bldg
Permit fee or $164
if not associated
w/other work
Percentage Fee Fee waived for graywater projects
9 Electrical Permit 15% of Bldg Permit fee or $157 if not associated w/other work
15% of Bldg
Permit fee or $164
if not associated
w/other work
Percentage Fee Fee waived for local EV charging, roof
top solar, and tankless water heater
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 11
387
Building
# Description Current Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
10 Mechanical Permit 15% of Bldg Permit fee or $157 if not associated w/other work
15% of Bldg
Permit fee or $164
if not associated
w/other work
Percentage Fee
11 Demolition Permit $246.00 $259.00 Per project Fee
12 Swimming Pool Permit $653.00 $685.00 Per project Fee 13 Spa/Hot Tub Permit $327.00 $344.00 Per project Fee
14 Photo-voltaic System Permit and EV charging $190.00 $199.00 Per project Fee 15 Water Heater Replacement Permit $142.00 $149.00 Per project Fee No longer Fee waived for Tankless Water Heater
16 Furnace Replacement Permit $141.00 $148.00 Per project Fee 17 Re-Roof Permit Residential $165.00 $174.00 Per project Fee Fee waived for Cool Roof Initiatives 18 Re-Roof Permit Commercial Bldg Permit Fee Bldg Permit Fee Per project Fee Fee waived for Cool Roof Initiatives 19 Technology Fee 8.8% of Bldg Permit fees 8.8% of Bldg Permit fees Percentage Fee
20 Training Fee 3% of Bldg Permit fee 3% of Bldg Permit fee Percentage Fee
21 Permit Administrative Fee (change of owner, contractor, arch/engr.) $40.00 $42.00 Per project Fee
22 Window replacement (not associated with other work) $246.00 $259.00 Per project Fee 23 Minor Bathroom Remodel Permit Fee $655.00 $688.00 Per project Fee OTC $15,000 max. value of project 24 Minor Kitchen Remodel Permit Fee $878.00 $922.00 Per project Fee OTC $25,000 max. value of project 25 Plan Checks:
26 Plumbing Plan Check 15% of Bldg Permit Fee or 65% of Plumbing Permit Fee
15% of Bldg
Permit Fee or 65%
of Plumbing
Permit Fee
Percentage Fee
If work not associated with Bldg
Permit ($25 min). Fee waived for
graywater projects
27 Electrical Plan Check 15% of Bldg Permit Fee or 25% of Electrical Permit Fee
15% of Bldg
Permit Fee or 25%
of Electrical
Permit Fee
Percentage Fee If work not associated with Bldg
Permit ($25 min)
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 12
388
Building
# Description Current Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
28 Mechanical Plan Check 10% of Bldg Permit Fee or 65% of Mechanical Permit Fee
10% of Bldg
Permit Fee or 65%
of Mechanical
Permit Fee
Percentage Fee If work not associated with Bldg
Permit ($25 min)
29 Pool Plan Check $464.00 $487.00 Per project Fee 65% of Pool Permit fee 30 Spa/Hot Tub Plan Check $213.00 $224.00 Per project Fee 65% of Spa/Hot Tub 31 Plan Checks after 2 Plan Checks Consultant Fee Consultant Fee Per hour Fee Consultant Fee 32 Plan Check for revisions after permit issued $201.00 $211.00 Per hour Fee Time charged at hourly Building
Official rate and an additional hour
for each submittal. Minimum one
hour per submittal.
33 Staff Hourly Rate:
34 Building Official $201.00 $211.00 Per hour Fee
35 Building Inspector $145.00 $153.00 Per hour Fee
36 Street Bond Determined by Public Works Director
Determined by
Public Works
Director
Per project Bond Reimbursable if no damage to
street/public right of way
37 Gross Receipts Tax on all projects done by a contractor $0.50 $0.50 Per $1,000 valuation Fee
38 Seismic Fee - State fee on all residential and commercial work $0.10 $0.10 Per $1,000 valuation Fee
39 Green Building Fee $1.00 $1.00 Per $25,000
valuation Fee
40 Residential Resale Reports:
41 Single Family Residence $329.00 $346.00 Per report Fee 42 Multi-Family Residences $314 +$53 each add/t unit $329 +$55 each add/t unit Per report Fee
43 Failure To Obtain Report 1X Report Fee 1X Report Fee Per report Fee 44 Watercourse Permit $219.00 $230.00 Per project Fee
Fee may be waived for emergency
projects at the discretion of Public
Works Director
45 Floodplain Development Permit $111.00 $117.00 Per project Fee 46 Lot Line(Property Line Adjustment) $1000 Deposit $1000 Deposit Per hour Fee 25% administration plus hourly thereafter
47 Well Permit $246.00 $259.00 Per project Fee
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 13
389
Building
# Description Current Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
48 Reinstatement of Building Permit Fee 50% of bulding permit fee 50% of bulding permit fee Per project Fee
49 Extension of Building Permit Fee $111.00 $117.00 Per project Fee 50 Penalty fee for After The Fact permits Up to 5 times value of Permit Fee; (Minimum $500)
Up to 5 times
value of Permit
Fee; (Minimum
$500)
Per project Fee
Determined by the Department
Director or Building Offical. 0-5 times
based on stop work circumstances. If
unpermitted work is identified by the
Town and the owner addresses
issues promptly, the fee may be
waived or 1-3 times the permit fee.
However, if unpermitted work is not
addressed and the owner is
uncooperative, fee may be up to 5
times the permit fee.
51 Flood Gate Buidling Permits Fees Waived Fees Waived Per project Fee 52 Admin Assistant II $91.00 $96.00 Per hour Fee
53 Public Works Director $255.00 $268.00 Per hour Fee
54 Assistant Public Works Director $201.00 $211.00 Per hour Fee 55 Assistant Engineer $126.00 $133.00 Per hour Fee
56 Maintenance Supervisor $145.00 $153.00 Per hour Fee
57 Maintenance Worker I $90.00 $95.00 Per hour Fee
58 Senior Maintenance Worker $124.00 $131.00 Per hour Fee 59 Construction Inspector $399.00 $419.00 Per hour Fee
60 Consultant Consultant cost + 25% Consultant cost +
25%
Per Hour Fee Plan check or review as required by
outside consultant
Building permit fee waived for an ADU subject to a recorded affordability restriction of 55 years to rent as an Affordable Unit reserved for occupancy by a Low Income Household at an Affordable Rent.
“Affordable Rent” is the maximum allowable Rent for an Affordable Unit that does not exceed one-twelfth (1/12) of thirty percent (30%) of eighty percent (80%) of Area Median Income as adjusted for Assumed Household Size.
“Area Median Income” means median yearly income in Marin County as published pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 6932, or successor provision. “Low Income Household” means a household whose Household Income does not exceed the lower income limits applicable to Marin County, adjusted for household size, as published annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development; generally a household with a Household Income between fifty percent (50%) and eighty percent (80%) of Area Median Income, adjusted for actual household size.
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 14
390
Minimum Value Maximum Value Base Rate Plus $$
For every
$1,000 and
fraction
thereof
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 3,999.00 138.54 0.00 0.00
4,000.00 24,999.00 138.54 18.08 1,000.00
25,000.00 49,999.00 518.34 10.99 1,000.00
50,000.00 99,999.00 793.31 8.31 1,000.00
100,000.00 499,999.00 1,208.93 6.76 1,000.00
500,000.00 999,999.00 3,913.30 5.84 1,000.00
1,000,000.00 and above 6,833.80 4.60 1,000.00
Minimum Value Maximum Value Base Rate Plus $$
For every
$1,000 and
fraction
thereof
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1.00 3,999.00 145.33 0.00 0.00
4,000.00 24,999.00 145.33 18.97 1,000.00
25,000.00 49,999.00 543.74 11.53 1,000.00
50,000.00 99,999.00 832.18 8.72 1,000.00
100,000.00 499,999.00 1,268.17 7.09 1,000.00
500,000.00 999,999.00 4,105.05 6.13 1,000.00
1,000,000.00 and above 7,168.66 4.83 1,000.00
Building Valuation Table
Proposed (All New Construction)
Building Valuation Table
Current (All New Construction)
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 15
391
Planning
# Description Current Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
1 Planning Commission Action Applications: Annexation $10,895.00 $11,429.00 Per application Deposit Plus 25% overhead on consultant costs
2 Planning Commission Action Applications: General Plan Amendment $4,134.00 $5,000.00 Per hour Deposit Plus 25% overhead on consultant costs 3 Planning Commission Action Applications: Rezoning $4,134.00 $5,000.00 Per hour Deposit Plus 25% overhead on consultant costs
4 Planning Commission First Application/Hearing (For
applications with a Planning Commission hearing such as Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Subdividision, Parcel Map, Lot Line Adjustment, Exceptions, Illuminated Sign, FAR
Exception, Demolition Permit, Grading Permits, Sign
Program, move building). Includes review of one plan
revision.
$2,750.00 $3,500.00 Per hour Deposit
5 Minor Exception - Administrative $244.00 $500.00 Per hour Deposit 6 Lot Merger - Administrative $334.00 $500.00 Per hour Deposit 7 Residential Design Review - Planning Director $996.00 $1,200.00 Per hour Deposit 8 Commercial Design Review - Planning Director $996.00 $1,200.00 Per hour Deposit 9 Administrative Sign Review, conforming $53.00 $56.00 Flat fee Fee 10 Certificates of Compliance $2,658.00 $2,789.00 Per
certification Deposit Plus 25% overhead on consultant costs 11 Initial Study & Negative Declarations Consultant cost + 25% Consultant cost + 25% N/A Deposit
12 Environmental Impact Reports Consultant cost + 25% Consultant cost + 25% N/A Deposit
13 Peer Reviews Consultant cost + 25% Consultant cost + 25% N/A Deposit
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 16
392
Planning
# Description Current Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
14 Hourly Fee Planner $136.00 $136.00 Per hour Fee
15 Hourly Fee Senior Planner N/A $152.00 Per hour Fee
16 Hourly Fee Director $174.00 $191.00 Per hour Fee
17 Development Standards No charge No charge
18 General Plan maintenance 4% of Building Permit fees
10% of Building
Permit and
Planning fees
Percentage Fee
19 Training fee 5% of application fees 5% of application fees Percentage Fee
20 Photocopies, per page (State requirement documents are charged per State Mandate) $0.20 $0.20 Per copy Fee
21 Planning Director requests for reasonable accommodation SAMC Sec. 10-10.03 $476.00 $500.00 Flat fee Fee
22 Zoning ordinance amendment SAMC Sec. 10-3.803 $10,895.00 $10,500.00 Per hour Deposit plus 25% overhead on any consultant costs
23 Preliminary or Specific Planned Development District SAMC Sec. 10-3.904 $4,473.00 $5,000.00 Per hour Deposit
24 Final Map (if dedications are involved) SAMC Sec. 10-2.603 $5,448.00 $5,000.00 Per hour Deposit plus 25% overhead for consultant costs
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 17
393
Planning
# Description Current Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
25 Tentative parcel and tract map and final parcel and tract maps – Planning Director SAMC Sec. 10-3.1201 $436.00 $1,200.00 Per hour Deposit Plus $2,000 deposit to cover consultant and 25% overhead 26 Conditional Use Permit Planning Director SAMC Sec. 10-
3.1303 $996.00 $1,200.00 Per hour Deposit
27 Notice of public hearing - SAMC Sec. 10-3.1602 and 10-
3.1603 $182.00 $191.00 Flat fee Fee Plus cost of publication if required 28 Renewal of a discretionary action SAMC Sec. 10-3.1608 $142.00 $1,200.00 Per hour Deposit 29 Applications and determinations of unmergers (Public Works or Council) SAMC Sec. 10-3.273 $2,179.00 $3,500.00 Per hour Deposit 30 Application for expanded telecommunication facilities Administrative $1,561.00 $1,200.00 Per hour Deposit plus $10,000 deposit to cover consultant cost plus 25% 31 Application for design review/use permit for
telecommunication facilities (Planning Commission) $2,750.00 $3,500.00 Per facility Deposit plus $10,000 deposit to cover consultant cost plus 25% 32 Application for density bonus SAMC Sec. 10-11.050
Administrative $971.00 $1,200.00 Per hour Deposit
33 Remove deed restriction - Administrative $363.00 $1,200.00 Per hour Deposit Plus any notary and recording costs 34 Residential chicken-keeping permit SAMC Sec. 5-1.05 $0.00 $0.00 N/A N/A 35 PreApplication Meeting - Non-commercial uses (Planning) $105.00 $105.00 Flat fee Fee Plus applicant pays $100 to Ross Valley Fire Department
36 Review of Home Occupation Application $0.00 $0.00 N/A N/A 37 Review of Use Proposal or Business License Application $0.00 $0.00 N/A N/A 38 Penalty for work without a permit 1x Application Fee 3x Application Fee Per application Penalty ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 18
394
Planning
# Description Current Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
39 Remove deed restriction to allow a second unit $0.00 $0.00 N/A N/A Plus any notary and recording costs 40 PreApplication Meeting - Commercial Uses $0.00 $0.00 N/A N/A 41 Lot Line Adjustment - Planning Director $800.00 $1,200.00 Per hour Deposit 42 Streamlined Review under Ca.Govt. Code Sec. 65913.4 (SB 35) $5,000.00 $5,000.00 Per hour Deposit
43 Change of Address (property owner request) $200.00 $300.00 Flat fee Fee DEPOSITS will be charged at the fully burdened hourly rate calculation for each staff position.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS: Fees charged by outside agencies for review/process of environmental documents will be charged to the applicant in addition to the fees herein.
ALL PLANNING APPLICATIONS: Town Attorney costs will be passed on directly to applicant as incurred and the Town may request a deposit to cover the cost of anticipated town attorney time.
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 19
395
Recreation
# Description
Current
Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
1 Administrative Rates
2 Administrative Registration Fee $10.00 $10.00 Per class Fee 3 Cancelation Fee $25.00 $25.00 Per class Fee New
4 Security deposit $278.00 $292.00 Per
occurrence
Deposit
5 Tennis Key Fees:
6 Resident (R): Full Year $39.00 $41.00 Per year Fee
7 Resident (R): Jul-Dec $29.00 $31.00 Every six
months Fee
8 Non-Resident (NR): Full Year $93.00 $98.00 Per year Fee 9 Non-Resident (NR): Jul-Dec $61.00 $64.00 Every six
months Fee
10 Commercial Dog Walker Permit (Annual) $116.00 $122.00 Per year Fee 11 Sign Fees
12 Hub Sign $116.00 $122.00 Per week Fee
13 Tunstead Street Banner $274.00 $288.00 Per week Fee
14 Sir Francis Drake Street Banner $355.00 $373.00 Per week Fee 15 Facility Rental Fees - Picnic & Park Areas 3 Hour Minimum Rental
16 Memorial Park - Small Picnic Area - R $32.00 $34.00 Per hour Fee 17 Memorial Park - Small Picnic Area -NR $34.00 $36.00 Per hour Fee 18 Memorial Park - Large Picnic Area - R $42.00 $45.00 Per hour Fee 19 Memorial Park - Large Picnic Area - NR $47.00 $50.00 Per hour Fee 20 Memorial Park - Large Picnic Area - Inflatable Jumper Fee $44.00 $47.00 Per hour Fee 21 Robson Park - Upper Picnic Area - R $32.00 $34.00 Per hour Fee 22 Robson Park - Upper Picnic Area - NR $39.00 $41.00 Per hour Fee 23 Robson Park - Lower Picnic Area - R $37.00 $39.00 Per hour Fee 24 Robson Park - Lower Picnic Area - NR $49.00 $52.00 Per hour Fee 25 Creek Park Picnic Area - R $42.00 $45.00 Per hour Fee 26 Creek Park Picnic Area - NR $53.00 $56.00 Per hour Fee 27 Elders Garden - R $18.00 $19.00 Per hour Fee
28 Elders Garden - NR $23.00 $25.00 Per hour Fee
29 Creek Park Amphitheatre -Resident NA NA Per hour Fee 30 Creek Park Amphitheatre - Non-Resident NA NA Per hour Fee ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 20
396
Recreation
# Description
Current
Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
31 Athletic Field Rental Fees - 2 Hour Minimum Rental
32 Memorial Park - Single Baseball Field
32 Group A $43.00 $46.00 Per hour Fee
Non-Profit organizations, school related groups,
community organizations that charge a nominal fee
to cover their expenses (Scouts, Homeowners
Assoc., Youth Sports Groups, religious organizations,
etc.)
33 Group B $65.00 $69.00 Per hour Fee Private individuals, non-profit fundraising activities 34 Group C $86.00 $91.00 Per hour Fee Commercial, for profit groups 35 Indoor Facilities
36 ICC Kitchen, Lower Classrooms (2 hr min.) Resident $31.00 $33.00 Per hour Fee 37 ICC Kitchen, Lower Classrooms (2 hr min.) Non-Resident $41.00 $44.00 Per hour Fee 38 ICC Vista Room, (2 hr min.) Resident $36.00 $38.00 Per hour Fee 39 ICC Vista Room, (2 hr min.) Non- Resident $52.00 $55.00 Per hour Fee 40 Robson Harrington Meeting Room - Weekdays (2 hr min.) 41 Group A $34.00 $36.00 Per hour Fee
Non-Profit organizations, school related groups,
community organizations (Scouts, Homeowners
Assoc., Youth Sports Groups, religious organizations,
etc.)
42 Group B $39.00 $41.00 Per hour Fee Private individuals, non-profit fundraising activities 43 Group C $49.00 $52.00 Per hour Fee Commercial, for profit groups 44 Robson Harrington Weekend Rental - First Floor (4 hr min.) 45 Group A $83.00 $88.00 Per hour Fee
Non-Profit organizations, school related groups,
community organizations (Scouts, Homeowners
Assoc., Youth Sports Groups, religious organizations,
etc.)
46 Group B $88.00 $93.00 Per hour Fee Private individuals, non-profit fundraising activities 47 Group C $104.00 $110.00 Per hour Fee Commercial, for profit groups 49 Community Gardens
50 Dues $150.00 Per plot Fee
ITEM 2A - Exhibit A
ITEM 2A - Exhibit A 21
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 21
397
Police
# Description Current Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
1 Merchant Parking Permits $25.00 $25.00 Per year Fee
2 Overnight Parking Permits $50.00 $50.00 Per year Fee
3 Vehicle Impound Release $100.00 $100.00 Per incident Fee 4 Clearance/Citizen Letter $20.00 $20.00 Per request Fee 5 Report Copy fee $10.00 $10.00 Per report Fee
6 Fingerprinting "rolling" fee $20.00 $20.00 Per event Fee 7 Violations:
8 Sign Retrieval $25.00 $25.00 Per violation Penalty
9 Parked without permit $40.00 $45.00 Per violation Penalty 10 Parked contrary to signs & markings $40.00 $45.00 Per violation Penalty 11 Improperly parked in marked space $40.00 $45.00 Per violation Penalty 12 No Parking/Stopping Red Zone $55.00 $65.00 Per violation Penalty 13 No Parking Yellow/Green/White $40.00 $52.00 Per violation Penalty 14 Failure to Curb Wheels on 3% Grade $40.00 $45.00 Per violation Penalty 15 Parked in Excess of 72 Hours $155.00 $162.00 Per violation Penalty 16 Parked in Excess of 2 Hours $40.00 $45.00 Per violation Penalty 17 Restricted Parking Only $40.00 $45.00 Per violation Penalty 18 Night Parking - 30 minute Limit 2AM-6AM $24.00 $25.00 Per violation Penalty 19 Posted No Parking $40.00 $45.00 Per violation Penalty 20 Parked without 12' clearance $55.00 $57.00 Per violation Penalty 21 No Parking on Private Property without consent $40.00 $45.00 Per violation Penalty 22 Expired Meter $40.00 $45.00 Per violation Penalty
23 No Parking on Crosswalk $40.00 $45.00 Per violation Penalty 24 No Parking Blocking Driveway $40.00 $45.00 Per violation Penalty 25 No Parking on Sidewalk $40.00 $45.00 Per violation Penalty 26 No Parking Wheelchair Ramp Access $290.00 $304.00 Per violation Penalty 27 No Parking/Stopping in Fire Lane/Road $40.00 $45.00 Per violation Penalty 28 Parked in excess of 18" from curb $40.00 $45.00 Per violation Penalty 29 Blue Zone - Handicapped Only $290.00 $304.00 Per violation Penalty 30 No Parking within 15' of Fire Hydrant $40.00 $45.00 Per violation Penalty 31 Parked on school grounds for sale $33.00 $34.00 Per violation Penalty 32 Parked in intersection, crosswalk, sidewalk, in front of a driveway, more than 18" from the curb or facing the wrong way
$40.00 $45.00 Per violation Penalty
33 Double parked $40.00 $45.00 Per violation Penalty
34 Overtime parking, illegally parked on school grounds, vehicle parked for sale on street, illegally parked, posted vehicle for sale and loading zone
$40.00 $45.00 Per violation Penalty
35 Tow Away Zone $50.00 $50.00 Per violation Penalty
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 22
398
Police
# Description Current Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
36 Expired tabs $84.00 $90.00 Per violation Penalty
37 Vehicle for sale on street $111.00 $116.00 Per violation Penalty 38 Parked on parkway $111.00 $116.00 Per violation Penalty 39 Abandoned vehicle $278.00 $291.00 Per violation Penalty 40 Parked in area for handicapped $290.00 $304.00 Per violation Penalty 41 Blocking handicapped access ramp $290.00 $304.00 Per violation Penalty 42 Handicapped parking $290.00 $304.00 Per violation Penalty 43 Disabled crosshatch markings $290.00 $304.00 Per violation Penalty 44 Parked in restricted EV charging spaces and Town's on- and off-street parking facilites $40.00 $45.00 Per violation Penalty 45 OVERSIZED VEHICLE FEES:
46 Single trip permit $16.00 $16.00 Per trip Regulated
47 Repetitive trip permit $16.00 $16.00 Per trip Regulated max $90 for 6 mo period 48 Annual trip permit $16.00 $16.00 Per trip Regulated max of $90 for 1 yr period 49 Oversized Vehicle Escort Fee $220.00 $220.00 Per trip Fee ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 23
399
Town of San Anselmo - User Fee
Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
Department Position
Fully Burdened
Hourly Rate
Fully Burdened
Hourly Rate
Position Rates Current Proposed
01: ADMINISTRATION Admin - Accounting and Benefits Technician 95.00 100.00 01: ADMINISTRATION Admin - Administrative Services Technician 74.00 78.00 01: ADMINISTRATION Admin - Finance/Administration Services Director 148.00 156.00 01: ADMINISTRATION Admin - Senior Accountant/Financial Supervisor 106.00 112.00 01: ADMINISTRATION Admin - Town Clerk 73.00 77.00
01: ADMINISTRATION Admin - Town Manager 171.00 180.00
01: LIBRARY Library - Lead Library Assistant 93.00 98.00 01: LIBRARY Library - Librarian I 97.00 102.00
01: LIBRARY Library - Library Assistant 88.00 93.00
01: LIBRARY Library - Town Librarian 204.00 214.00
01: PLANNING Planning - Assistant Planner 132.00
01: PLANNING Planning - Senior Planner 144.00 152.00
01: PLANNING Planning - Planning Director 182.00 191.00 01: PUBLIC WORKS PW - Administrative Assistant I 96.00 101.00 01: PUBLIC WORKS PW - Permit Technician 114.00 120.00
01: PUBLIC WORKS PW - Assistant Engineer 126.00 133.00
01: PUBLIC WORKS PW - Assistant Public Works Director 201.00 211.00 01: PUBLIC WORKS PW - Building Inspector 145.00 153.00
01: PUBLIC WORKS PW - Building Official 201.00 211.00
01: PUBLIC WORKS PW - Maintenance Supervisor 145.00 153.00 01: PUBLIC WORKS PW - Maintenance Worker I 90.00 95.00
01: PUBLIC WORKS PW - Maintenance Worker II 111.00 117.00 01: PUBLIC WORKS PW -Project Coordinator 126.00 133.00
01: PUBLIC WORKS PW - Public Works Director 255.00 268.00 01: PUBLIC WORKS PW - Senior Maintenance Worker 124.00 131.00 01: PUBLIC WORKS PW - Public Works Manager 191.00
01: RECREATION Rec - Administrative Assistant II 87.00 92.00 01: RECREATION Rec - Community Services Director 139.00 146.00 19: ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND Fund 19 - Assistant Public Works Director 201.00 211.00 21: RECREATION Fund 21 - Recreation Coordinator I 129.00 136.00 21: RECREATION Fund 21 - Recreation Coordinator II 137.00 144.00 21: RECREATION Fund 21 - Recreation Supervisor 141.00 148.00 27: LIBRARY TAX FUND Fund 27 - Lead Library Assistant 90.00 95.00 27: LIBRARY TAX FUND Fund 27 - Librarian II 115.00 121.00 27: LIBRARY TAX FUND Fund 27 - Library Assistant 97.00 102.00 31: ISABEL COOK COMMUNITY CENTER Fund 31 - Maintenance Supervisor 444.00 466.00 34: ROBSON HOUSE Fund 34 - Maintenance Supervisor 251.00 264.00 ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 24
400
Town of Ross
31 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard
P.O. Box 320
Ross, CA 94957
Town Fee Schedule
(Effective January 1, 2023)
ITEM 3A - ATTACHMENT 2
ITEM 3A - ATTACHMENT 2
401
Fee
ABC sign offs $31
Accident reports $10
Alarm Permit new $83
Alarm Permit annual renewal $41 every 2 yrs
Crime reports $10
Good conduct letter $42
Vehicle impound release $212
Traffic Management Plan Compliance $167
Code Compliance Check (per incident) $83
Code Enforcement Activities ‐ Per Hour $167
Disturbance call back (social host ord.)
First violation $825 + (5)
Second violation $1,100 + (5)
(5) + recovery of costs of services to cover police response costs Parking
Improper parking $47
Improperly parked in space $47
In park, closed $47
No parking red zone $104
No parking green, yellow and white $52
Parking without 12' clearance $104
Overtime parking time zones $47
Resident parking permit (annual) $21
Tow away zone $52
Vehicle Code
Vehicle Code (VC) 22500.1, No Parking, Fire Lane $167
VC 22500 F, No Parking, Blocking Sidewalk $70
VC 22507.8, Blue Zone, Handicap Only $344
VC 22500 B, No Parking on Crosswalk $70
VC 22500 E, No Parking Blocking Driveway $67
VC 22502 A, Parking 18' from Curb Wrong Way $63
VC 22514 No Parking 15' of Fire Hydrant $167
VC 22500 H, Double Parked $70
VC 22500 I, No Parking Bus Stop $311
VC 5200, Front and Rear Plate Required $117
VC 5204, No Current Registration Tag $117
Police
ITEM 3A - ATTACHMENT 2
ITEM 3A - ATTACHMENT 2
402
4/18/23, 1:51 PM Downtown Parking Locations & Costs - San Rafael https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/downtown-parking-locations-costs/ 2/5 Boro Community Center (50 Canal St.):
Monday/ Friday: 10:00am-5:00pm
Saturday - Sunday: Closed
Parking Rates & Citation Fines
On-street meters $1.50 / hour
Off-street lots (metered & un-metered) $0.75 / hour
A & C Street garages $1.00 / hour ($10 max)
Expired meter $35.00
Double parked $65.00
Failure to comply with street markings or signs $65.00
Red zone / No parking anytime $65.00
Parking Garage
EV Charging Station
Long Term Parking Lot
Short Term Parking Lot
(https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=37.972778,-122.529492&z=14&t=m&hl=en-US&gl=US&mapclient=apiv3) Map data ©2023 Google Filter ()
City of San Rafael Parking Costs
ITEM 3A - ATTACHMENT 3
ITEM 3A - ATTACHMENT 3
403
4/18/23, 1:51 PM Downtown Parking Locations & Costs - San Rafael https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/downtown-parking-locations-costs/ 3/5 Parked in crosswalk $65.00
Blocking driveway (may be towed) $65.00
Parked in blue zone (without placard) $275.00
Parked in bus zone $250.00
Expired tabs (correctable) $93.00 ($10 if corrected within 35 days of issuance) When do I have to pay?
On-street meters & lots Mon-Sat, 8 am - 6 pm (Walgreens lot 8 am - 8 pm) City garages Mon-Sat, 6 am - 11 pm
Where can I find Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations downtown? City Hall parking lot: 1400 Fifth Avenue
3rd/Cijos Street parking lot
Fifth/Lootens Place parking lot
A Street Garage (near 4th/A Street)
C Street Garage (near 4th/C Street)
Download our Downtown Parking Map with EV charging locations info (https://www.cityofsanrafael.org/documents/new-downtown-parking-guide-with-ev/) Where can I find all-day (10-hour) parking/meters?
3rd & Lootens Place Parking Structure (Upper level only) (LOT) 1550 4th Street (limited to 2 meters in rear of LOT)
Fifth Avenue & C Street (Lower level only; temporarily due to nearby construction) (LOT) 800 Block of Lindaro Street, East side (Between 2nd & 3rd Sts) 1100 Block of Tamalpais Street (West side of railroad tracks) Ritter Street (Between 2nd & 3rd Sts)
800 and 900 Blocks of E Street (Between 2nd & 4th Sts)
What do the colors on the curbs mean?
Yellow Active Loading / Unloading; 20 minute maximum enforced 7am-6pm except Sundays & Holidays ITEM 3A - ATTACHMENT 3
ITEM 3A - ATTACHMENT 3
404
Item #: 3B
STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #: 3B
MEETING DATE: April 25, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Adopt a Resolution Approving the Inclusionary Housing and Commercial Nexus Studies and Direct staff to bring
back an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Housing
Impact Fee Ordinance for Consideration. The item is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the
CEQA Guidelines because it does not constitute a
“project”
FROM: Heidi Scoble, Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the Town Council receive a presentation and hold a public regarding nexus fee studies supporting an affordable housing in-lieu fee and commercial/non-residential linkage fee (Nexus Studies).
2. Move to adopt the draft Resolution approving the Nexus Studies in compliance with State law (see Attachment 1).
3. Direct staff to return to Council with an Inclusionary Affordable Housing Ordinance, Program, and related impact fees.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
A. Introduction.
To promote affordable housing in the Town of San Anselmo and to implement policies in the Town’s Housing Element, staff is preparing a group of inclusionary affordable housing policies for the Council’s consideration. As explained further below, the Town has worked with 5 other Marin Jurisdictions using grant funding to develop a common inclusionary housing program.
Aspects of this program include: 1) an inclusionary affordable housing ordinance; 2) implementing regulations; 3) the establishment of an affordable housing fund to promote housing; and 4) affordable housing impact fees, which monies will be deposited into the affordable housing fund.
405
Item #: 3B
The purpose of this agenda item is to: 1) request the Town Council adoption of two affordable housing impact fee studies in compliance with State law; and 2) provide direction to staff to return with an inclusionary housing program for Council’s consideration.
B. Approval of Nexus Fee Studies.
Adoption of a Resolution approving the fee studies is the first required step of the larger inclusionary housing policies and program, which will return to the Council for consideration.
The studies under consideration include:
1. Inclusionary Program and In-Lieu Fee Study
The Inclusionary Study draws on a thorough review of current inclusionary housing policies as well as best practices. The study provides detailed analysis quantifying the affordability gap to support updated in-lieu fee calculations. The recommendations include key policy considerations for affordable housing inclusionary requirements and an associated in-lieu fee that would apply to new multi-unit developments in the Town of San Anselmo.
2. Commercial Linkage Fee Study
The Commercial Linkage Fee Study quantifies the increase in demand for affordable housing that accompanies jobs created by non-residential development. The study draws on analysis of the gap between what households can afford to pay for housing and the cost of developing new housing units. The resulting recommendation is an updated Commercial Linkage Fee that would apply to all new non-residential development in the Town of San Anselmo.
Future Planning Commission and Town Council hearings will be held to address policy recommendations.
What is Inclusionary Housing?
Cities, towns, and Counties have been operating inclusionary housing policies and programs since the 1970’s. Inclusionary Housing policies and programs aim to create affordable housing units by requiring housing developers seeking to construct new market-rate units to set aside a certain number of affordable units for moderate-income to low-income tenants or homeowners. Inclusionary housing policies are designed to encourage new housing developers to build affordable homes in market-rate housing areas with the goal of creating communities with diverse income levels. Inclusionary requirements also help a municipality satisfy its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for units at various affordability income levels.
The benefits of Inclusionary Housing include the following:
1. Increased supply of affordable housing: Inclusionary housing policies help increase the amount of affordable housing available to lower-income and moderate-income 406
Item #: 3B
households. Inclusionary Housing policies also offer a path to meeting federal fair housing standards set by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
2. Greater opportunity for low-income households: As housing prices soar, inclusionary housing policies aim to help low-income renters and homeowners afford to live in areas with greater access to employment, schools, and public transportation.
3. Decrease economic and racial segregation: Inclusionary housing can help create economically and racially diverse communities by enabling people to move from highpoverty to low-poverty areas.
4. Healthier communities: Living in a mixed-income community can have a positive effect on residents’ health, such as a reduction in stress and overall improved mental health.
In support of Inclusionary Housing, the Town’s 5th Cycle 2015-2023 Housing Element includes Program H3.C which would have established inclusionary requirements and adoption of an inclusionary ordinance. (2015-2023 Adopted Housing Element, p. 71, 111, 125.) The 2015-2023 Housing Element also includes a program to establish an Affordable Housing Fund that would include inclusionary in-lieu fee payments. (2015-2023 Adopted Housing Element, 120 127.) The Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element also includes Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Programs Action 5.7f for the adoption of an Inclusionary housing ordinance.
In 2019, during the 5th Cycle Housing Element, the Town was awarded a grant pursuant to California Senate Bill 2 (SB 2 Grant) to work with 5 other Marin jurisdictions on various housingrelated issues, including the development of common inclusionary policies, and associated inlieu and commercial linkage fees. Participating jurisdictions included: Corte Madera, Fairfax, Unincorporated County of Marin, Larkspur, San Rafael, and Sausalito. Of these, only Fairfax and San Anselmo currently do not have existing inclusionary housing policies.
The collaboration among Marin cities, towns, and the County has resulted in significant staff and consultant-cost savings, with the County of Marin taking a lead role. Moreover, the collaboration has helped ensure a cohesive and consistent approach throughout participating Marin jurisdictions providing predictability for stakeholders including housing developers.
SB 2 Grant funds were also used to produce nexus fee studies to support the adoption of affordable housing in-lieu and non-residential/commercial linkage fees. The nexus fee studies were conducted by Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolf Associates. The studies include legal support for both the affordable housing inclusionary in-lieu fee and the nonresidential/commercial linkage fee. Additionally, the Consultants held stakeholder meetings that included market-rate developers, affordable housing developers, and housing advocates.
Participating developers indicated that the complexity and variety of inclusionary policies makes housing projects more burdensome because it is difficult to establish project costs. It was suggested that a common inclusionary policy for Marin County jurisdictions would ease roadblocks to housing developments, thereby creating more housing. 407
Item #: 3B
Assembly Bill 602 (2021) imposes certain procedural and substantive requirements regarding the adoption of development impact fees, in applicable part, requiring the adoption of impact fee nexus study at least 30 days prior to the adoption of the associated development impact fee itself at a public hearing. Additionally, AB 602 requires that any impact fee study that is adopted after July 1, 2022, either calculate a fee levied or imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of the proposed unit or make specified findings explaining why square footage is not an appropriate metric to calculate fees. In part, the intent is to allow smaller housing units by making the fees proportional to size, thereby reducing the fee amount.
Here, as required by AB 602, staff is requesting the Town Council conduct a public hearing for the adoption of the subject the nexus studies.
C. Direction to Return with Inclusionary Housing Program.
Staff is also requesting the Town Council provide concurrence and direction regarding the following:
1. May 1: Planning Commission to conduct a public hearing to consider recommending Town Council adoption of 1) Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; 2) Resolution adopting implementing Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulations; 3) Resolution establishing affordable housing in-lieu fees and non-residential/commercial linkage fees.
2. May 9: Town Council to conduct a public hearing for the Introduction and first reading of an Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
3. May 23: Town Council to consider adoption the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance; 2) Resolution adopting implementing Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulations; 3) Resolution establishing affordable housing in-lieu fees and nonresidential/commercial linkage fees.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Town received SB 2 Grant funding in 2019, in which money was expended in applicable part on the development of inclusionary housing policies and related fees in conjunction with participating Marin jurisdictions. Significant staff time and consultant time was saved by this collaboration.
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed resolution and nexus studies are consistent with, and implement, both the Town’s current General Plan Housing Element (2015-2023) and the Draft Housing Element, which include policies to adopt inclusionary housing policies, adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance, and adoption of affordable housing in-lieu fees. 408
Item #: 3B
CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
The nexus studies supporting affordable-housing in-lieu fees and the nonresidential/commercial linkage fees are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Amendment will have a significant effect on the environment; and because it is not a “project” under CEQA since a project does not include the creation of a governmental funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project (CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), and this Resolution commits no fees to any specific project.
The affordable housing and inclusionary zoning Ordinance Amendment, affordable housing inlieu fees and non-residential/commercial linkage fees, and implementing policies are consistent with the Town’s Climate Action Plan. Said policies and Ordinance Amendment will require and encourage the development of housing units affordable to all incomes in the Town, thereby decreasing car use and related environmental impacts.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1- Resolution
Attachment 2- Inclusionary Program and In-Lieu Fee Study prepared by Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates dated February 10, 2023
Attachment 3- Commercial Linkage Study prepared by Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates dated February 18, 2023
409
SAN ANSELMO TOWN COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO ADOPTING NEXUS
STUDIES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN-LIEU FEES AND
COMMERCIAL/NON-RESIDENTIAL LINKAGE FEES
WHEREAS, all communities in the State of California, including the Town of San Anselmo, face a housing crisis that includes the lack of access to affordable housing, which has a direct negative impact on the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of San Anselmo; and WHEREAS, inclusionary housing policies, and related affordable housing in-lieu and nonresidential/commercial linkage fees, which fees are deposited into an affordable housing fund to be used to promote and secure affordable housing, are tools that help jurisdictions increase the supply of affordable housing units; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65580 provides that the availability of housing is of vital Statewide importance and that local governments have a responsibility to use their powers to facilitate the development of housing and make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of inclusionary housing policies, including supporting affordable housing in-lieu fees and commercial/non-residential linkage fees, is critical for the Town in reaching its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) housing requirements for very low, low, and moderate income households; and
WHEREAS, the Town of San Anselmo was awarded funding pursuant to a State Grant established by California Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) for actions to increase housing, and a portion of this money was utilized in collaboration with other Marin jurisdictions to formulate inclusionary housing policies and supporting nexus fee studies; and
WHEREAS, using the SB 2 funding, the Town of San Anselmo collaborated with several Marin jurisdictions lead by Strategic Economics, Inc. and Vernazza Wolf Associates (Consultants) on the development of a common inclusionary housing policy; and WHEREAS, Consultants completed an Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Study and a Commercial/Non-Residential Linkage Fee Study (Nexus Studies), which studies support the adoption of said fees; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Studies use widely used, appropriate methodology to determine the maximum amount needed to full mitigate the burdens created by residential and non-residential development on the need for affordable housing; and
Item # 3B- Attachment 1 Item # 3B- Attachment 1
410
WHEREAS, the Nexus Studies demonstrate that said fees do not exceed the affordable housing impacts attributable to the development projects on which the fees are imposed; and WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 602 (2021) imposes certain procedural and substantive requirements regarding the adoption of development impact fees, in applicable part, requiring the adoption of impact fee nexus study at least 30 days’ prior to the adoption of the associated development impact fee itself at a public hearing (Gov. Code, § 66016.5(a)); and WHEREAS, on April 25, 2023 at a duly noticed public hearing, the Town Council did hear and consider the Nexus Studies regarding the affordable housing in-lieu fee and commercial/nonresidential linkage fees pursuant to AB 602; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of San Anselmo hereby adopts the Nexus Studies supporting the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees as set forth in Exhibit “A” and Commercial/Non-Residential Linkage Fees as set forth in Exhibit “B” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the facts set forth in the recitals in this Resolution are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. The recitals constitute findings in this matter and, together with the staff report, other written reports, oral staff presentation, public testimony, and other information contained in the record, are an adequate and appropriate evidentiary basis for the actions taken in this Resolution.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Resolution will have a significant effect on the environment; and because it is not a “project” under CEQA.
INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED AT A PUBLIC HEARING at a regular meeting of the San Anselmo Town Council on ____________ by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
RECUSED:
APPROVED:___________________________
Steve Burdo, Mayor
ATTEST:_______________________________
Serge Avila, Town Clerk
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
411
EXHIBIT “A”
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
412
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Heidi Scoble, Town of San Anselmo
Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates
February 10, 2023
Project: Marin Inclusionary Study
Subject: Inclusionary Program and In-Lieu Fee Study for San Anselmo Purpose and Background
The County of Marin, Town of San Anselmo, and five other jurisdictions within Marin County are collaborating on a regional effort to implement or update existing affordable housing policy tools, namely inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage fees. Some of the jurisdictions currently have inclusionary zoning and/or commercial linkage fee programs they intend to review and update as necessary, while others are establishing new programs. Together, the seven jurisdictions have retained Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates (the Consultant Team) to study and offer recommendations for both these policies.
This memo report provides an assessment of the existing inclusionary housing programs, summarizes best practices for setting inclusionary housing requirements, including on-site affordable units and fees in-lieu of providing affordable units on-site. The report provides an updated calculation of in-lieu fees for all the jurisdictions participating in this study. The maximum in-lieu fees were calculated for three different housing product types – single-family subdivisions, townhomes/condominiums, and rental apartments.
This report also includes an analysis of key policy considerations and recommendations to guide San Anselmo’s decision-makers on potential changes to the inclusionary housing requirements and associated in-lieu fees.
The memo is organized into the following sections:
I. Analysis of Existing Inclusionary Policies
II. Best Practices for Inclusionary Policies
III. Affordability Gap/In-lieu Fee Calculation
IV. Policy Considerations and Recommendations
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
413
I. Analysis of Existing Inclusionary Policies
Some of the communities in Marin County have a relatively long history with inclusionary zoning.
Of the seven jurisdictions participating in this study, five already have inclusionary policies, some of which have existed in some form since the 1980s. Sausalito adopted its policy in 2019, while the communities of San Anselmo and Fairfax have not yet adopted a policy. Concurrent to the preparation of this memo, San Rafael adopted a significantly modified inclusionary policy; both the current policy and the newly adopted versions are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Inclusionary programs typically have a specific onsite requirement to designate a portion of the project for affordable units (see Figure 1 for a comparison of onsite requirements for the seven jurisdictions) as well as alternative means of compliance with the policy, such as the payment of in-lieu fees or land dedication (Figure 2). Below are some key observations of the policy elements across the jurisdictions:
• All jurisdictions apply an inclusionary requirement to both rental and for-sale projects.
Fairfax and San Anselmo do not have existing inclusionary housing ordinances. • The policies for rental projects tend to target lower income households (very low- and lowincome households) while the policies for for-sale projects tend to target a combination of low- and moderate-income households. Exceptions to this include Corte Madera and San Rafael, which have identical affordability targets for both rental and for-sale projects, and Unincorporated Marin County, which has unusually low-income targets: 60 percent of area median income (AMI) for for-sale and 50 percent of AMI for rental developments. • The percentage affordable requirement ranges from ten percent to 25 percent. Some jurisdictions require smaller percentages for smaller projects: Larkspur has a lower requirement for projects less than twenty units in size, while both San Rafael’s current and newly adopted policies include a modified requirement for larger projects. Sausalito requires a higher percentage (with deeper affordability) for projects in commercial districts. • The inclusionary policies generally have a relatively low unit threshold. The unit thresholds (minimum number of units in a project for the policy to be applicable) range from 1 or more units in Corte Madera to 5 or more units in Larkspur. The relatively low unit thresholds reflect the smaller multifamily and subdivision developments characteristic of Marin. • San Rafael recently modified its policy by relaxing the onsite inclusionary requirement, adding flexibility, and shifting the targeted income groups slightly higher. • The jurisdictions take a mix of approaches to alternative means of compliance, but, overall, the alternatives are structured to encourage developers to build units onsite. Jurisdictions either disallow the payment of in-lieu fees in all circumstances (Sausalito), or disallow them in some circumstances (Corte Madera, Larkspur, San Rafael), or allow the payment of inlieu fees on fractional units (Larkspur, Unincorporated Marin County). Land dedication or the provision of offsite units is generally allowed under special circumstances.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
414
FIGURE 1: ONSITE INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS BY JURISDICTION Percentage Affordable by
Project Size
Minimum Size
Threshold
Affordability Target
Rental For-Sale
Corte Madera All projects: 25% 1 unit 5% Very Low-Income; 10% Low-Income; 10% Moderate-Income
Sausalito
Commercial Districts 1-5 units: 1 unit;
6+ units: 20% 1 unit Low-income Moderate-income
Other Areas 15% 4 units Moderate-income
Larkspur 5-19 units: 15%
20+ units: 20% 5 units 50% Very Low-Income;
50% Low-Income
50% Low-Income;
50% Moderate-Income
Unincorporated Marin County 2+ units or lots: 20% 2 units or lots Very Low-Income (50% AMI) Low-Income (60% AMI)
San Rafael
Current Policy
2-10 units: 10%
11-20 units: 15%
21+ units: 20%
2 units 50% Very Low-Income;
50% Low-Income
50% Low-Income;
50% Moderate-Income
New Policy (Approved by City Council 2/21/2021)
Primary Requirement 2-15 units: 10%
16+ units: 5% 2 units Low-Income
Secondary Requirement (in addition to the
primary requirement for 16+ unit projects)
16+ units: Additional 5% or
10% 16 units 5% additional set-aside: Low-Income;
10% additional set-aside: Moderate-Income
Fairfax No Policy
San Anselmo No Policy
Source: Staff from Jurisdictions, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
415
FIGURE 2: INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE BY JURISDICTION Alternative Means of Compliance
Corte Madera 1-9 unit projects can pay in lieu fee. 10+ unit projects must incorporate units on-site.
Sausalito
Commercial Districts Applicants can propose land dedication or off-site units if on-site units are not possible, though there is no in-lieu fee option.
Other Areas Applicants can propose land dedication or off-site units if on-site units are not possible, though there is no in-lieu fee option.
Larkspur
Land donation, transfer of inclusionary credits, second dwelling units; In-lieu fee available for 5-14 unit projects and for fractional units (Rental: $213,267, For-Sale: $338,126).
Unincorporated Marin County 2+ unit projects and subdivisions: In-lieu fee available for fractional units ($329,485 per unit).
San Rafael
Former Policy In-lieu fee for fractional units ($343,969 per unit).
New Policy (Approved by City Council 2/21/2021)
Primary Requirement None (must be on-site)
Secondary Requirement In-lieu fee, off-site units located within 1/2 mile of project, or land donation.
Fairfax No Policy
San Anselmo No Policy
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
416
EFFECTIVENESS OF INCLUSIONARY POLICIES
The Consultant Team surveyed the five participating jurisdictions that currently have policies, including questions about the units produced by their policy, the means of production, and fee revenues collected. The Team also held meetings with market-rate developers, affordable housing providers, and other stakeholders (see Appendix A) to gain their perspective regarding the policies.
To summarize the results of the inclusionary policies, the Consultant Team summarized the number of units produced and the revenues generated from 2016 to 2020, shown in Figure 3. To provide more context on housing product, a summary of allocated and permitted units in the 2015-2023 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) cycle is shown in Figure 4. The effectiveness of the inclusionary policies as a tool for affordable housing production is discussed below.
The jurisdictions in this study produced 58 affordable units through their inclusionary programs over a five-year period. In the last five years, the five jurisdictions with inclusionary policies produced a total of 41 affordable rental units, 17 affordable for-sale units, and approximately $4 million for affordable housing development. San Rafael constituted most of the activity, with all 41 rental units produced there, 13 for-sale units produced, and $3.6 million generated from a single development, the 81-unit Village at Loch Lomond Marina project.1
Inclusionary programs accounted for about 14 percent of affordable housing production in the seven participating jurisdictions. According to the RHNA progress report shown in Figure 4, the participating jurisdictions permitted a total 414 affordable units and 700 market-rate units from 2015 to 2020.
This indicates that the majority of below-market rate housing development has been implemented through 100 percent affordable projects. The jurisdictions are on track to meet their market-rate (over 120% AMI) and low-income (80% AMI) housing allocations. However, they are less likely to meet the target for producing very-low income (50% AMI) and moderate-income (120%) units.
The inclusionary programs have not resulted in significant production of new affordable units in part because of the complexity of residential development in the county. Residential developers participating in this study cited many factors contributing to the complexity of housing development in Marin, including long and unpredictable approvals processes, opposition from some community members, lack of available sites, especially those that are zoned for multi-family housing, high land and construction costs, and inadequate or expensive infrastructure.
Inclusionary requirements can be a secondary factor impacting the viability of new development in Marin, mainly in instances where the requirement is poorly matched to market conditions. Market rate developers participating this study believed that new development projects can support inclusionary requirements for lower income households. However, some noted that the percentage requirement had been increased over time in many cities, without consideration of the relative market strengths of different locations in the county. For example, some jurisdictions have targeted very low-income households for for-sale projects, which requires a deeper subsidy than low- and moderate-income households.
The conversion of off-site units as an alternative means of compliance with the inclusionary requirement can fall short of the communities’ goals for affordable housing. Allowing developers to convert existing units to deed-restricted affordable units can be problematic. First, unlike the 1 The $3.6 million generated from the Loch Lomond Marina project were not from in-lieu fees but rather a “buyout” of a portion of the BMR requirement.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
417
construction of new units, the conversion of existing units fails to expand the overall supply of housing in the county, trading a market rate unit for one below market rate unit rather than expanding the overall supply. Second, converted units are often of lower quality than new units, and may come with hidden costs, such as additional maintenance costs.
In Marin County, the current inclusionary requirement appears to encourage developers to reduce the scale of projects to allow for the payment of in-lieu fees rather than providing on-site units. The County’s policy targets very low-income households: 50 percent of Area Median Income for rental developments and 60 percent for for-sale. These income targets are lower than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area. Projects with two units or more must provide units onsite, with the payment of in-lieu fees allowed only on fractional units. According to County staff, some development projects have reduced the scale of their projects to enable the payment of in-lieu fees rather than providing units onsite.
The variation in inclusionary requirements from jurisdiction to jurisdiction can create confusion and unnecessary complexity for developers. Because each jurisdiction in Marin County has set its inclusionary requirements in an uncoordinated way, the finer details of the many different policies can be difficult for developers to navigate. A more standardized approach that is closely tied to market conditions, rather than jurisdictional boundaries, would help to rationalize the process for developers.
FIGURE 3: AFFORDABLE UNITS PRODUCED AND FEE REVENUES COLLECTED, BY JURISDICTION, 2016-2020.
Jurisdiction Rental Units For-sale Units Fee Revenues
Corte Madera 0 3 $379,478
Fairfax [a] n/a n/a n/a
Larkspur 0 0 0
Unincorporated Marin County 0 1 [d] $213,603
San Anselmo [b] n/a n/a n/a
San Rafael 41 13 $3,600,000 [e]
Sausalito [c] 0 0 0
Total 41 17 $4,193,081 [a] Fairfax does not currently have an inclusionary program. [b] San Anselmo does not currently have an inclusionary program. [c] Sausalito adopted an inclusionary program in 2019. [d] Produced through a shared agreement with Mill Valley. [e] Revenues collected from a buy-out of six Below Market Rate units.
Source: Reported by each jurisdiction, 2016-2020.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
418
FIGURE 4. RHNA
FIFTH CYCLE ALLOCATION AND PERMITTED UNITS BY AFFORDABILITY LEVEL ACROSS JURISDICTIONS, AS OF 2020 Corte Madera Fairfax Larkspur San Anselmo San Rafael Sausalito Unincorporated
Marin County Total
Very Low Income (50% AMI)
RHNA 22 16 40 33 240 26 55 432
Permitted Units 16 13 6 15 5 12 26 93
% Complete 73% 81% 15% 45% 2% 46% 47% 22%
Low Income (80% AMI)
RHNA 13 11 20 17 148 14 32 255
Permitted Units 13 60 11 21 79 20 27 231
% Complete 100% 545% 55% 124% 53% 143% 84% 91%
Moderate Income (120% AMI)
RHNA 13 11 21 19 181 16 37 298
Permitted Units 8 4 9 23 12 6 28 90
% Complete 62% 36% 43% 121% 7% 38% 76% 30%
Market-Rate (>120% AMI)
RHNA 24 23 51 37 438 23 61 657
Permitted Units 179 10 90 39 201 7 174 700
% Complete 746% 43% 176% 105% 46% 30% 285% 107%
Permitted Units Summary
Total Affordable Units (<120% AMI) 37 77 26 59 96 38 81 414 Total Market Rate Units (>120% AMI) 179 10 90 39 201 7 174 700 Affordable Units as Share of Total 17% 89% 22% 60% 32% 84% 32% 37% Source: HCD, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
419
II. Best Practices for Inclusionary Policies
This section provides a discussion of key policy issues for jurisdictions to consider as they introduce a new inclusionary program or modify an existing program, and provides recommendations based on best practices. To identify best practices, the Consultant Team reviewed reports from the UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation, Grounded Solutions Network, and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. To guide the recommendations for best practices, the Consultant Team first designated market area zones. Following that, the policy elements discussed in this section include:
• Considering market factors when setting inclusionary requirements • The income groups targeted in inclusionary requirements • The minimum applicable development size
• Setting in-lieu fees as an alternative to on-site or off-site units, and • Other alternative means of compliance.
MARKET CONDITIONS
It is important to consider market conditions when setting an inclusionary housing requirement to ensure that the policy can be tailored to the unique context of each jurisdiction, and that the policy does not constrain the development of new housing. Jurisdictions that have stronger housing markets can establish higher inclusionary requirements than those with less established or weaker markets.
Based on Zillow home sale data and interviews with residential developers with experience working in Marin County (see Appendix A), the Consultant Team identified three market areas for for-sale housing across the participating jurisdictions in the County. Figures 5 and 6 show Zillow home value indices for both overall home sales and condominium sales.
As shown in Figure 5 , home values are highest in South Marin, which offer the best access to San Francisco via the Golden Gate Bridge and ferries. Home values are slightly lower in Central Marin, and drop in North/ West Marin areas, which are comparatively less accessible.
The market for rental housing is different from for-sale housing in Marin County. The rental housing market is strongest in the more urbanized areas that offer access to transportation infrastructure, jobs, and amenities. Most of the recent market-rate rental development activity has occurred in urban San Rafael. Tam Ridge is another significant rental project which was completed in Corte Madera in 2017.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
420
FIGURE 5: ZILLOW HOME VALUE INDEX FOR MARIN COMMUNITIES Source: Zillow, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.
FIGURE 6: ZILLOW HOME VALUE INDEX FOR CONDO/COOPS IN MARIN COMMUNITIES Source: Zillow, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
North/West Central South
$00K
$200K
$400K
$600K
$800K
$1,000K
$1,200K
San Rafael Fairfax San Anselmo Larkspur Corte Madera Sausalito North
Central
South
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
421
PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENTS
Figure 7 and Figure 8 illustrate the income targets and percentage requirements for the jurisdictions that currently have inclusionary programs. Figure 7 plots the current onsite requirements for rental units, with the percent set-aside on the x-axis and average Area Median Income2 targeted by the policy on the y-axis. Figure 8 shows the same information for for-sale units. Policies that appear toward the lower right of the plots have a higher percentage requirement and deeper affordability, while those toward the upper left have a relatively lower percentage requirement and less affordability.
Five of the seven participating jurisdictions already have inclusionary policies in place requiring affordable units onsite. The percentage of units varies by jurisdiction, ranging from 10 percent (San Rafael) to 25 percent (Corte Madera). Most of the jurisdictions have similar percentage requirements for for-sale and rental development, but the income targeted is typically lower for rental than for forsale housing.
The percentage of affordable housing required in a project should be set at an economically feasible level so that the inclusionary requirement does not create an impediment to housing development.3 According to market-rate housing developers, the market context for inclusionary requirements is particularly important in Marin. Development projects in the southern and central portions of the county, such as Corte Madera, Larkspur, Sausalito and parts of Unincorporated Marin, can more feasibly accommodate a higher percentage of inclusionary and/or a deeper level of affordability, compared to communities located in northern and western portions of the county.
Setting a high inclusionary requirement could be prohibitive for new rental projects in Marin County.
San Rafael recently relaxed its inclusionary requirement to encourage new development, despite being the most active rental market in the county. Because rental developments tend to serve a lower income market segment than for-sale developments, the inclusionary requirement for rentals is sometimes slightly lower than that for for-sale developments. Local jurisdictions can make up that gap by providing zoning incentives to reduce development costs for rental projects. 2 For example, San Rafael requires at least 50 percent of its BMR units to be targeted to very low-income households (maximum income: 50 percent of AMI) and the remainder to be targeted to low-income households (maximum income: 80 percent of AMI). Therefore, the average AMI target for San Rafael is .50*.50 + .50*.80 = 65 percent of AMI. 3 AB1505, also known as the “Palmer Fix” permits California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to review inclusionary zoning ordinances adopted or amended after September 15, 2017 if it requires more than 15% of the units to be affordable to lower income households and if the locality has failed to meet 75% of its share of the above moderate RHNA. HCD can request localities to provide an “economic feasibility study” to demonstrate that the higher inclusionary requirement will not impede development activity.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
422
FIGURE 7: AVERAGE AMI TARGETS AND PERCENT ONSITE REQUIREMENT FOR RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS * Assumes the developer selects the 10% / moderate-income option for the secondary requirement.
Source: Participating jurisdictions, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.
FIGURE 8: AVERAGE AMI TARGETS AND PERCENT SET-ASIDE FOR FOR-SALE DEVELOPMENTS * Assumes the developer selects the 10% / moderate-income option for the secondary requirement.
Source: Participating jurisdictions, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.
Corte Madera
Sausalito
Sausalito (commercial
districts)
Larkspur (5-14 units)
Larkspur (15+ units)
Unincorp. Marin
San Rafael (2-15 units)
San Rafael (16+ units) *
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Average AMI Target
Percent On-site Requirement
Corte Madera
Sausalito
Sausalito (commercial
districts)
Larkspur (5-14 units)
Larkspur (15+ units)
Unincorp. Marin
San Rafael (2-15 units)
San Rafael (16+ units) *
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Average AMI Target
Percent On-site Requirement
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
423
INCOME TARGETS
There is a wide range in the income targets for inclusionary programs among the participating jurisdictions, as shown in Figures 7 and 8. It is common practice for jurisdictions to target lower-income households for renter housing than for ownership housing. This is because it is generally easier for low- and moderate-income households to meet typical lending requirements.
Larkspur, Sausalito, and Unincorporated Marin County target lower-income households for rental units compared to for-sale units. San Rafael and Corte Madera target moderate-income for both rental and for-sale housing.
RENTAL
The income targets for rental units among the jurisdictions vary widely (Figure 7). Unincorporated Marin targets very low-income households, while Larkspur targets a mix of very low- and low-income households. The other jurisdictions have higher income targets overall, including targeting to some moderate-income households.
Currently, the most active rental market in Marin is San Rafael, which, of the jurisdictions in this study, produced the only affordable rental units in the last five years (Figure 3). These units were produced under the city’s previous policy, which targeted low- and very low-income households. San Rafael has relaxed this requirement with its new ordinance, which is designed to further promote new development. Among other changes, the new ordinance eliminates targeting for very low-income households.
FOR-SALE
In comparison to rentals, the income targets for for-sale development are overall more uniform across jurisdictions. The targeted income groups tend to consist of a mix of low- and moderate-income households.
The exception to this pattern is Unincorporated Marin County, which requires a significantly deeper level of affordability (60 percent of AMI) on for-sale projects. This policy can pose a challenge in two ways. First, it can make the County uncompetitive for development with its neighbors. Further, the lower-then-average income targets in Marin County’s policy was identified by developers as being a financial burden on projects such that many do not pencil. As mentioned in Section I, County staff reports that developers tend to reduce the size of their projects in order to build fewer onsite BMR units than otherwise would have been required, preferring to pay the in-lieu fee on fractional units to the greatest extent possible.
UNIT THRESHOLDS
One important element of an inclusionary policy is the minimum size of development (the threshold number of dwelling units) for which the policy will apply. Because smaller scale projects are often more complex and less efficient than larger projects, many inclusionary programs around the country have exemptions or lower requirements on small projects. According to Grounded Solutions Network, California jurisdictions typically set the minimum threshold for an inclusionary requirement at between Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
424
two to five units.4 This is consistent with the policies of the jurisdictions in this study, where the the minimum threshold ranges between one unit and five units.
Because a significant share of new development projects in Marin County’s jurisdictions are quite small, it is it is important that all projects be required to provide affordable units. However, for smaller projects that have more challenging development feasibility, the percentage set-aside required could be lower, or the income group targeted could be set higher. In San Rafael projects with 5 to 15 units have a set-aside requirement of 10 percent, compared to 15 percent for larger projects. Similarly, Larkspur’s ordinance requires 15 percent affordable units for projects with less than 15 units, compared to 20 percent for larger projects. San Francisco has a lower percentage requirement on projects between 10 to 24 units of 12 percent, compared to approximately 21 percent for larger projects.
SETTING IN-LIEU FEES
A jurisdiction’s approach to setting in-lieu fees should consider a number of factors. The first consideration is to compare the in-lieu fee option with the provision of onsite units – which of these options does the jurisdiction wish to encourage? In many California communities, collecting in-lieu fees and leveraging funding from other sources can allow them to build 100 percent affordable housing projects for extremely-low, very-low, and low-income households. However, this approach requires administrative capacity on behalf of city and county staff, capacity from local affordable housing developers, and access to other funding sources. It can also take a significant amount of time to acquire sites and secure funding to build 100 percent affordable projects.
For many of the above reasons, most of the jurisdictions participating in this study would prefer to incentivize on-site production rather than off-site units. Inclusionary housing is an important tool to promote mixed-income housing and to help correct historical patterns of economic and racial segregation. Setting the in-lieu fee at the maximum level can encourage more developers to provide units onsite. When the in-lieu fee option is available, developers are more likely to pay the fee when constructing high value or luxury units, because the revenue sacrificed from building units onsite is higher. (The potential value of luxury units is high, which means the developer must forgo more revenue for each unit that is designated affordable.)
Another consideration for in-lieu fees is the basis of the fee. Is the fee charged on the basis of dwelling units or square feet of residential area? While communities in Marin generally charge on a per unit basis, charging on the fee on a per-square-foot basis can encourage the development of smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms. As an example, San Francisco’s affordable housing in-lieu fee is charged on a per-square-foot basis.
It is recommended that fees be implemented with a schedule for annual adjustments. As economic factors, such as construction costs, change over time, the affordability gap will also change. Fees should be adjusted based on a regularly published cost index.
Further considerations for setting in-lieu fees on the basis of the affordability gap analysis are examined in Section IV.
4 Jacobus, Rick. “Inclusionary Housing: Creating and Maintaining Equitable Communities,” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2015.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
425
ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE
Because circumstances surrounding each project are different, it is important for an inclusionary program to provide alternative ways of meeting the inclusionary requirement other than with the provision of onsite units. Marin County has successfully used alternative means to produce new affordable units and raise revenue for housing; these alternative means include the provision of offsite units, land dedication, and partnerships with affordable housing developers. The option to construct units offsite is typically met with a higher percentage than what would be required onsite.
Market rate developers stress that flexibility in the inclusionary policy is a key determinant of the production of new housing. For some projects, the dedication of land to a jurisdiction or an affordable developer can result in the construction of a greater number of units for lower income households than the provision of on-site inclusionary units.
As mentioned in Section I, some developers may propose to fulfill an inclusionary requirement, not through the construction of new units offsite, but through the conversion of offsite market rate units to deed-restricted affordable units. However, this approach has some disadvantages. First, it does not result in net new housing units. Second, the off-site unit does not create a mixed-income development project. Finally, the conversion of units can sometimes result in affordable housing units that are of lower quality than new construction. If the off-site provision of units is offered as a means of compliance, it is important for the jurisdiction to ensure that the offsite units are of equivalent quality and within close proximity to the market-rate development project. Other best practices are to require that the value of the off-site contribution is equivalent or greater than the value of the in-lieu fees.
BEST PRACTICES FOR SMALL LOT SUBDIVISIONS
Recent state legislation (AB 1315 [2019-2020]) sets forth rules for small lot subdivisions to encourage affordable housing in areas zoned for multifamily development. The law allows developers to subdivide parcels into smaller lots for the construction of small, individual units with limited parking. For the purposes of applying an inclusionary policy, it is advisable to treat a small lot subdivision as if it were a new construction project of the same number of units.
As there may be a significant period of time between the subdivision and when new construction occurs, jurisdictions should clarify for developers the point in time when the inclusionary policy is applied and, for example, any applicable in-lieu fees are paid. Ordinarily, it is the developer entitling the construction of the residential units, and not the developer performing the land division, who will be responsible for fulfilling whatever inclusionary policy is in effect at that time, and paying any applicable fees.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
426
III. Calculation of In-Lieu Fee
Inclusionary zoning requires that new developments provide affordable housing along with marketrate housing units, either on-site or off-site, or comply with alternative measures such as payment of fees “in-lieu” of providing affordable units. The in-lieu fee is calculated based on the housing affordability gap – the difference between what households at various income levels can pay for housing and the cost of developing market rate housing. If this is for-sale housing, then the gap is based on the difference between annual mortgage costs and affordable monthly housing payments, and for rental housing, it is the difference between market rate rents and affordable rents. Once the total gap is calculated, the actual fee that is adopted depends on financial feasibility of the costs of the fee on prototypical residential developments.
For the purposes of this study, the in-lieu fees were calculated for Marin County and participating jurisdictions for three development types:
• For-sale single-family subdivisions
• For-sale condominium townhomes
• Rental apartments
While the study presents the total affordability gap, the actual fee that is adopted in each jurisdiction depends on policy considerations, which are outlined in Section IV of this report.
METHODOLOGY
The affordability gap is defined as the difference between what very low-, low- and moderate-income households can afford to pay for housing and the cost of developing new housing. Because it measures this shortfall that must be made up by a developer offering Below Market Rate units, the affordability gap is useful for setting in-lieu fees as an alternative to producing units directly through the inclusionary program.
The following steps illustrate the methodology used for calculating the affordability gap:
1. Estimate affordable rents and housing prices for households in target groups.
2. Estimate development costs of building new housing units, based on current cost and market data;
3. Calculate the difference between what renters and homeowners can afford to pay for housing, and the cost of developing those rental and for-sale units Because California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) define the ability to pay for housing at the county level, the affordability gap is calculated on the same income categories for the entire county.
The calculated in-lieu fees are valid for all of the jurisdictions participating in this study.
RESIDENTIAL PROTOTYPES
The Consultant Team established three housing prototypes that represent the types of development likely to occur in Marin County. The prototypes are informed by recently built and proposed development projects in Marin as well as conversations with developers with experience in Marin County. Example projects that represent the types of development likely to occur in Marin County are Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
427
shown in Figures 9 and 10. All five projects are in either San Rafael or Corte Madera, which have attracted most of the recent development activity among the participating jurisdictions.
FIGURE 9. MARIN PROJECTS THAT INFORMED PROTOTYPES 1 AND 2 (FOR-SALE PROTOTYPES) Project The Strand Enclave 350 Merrydale Rd.
Building Type Detached single-family and
townhomes Townhomes Townhomes, plus flats
Jurisdiction San Rafael Corte Madera San Rafael
Status Built in 2015 Built in 2019 Proposed
Units 34 detached, 42 townhomes 16 townhomes 41 townhomes, 4 flats Site Size (acres) 8.5 (approximate) 1.3 2.28
Units Per Acre 9 12 20
Unit Size Sq. Ft.
(Approximate)
Townhome: 1,650-1,900 Sq. Ft;
Detached: 1,950-3,300 Sq. Ft. 2,020 Sq. Ft. Townhome: 1,450-2,100 Sq. Ft.; Flat: 800 Sq. Ft.
Parking 2 car garage per unit plus visitor
surface parking
2 car garage per
unit plus visitor
surface parking
2 car garage per townhome
unit; 1 car garage per flat unit;
Surface visitor parking.
Source: Costar, 2021; Various marketing materials for, and articles about projects; Interviews with developers; Strategic Economics, 2021.
FIGURE 10. MARIN PROJECTS THAT INFORMED PROTOTYPE 3 (RENTAL PROTOTYPE) Project Tam Ridge 703 Third St.
Building Type Wood-frame apartment flats over podium,
plus townhomes
Wood-frame apartment flats over
podium, using density bonus, near
SMART station
Jurisdiction Corte Madera San Rafael
Status Built in 2017 Proposed
Units 154 flats, 25 townhomes 120 flats
Site Size (acres) 4.5 0.63
Unit Density 40 190
Unit Size Sq. Ft.
Range (Approximate)
Flats: 750-1,100 Sq. Ft.; Townhome: 1,300
Sq. Ft. 450-900 Sq. Ft.
Parking 1.6 spaces per unit (tenant parking in
podium garage plus visitor surface parking)
1 space per unit in podium
(incorporates mechanical lifts)
Source: Costar, 2021; Various marketing materials for, and articles about projects; Interviews with developers; Strategic Economics, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
428
The prototypes are generally based on developments built recently or proposed. Some communities in Marin typically see much smaller projects and are unlikely to see new projects of this scale. However, the per-unit cost of development is unlikely to be significantly different even for smaller and lower density projects, because the reductions in construction costs would be counterbalanced with the higher cost of land per unit.
The prototypes developed for the analysis are summarized below and further details are shown in Figure 11.
Prototype 1: Single-Family Subdivision
The single-family subdivision prototype has 14 detached for-sale units at a density of seven units per acre, making it typical for a “small-lot” subdivision. The units, which are two stories, are a mix of three and four-bedrooms and average 2,200 square feet.
Prototype 2: Condominium Townhome
The condominium townhome prototype includes 30 attached for-sale units at a density of 15 units per acre. Two-thirds of the units have three bedrooms while one-third have four bedrooms. The units are three stories with tuck-under garages on the ground level, and the average unit size is 1,800 square feet.
Prototype 3: Rental Apartments
The rental apartment prototype is a 100-unit apartment building. It has a density of 50 units per acre and is five stories. The building is a “Five-over-one” construction type, which means the first floor is a “Type I” concrete podium to accommodate parking, with four stories of “Type V” wood-frame construction for the residential area above. Typical of rental projects, the units in this prototype are a mix of studios, one-bedrooms, and two-bedrooms. The average unit size is 800 square feet.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
429
FIGURE 11. SUMMARY OF PROTOTYPES
Prototype 1:
Single-Family
Subdivision
Prototype 2:
Condominium
Townhome
Prototype 3:
Rental Apartments
Tenure For-Sale For-Sale Rental
Unit Mix 3, 4 bedrooms 3, 4 bedrooms Studios, 1, 2
bedrooms
Construction Type Wood-frame Wood-frame Type V over 1
Residential Stories 2 3 5
Number of Units 14 30 100
Parcel Size (Acres) 2 2 2
Parcel Size (Sq. Ft.) 87,120 87,120 87,120
Dwelling Units Per Acre 7 15 50
Unit Mix 7 3-Bedrooms;
7 4-Bedrooms
20 3-Bedrooms;
10 4-Bedrooms
10 Studios;
50 1-Bedrooms;
40 2-Bedrooms
Average Unit Size 2,200 1,800 800
Net Residential Sq. Ft. 30,800 54,000 80,000
Efficiency Ratio (a) 100% 100% 90%
Gross Residential Sq. Ft. 30,800 54,000 88,889
Parking Type 2-car garage plus
surface
2-car garage plus
surface Podium
Parking Ratio (Per Unit) (b) 2.50 2.25 1.25
Total Parking Spaces 35 68 125
Garage Parking Sq. Ft. (c) 9,800 21,000 43,750
Floor-Area Ratio (Residential Only) 0.35 0.62 1.02
Floor-Area Ratio (Including Structured
Parking) 0.47 0.86 1.52
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
Notes:
(a) Sq. Ft. associated with residential units divided by total interior square feet of building, (excludes space associated with parking). (b) The urban design specifications of these three prototypes, such as their parking ratios, may vary from the building typologies suggested in Opticos’ Objective Design and Development Standards study, currently in process. The parking ratios, as well as other metrics displayed here, are market-based, informed by conversation with residential developers familiar with Marin. (c) Based on “350 sq. ft. per parking space” standard industry assumption, which incorporates circulation.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
430
ESTIMATING AFFORDABLE RENTS AND HOUSING PRICES
Affordable rents and housing prices were identified based on resources from public agencies, such as HUD and HCD, which set income levels and maximum housing costs for federal and state-funded affordable housing programs. The Marin Housing Authority then provided the specific approach for calculating affordable sales prices, which currently vary across jurisdictions because of the different income levels that jurisdictions target as a part of their inclusionary programs.
The Consultant Team identified the affordability targets that would be tested in collaboration with the County of Marin, set at a level typical of existing inclusionary policies among participating jurisdictions.
The affordable targets are shown below in Figure 12. Consistent with best practices from other inclusionary housing programs, the affordability gap for both rental and for-sale units was calculated for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households,.5 In consultation with the client, the Consultant Team identified specific AMI levels to reflect the average incomes of households that these units would serve, with for-sale units typically targeting households with incomes that are slightly higher than rental units within the income categories. The income levels tested for the for-sale prototypes are generally higher than for the rental prototypes because for-sale affordable housing programs tend to serve households at the higher end of the income target ranges.
FIGURE 12. HOUSEHOLD INCOME TARGETS FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS BY TENURE For-sale Housing Rental Housing
Very Low-income 50% AMI 50% AMI
Low-income 70% AMI 65% AMI
Moderate Income 110% AMI 90% AMI
Source: County of Marin; Strategic Economics, 2021.
Figure 13 below shows the maximum affordable monthly rents for rental housing. The household sizes shown are for one, two, and three persons per household, reflecting the typical occupancy of studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units, respectively, in Prototype 3.
Based on HCD guidelines, the affordable rent is calculated as 30 percent of a household’s gross monthly income, minus a deduction for utilities. The utility deduction includes costs that are usually passed onto the tenant, such as heating, water heating, cooking, and electricity. Natural gas is assumed for heating and water heating. (Water, sewer, and trash removal costs are typically covered by the property owner and excluded from the utility deduction.) 5 Households that fall between 30-50% AMI are considered very low-income; households that fall within 50-80% AMI are considered Lowincome; households that fall between 80-120% AMI are considered moderate income.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
431
FIGURE 13. MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE RENT ASSUMPTIONS FOR VERY LOW, LOW, AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS Very Low-income (50%) Household Size
1 2 3
Maximum Annual Household Income $50,075 $57,250 $64,400 Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $1,252 $1,431 $1,610
Unit Type
Studio 1-BR 2-BR
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $1,252 $1,431 $1,610
Utility Allowance (b) $43 $52 $71
Maximum Rent $1,209 $1,379 $1,539
Low-income (65%) Household Size
1 2 3
Maximum Annual Household Income $65,098 $74,425 $83,720 Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $1,627 $1,861 $2,093
Unit Type
Studio 1-BR 2-BR
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (b) $1,627 $1,861 $2,093
Utility Allowance (c) $43 $52 $71
Maximum Rent $1,584 $1,809 $2,022
Moderate Income (90%) Household Size
1 2 3
Maximum Annual Household Income $90,135 $103,050 $115,920 Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (c) $2,253 $2,576 $2,898
Unit Type
Studio 1-BR 2-BR
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $2,253 $2,576 $2,898
Utility Allowance (b) $43 $52 $71
Maximum Rent $2,210 $2,524 $2,827
Sources: Marin Housing Authority, 2020; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2020.
Notes:
(a) 30 percent of maximum monthly household income.
(b) The maximum monthly cost for each unit type is associated with households that have one more person than bedroom. (Ex: Maximum costs for studios are associated with affordability for one-person households; One-bedroom costs are associated with 2-person households; Two-bedroom costs are associated with 3-person households). (c) Utilities for rentals include an allowance for cooking (natural gas), heating (natural gas), water heating (natural gas), and "other electric" utility usage. Assumes water, sewer, and trash charges are included in the rent.
Figures 14 and 15 shows the calculations of affordable sales prices for for-sale housing. The calculations are based on the following assumptions:
• Based on the anticipated households that would occupy the 3- and 4-bedroom units in the two for-sale prototypes (prototypes 1 and 2), it is assumed that, on average, 6-person households Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
432
would occupy 4-bedroom units, while an even mix of 4- and 5-person households would occupy 3-bedroom units.
• Based on the Marin Housing Authority’s approach for calculating affordable sales prices, homeowners were assumed to pay no more than 33 percent of their gross monthly income on housing costs.
• The maximum affordable sales price is determined by the total monthly mortgage payment that a homeowner could afford, which incorporates standard assumptions related to the mortgage terms and other monthly housing costs associated with homeownership. o The mortgage is assumed to be 30-year fixed rate, with an interest rate of 3.8 percent, which is a typical rate at the time of research (December 2020). The owner is assumed to put down a 5 percent down payment, which is standard for conventional and CalFHA loans.
o Other monthly housing costs include homeowners’ association dues, property taxes, homeowners’ insurance, interior property insurance, and premiums for private mortgage insurance required on home purchases with a down payment of less than 20 percent. Note there is no utility deduction, in accordance with MHA’s approach. • Other monthly housing costs overall are assumed to be slightly greater for condominium housing types than for single-family detached housing types, which is driven by different assumptions on monthly homeowner’s association costs. The homeowner’s association costs are expected to be higher on a per-unit basis for condominium units than for detached singlefamily units, which decreases the household budget available for a mortgage. (On the other hand, detached single-family homeowners are responsible for more costs that are not included in Figure 14.)
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
433
FIGURE 14. MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE SALES PRICES FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED SUBDIVISION (PROTOTYPE 1) Household Size (Persons per HH) 4.5 6
Very Low Income (50% AMI)
Annual Household Income at 50% AMI $74,413 $83,000
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $2,046 $2,283
Monthly Deductions (b) $1,074 $1,218
HOA Dues (c) $500 $600
Property Taxes and Insurance (d) $574 $618
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage Payment (e) $973 $1,064 Maximum Mortgage Amount (f) $208,728 $228,378
Maximum Affordable Sales Price (g) $219,714 $240,398
Low Income (70%)
Annual Household Income at 70% AMI $104,178 $116,200
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $2,865 $3,196
Monthly Deductions (b) $1,342 $1,518
HOA Dues (c) $500 $600
Property Taxes and Insurance (d) $842 $918
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage Payment (e) $1,523 $1,678 Maximum Mortgage Amount (f) $326,872 $360,209
Maximum Affordable Sales Price (g) $344,076 $379,167
Moderate Income (110%)
Annual Household Income at 110% AMI $163,708 $182,600
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $4,502 $5,022
Monthly Deductions (b) $1,892 $2,131
HOA Dues (c) $500 $600
Property Taxes and Insurance (d) $1,392 $1,531
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage Payment (e) $2,610 $2,891 Maximum Mortgage Amount (f) $560,102 $620,390
Maximum Affordable Sales Price (g) $589,581 $653,042
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
Notes:
(a) 33 percent of maximum monthly household income.
(b) Unlike for rentals, monthly deductions for for-sale units do not include utility costs. (c) Homeowners Association dues are assuming to average $0.25 per square foot. (d) Assumes annual effective property tax rate of 1.50% percent of sales price, after exemptions; annual private mortgage insurance premium rate of 0.85 percent of mortgage amount.
(e) Maximum monthly housing cost minus deductions.
(f) Assumes 3.8 percent interest rate and 30-year loan term. Interest rate is based on correspondence with Marin Housing Authority. (g) Assumes 5 percent down payment (95 percent loan-to-value ratio).
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
434
FIGURE 15. MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE SALES PRICES FOR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOME (PROTOTYPE 2) Household Size (Persons per HH) 4.5 6
Very Low Income (50% AMI)
Annual Household Income at 50% AMI $74,413 $83,000
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $2,046 $2,283
Monthly Deductions (b)
HOA Dues (c) $613 $665
Property Taxes and Insurance (d) $537 $597
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage Payment (e) $897 $1,020 Maximum Mortgage Amount (f) $192,493 $218,997
Maximum Affordable Sales Price (g) $202,624 $230,523
Low Income (70%)
Annual Household Income at 70% AMI $104,178 $116,200
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $2,865 $3,196
Monthly Deductions (b) $1,418 $1,561
HOA Dues (c) $613 $665
Property Taxes and Insurance (d) $805 $896
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage Payment (e) $1,447 $1,635 Maximum Mortgage Amount (f) $310,637 $350,829
Maximum Affordable Sales Price (g) $326,986 $369,293
Moderate Income (110%)
Annual Household Income at 110% AMI $163,708 $182,600
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $4,502 $5,022
Monthly Deductions (b) $1,967 $2,175
HOA Dues (c) $613 $665
Property Taxes and Insurance (d) $1,355 $1,510
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage Payment (e) $2,535 $2,847 Maximum Mortgage Amount (f) $543,953 $611,059
Maximum Affordable Sales Price (g) $572,582 $643,220
Source: Strategic Economics, 2020.
Notes:
(a) 33 percent of maximum monthly household income.
(b) Unlike for rentals, monthly deductions for for-sale units do not include utility costs. (c) Homeowners Association dues are assuming to average $0.35 per square foot. (d) Assumes annual effective property tax rate of 1.50% percent of sales price, after exemptions; annual private mortgage insurance premium rate of 0.85 percent of mortgage amount.
(e) Maximum monthly housing cost minus deductions.
(f) Assumes 3.8 percent interest rate and 30-year loan term. Interest rate is based on correspondence with Marin Housing Authority. (g) Assumes 5 percent down payment (95 percent loan-to-value ratio).
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
435
MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE RENTS AND SALES PRICES
Figures 16 and 17 provide summaries for the maximum affordable rents and sales prices respectively for the various prototypes that were tested.
FIGURE 16. SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE RENTS
Income Level Studio 1-BR 2-BR
Very Low-income (50%) $1,209 $1,379 $1,539
Low-income (65%) $1,584 $1,809 $2,022
Moderate Income (90%) $2,210 $2,524 $2,827
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
FIGURE 17. SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE SALES PRICES
Single-Family Subdivision Condominium Townhome
3-BR 4-BR 3-BR 4-BR
Very Low Income (50% AMI) $219,714 $240,398 $202,624 $230,523 Low Income (70%) $344,076 $379,167 $326,986 $369,293
Moderate Income (110%) $589,581 $653,042 $572,582 $643,220 Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
ESTIMATING DEVELOPMENT COSTS
The second step in the affordability gap analysis is to estimate development costs for the three prototypes. Development costs include land costs, direct or “hard” construction costs, indirect or “soft” costs, as well as financing costs, a developer fee, and a contingency for overruns.
Because multi-unit residential projects are relatively rare in Marin, the Consultant Team collected available data on the few recent comparable development projects and land sales and supplemented the data with feedback from local developers (see Appendix A), other available studies of costs in the Bay Area, and past experience with pro forma studies.
The development cost assumptions are shown below in Figure 18, and a chart that summarizes the breakdown of overall development costs for the prototypes is shown in Figure 19.
The development costs for for-sale housing are based on interviews with developers and homebuilders experienced with single-family and townhome development projects in Marin. This analysis estimated that total development costs for the single-family subdivision were $355 per net residential square foot while the costs for the condominium townhome were $373 per net residential square foot.
Because there are limited examples of recent multifamily development in Marin, the Consultant Team relied on a variety of sources to identify the multifamily cost assumptions. They are partly based on a pro forma for a proposed Type V development in Marin, as well as an interview with a multifamily developer. The team also relied on cost data and recently completed feasibility studies for similar rental apartment developments in the Bay Area. The analysis estimated that the total development cost for Prototype 3 was $705 per net square foot.
The remainder of this section explains the costs assumptions in more detail.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
436
FIGURE 18. SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT COST ASSUMPTIONS
Single Family
Subdivision
Condominium
Townhome
Rental
Apartments
Land Cost (a)
Per Land Sq. Ft. $56 $69 $86
Per Unit $350,000 $200,000 $75,000
Hard Costs
Site Costs per Land Sq. Ft. (b) $15 $35 $35
Construction Costs per Sq. Ft. of Residential Area $110 $150 $350 Parking Cost per Space (c) n/a n/a $32,500
Other Costs (Displayed as % of Hard Cost)
Soft Costs (d) 12% 12% 12%
Contingency 5% 5% 5%
Developer Overhead 4% 4% 4%
Financing Costs
Amount Financed (% of Hard and Soft Costs) 65% 65% 70%
Construction Loan Fee 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
Term (Months) 18 18 24
Construction Interest Rate 4.5% 4.5% 5.0%
Source: Developer Interviews, 2021; Project Pro Formas, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.
Notes:
(a) Entitled land
(b) Assumes relatively flat site
(c) Parking costs for for-sale prototypes are incorporated into the construction cost. Cost for rental prototype refers to one level of podium (d) Includes architectural, engineering, and consulting fees, as well as taxes, legal, insurance, accounting, and other costs.
FIGURE 19. TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS BY PROTOTYPE
Cost Category
Single Family
Subdivision
Condominium
Townhome
Rental
Apartments
Total Project
Land Cost $4,900,000 $6,000,000 $7,500,000
Hard Costs $4,694,800 $11,149,200 $38,222,811
Soft Costs $1,344,396 $3,001,696 $10,660,521
Development Costs $10,939,196 $20,150,896 $56,383,332
Per Unit
Land Cost $350,000 $200,000 $75,000
Hard Costs $335,343 $371,640 $382,228
Soft Costs $96,028 $100,057 $106,605
Development Costs $781,371 $671,697 $563,833
Per Net Residential Sq. Ft.
Land Cost $159 $111 $94
Hard Cost $152 $206 $478
Soft Costs $44 $56 $133
Development Costs $355 $373 $705
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
437
The following subsections provide further details on how the cost assumptions were identified.
LAND COST
Land costs typically vary widely, depending on factors such as location, zoning, and the amount of site work required to prepare the land for development. Because the price of land is so strongly tied to what can be built upon it, land costs are characterized in this study as the cost per dwelling unit of development. Recent comparable sales that informed land cost for the three prototypes are shown below in Figures 20-22.
• There is only one relevant recent sale for an entitled single-family subdivision. The site is in Mill Valley, which tends to have high land costs compared to the Marin average. • A range of $180,000 per unit to approximately $300,000 per unit was identified for the condominium townhome prototype based on two recent sales, which reflect the high end (Mill Valley) and the low end (Novato) of the Marin County market. • For the rental apartment prototype, two sales for sites entitled for multifamily development had land costs of $75,000 per unit, a number that was corroborated by a developer with experienced in multifamily development in Marin.
Based on these comparable examples and feedback from developers, the land cost assumptions were set at $350,000 per unit for Prototype 1, $200,000 per unit for Prototype 2, and $75,000 per unit for Prototype 3.
FIGURE 20. RECENT LAND SALE FOR SITE ZONED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION Site Address 548 Miller Ave., Mill Valley
Description
Single-family subdivision (13 fee simple
lots, three of which include ADUs)
Site Acres 1.58
Site Sq. Ft. 68,825
Units Per Acre 10
Sale Date September 2019
Sale Price $8,500,000
Price Per Unit $531,250
Source: Costar, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
438
FIGURE 21. RECENT LAND SALES FOR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOMES
Site Address 500 Miller Ave., Mill Valley 7533-7537 Redwood Blvd., Novato Description
Nine condominium townhomes with
underground parking and corner retail
space
50 condominium townhomes
(Atherton Place)
Site Acres 1.2 3.7
Site Sq. Ft. 52,272 161,172
Units Per Acre 7.5 13.5
Sale Date June 2017 July 2018
Sale Price $2,900,000 $9,000,000
Price Per Unit $322,222 $180,000
Source: Costar, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.
FIGURE 22. RECENT LAND SALES FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
Site Address 703 Third St., San Rafael (a) 1203-1211 Lincoln Ave., San Rafael (b) Description
Proposed apartment project with 61
units and underground, automated
parking and incorporating density
bonus
36 condominium flats Type V over I
construction
Site Acres 0.63 0.74
Site Sq. Ft. 27,395 32,234
Units Per Acre 97 49
Sale Date August 2014 March 2017
Sale Price $4,650,000 $2,700,000
Price Per Unit $76,230 $75,000
Source: Costar, 2021; Developer Pro Formas, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.
Notes:
(a) Reflects the site's "base case scenario" which is more comparable to Prototype 3 (b) Site is now associated with pipeline assisted living proposal but at time of sale, it had been planned for condominiums
HARD COSTS
Hard costs refer to both horizontal site costs and vertical construction costs, including the residential area construction and parking construction.
According to developers active in Marin County, construction costs for the county are higher than other locations in the Bay Area because it is less accessible to construction workers. Subcontractors often charge a premium that is equivalent to prevailing wage. The construction cost estimates for residential buildings incorporate these cost factors specific to Marin County.
The construction costs also include horizontal/site costs that include demolition, grading, utility connection installation, paving, and landscaping. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
439
the hypothetical sites are relatively flat, with horizontal costs of $15 per land square foot for the singlefamily subdivision, and $35 per land square foot for the condominium townhomes and apartments.
The construction costs for the single-family subdivision and the condominium townhome, which are based on feedback from Marin developers and homebuilders, are $110 and $150 per gross residential square foot respectively. Note that the cost of garage parking is incorporated into the residential hard cost, while the cost of any surface parking is incorporated into the site cost for these prototypes.
For the rental prototype, the construction cost of the residential area is estimated to be $350 per gross residential square foot. Because there are very few examples of recent and under construction apartments over podium in Marin, the Consultant Team also reviewed pro formas for planned affordable and market-rate projects in San Rafael and other Bay Area cities to estimate costs.
Based on this broad review of costs, the Consultant Team estimated that residential construction costs for Prototype 3 were approximately $350 per gross residential square foot, which translates to per unit costs of $564,000. A review of financial data from affordable housing projects in the San Francisco Bay Area supported these cost estimates, which show that affordable housing per unit costs are in the range of $530,000 to $678,000.
SOFT COSTS
Soft costs refer to necessary costs of development that are not directly related to the physical construction of the building. They include architecture, engineering costs and other professional services fees, as well as other costs associated with doing business, such as insurance and taxes.
Finally, soft costs include city permits and fees, and other miscellaneous costs. It is estimated that soft costs are 12 percent of hard costs for all three prototypes, a standard assumption that was confirmed by developer interviewees. The developer’s contingency and overhead, also account for an additional five and four percent of hard costs, respectively.6
FINANCING COSTS
Financing assumptions are consistent for both for-sale prototypes because the two hypothetical projects would have similar loan terms and construction timelines. Based on input from developers that specialize in owner-occupied single-family and townhome developments, 65 percent of the project cost would be financed with debt, with a typical interest rate of approximately 4.5 percent. The development period for the for-sale prototypes is assumed to be 18 months.
The rental apartment prototype incorporates a slightly higher interest rate at 5 percent, to account for a higher level of risk, with a 24-month development period. The amount financed is also tends to be slightly higher at 70 percent of project cost, according to a multifamily developer.
All three prototypes incorporate a 1.5 percent construction loan fee, which is a standard industry assumption.
6 Developer profit is not included in the consideration of costs.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
440
AFFORDABILITY GAP
The final step is to calculate the housing affordability gap, which is the difference between what very low-, low-, and moderate-income households can afford to pay and the cost of developing those units.
The gap helps determine the in-lieu fee amount that would be required to cover the cost associated with developing affordable housing units.
FOR-SALE HOUSING
Figures 23 and 24 shows the affordability gap calculation for the for-sale housing prototypes. For each unit type, the gap is calculated as the difference between the per-unit cost of development and the affordable sales price for each income level. The average housing affordability gap is weighted based on the unit mix in the prototypes.
FIGURE 23. AFFORDABILITY GAP FOR SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION Income Level and Unit
Type
Unit Size (Sq.
Ft.)
Affordable
Sales Price (a)
Development
Costs (b)
Affordability Gap
(c)
Very Low Income (50%)
3 Bedroom 2,000 $219,714 $710,337 $490,623
4 Bedroom 2,400 $240,398 $852,405 $612,007
Weighted Average $230,056 $781,371 $551,315
Low Income (70%)
3 Bedroom 2,000 $344,076 $710,337 $366,261
4 Bedroom 2,400 $379,167 $852,405 $473,237
Weighted Average $361,622 $781,371 $419,749
Moderate Income (110%)
3 Bedroom 2,000 $589,581 $710,337 $120,757
4 Bedroom 2,400 $653,042 $852,405 $199,363
Weighted Average $621,311 $781,371 $160,060
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
Notes:
(a) See calculation in Figure 14, above.
(b) Assumes $349 per SF for development costs
(c) Calculated as the difference between affordable sales price and development cost (d) Includes 50% three-bedrooms and 50% four-bedrooms.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
441
FIGURE 24. AFFORDABILITY GAP FOR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOME
Income Level and Unit
Type
Unit Size (Sq.
Ft.)
Affordable
Sales Price (a)
Development
Costs (b)
Affordability Gap
(c)
Very Low Income (50%)
3 Bedroom 1,750 $202,624 $653,038 $450,414
4 Bedroom 1,900 $230,523 $709,013 $478,490
Weighted Average $211,924 $671,697 $459,773
Low Income (70%)
3 Bedroom 1,750 $326,986 $653,038 $326,052
4 Bedroom 1,900 $369,293 $709,013 $339,720
Weighted Average $341,089 $671,697 $330,608
Moderate Income (110%)
3 Bedroom 1,750 $572,582 $653,038 $80,456
4 Bedroom 1,900 $643,220 $709,013 $65,793
Weighted Average $596,128 $671,697 $75,568
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
Notes
(a) See calculation in Figure 15, above.
(b) Assumes $393 per square foot for development costs
(c) Calculated as the difference between affordable sales price and development cost (d)Includes two-thirds three-bedrooms and one-third four-bedrooms.
RENTAL HOUSING
Figure 25 shows the affordability gap calculation for the rental prototype. For each rental unit type and income level, the gap is defined as the difference between the per-unit cost of development and the supportable debt per unit. The supportable debt is calculated based on the net operating income generated from the monthly rent from the affordable unit and incorporates assumptions about operating expenses (including property taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc.), reserves, and vacancy. It also incorporates financing assumptions related to the permanent loan on the property. Assumptions on operating costs are informed by data on Victory Village, which is a recent affordable housing development built in Marin. The average housing affordability gap is also weighted based on the unit mix of the prototype.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
442
FIGURE 25. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY GAP FOR RENTAL APARTMENTS Income Level
and Unit Type
Unit Size
(Sq. Ft.)
Maximum
Monthly Rent (a)
Annual
Income
Net Operating
Income (b)
Available for
Debt Service (c)
Supportable
Debt (d)
Development
Costs (e)
Affordability
Gap (f)
Very Low-income (50%)
Studio 650 $1,209 $14,507 $2,781 $2,418 $39,393 $458,250 $418,857 1 Bedroom 750 $1,379 $16,551 $4,723 $4,107 $66,904 $528,750 $461,846 2 Bedroom 900 $1,539 $18,468 $6,545 $5,691 $92,699 $634,500 $541,801 Weighted Average (g) $74,471 $564,000 $489,529
Low-income (65%)
Studio 650 $1,584 $19,013 $7,063 $6,141 $100,036 $458,250 $358,214 1 Bedroom 750 $1,809 $21,704 $9,618 $8,364 $136,236 $528,750 $392,514 2 Bedroom 900 $2,022 $24,264 $12,051 $10,479 $170,691 $634,500 $463,809 Weighted Average (g) $146,398 $564,000 $417,602
Moderate
Income (90%)
Studio 650 $2,210 $26,525 $14,198 $12,346 $153,206 $458,250 $305,044 1 Bedroom 750 $2,524 $30,291 $17,776 $15,458 $191,816 $528,750 $336,934 2 Bedroom 900 $2,827 $33,924 $21,228 $18,459 $229,058 $634,500 $405,442 Weighted Average (g) $202,852 $564,000 $361,148
Notes:
(a) Affordable rent levels based on 2020 income limits
(b) Amount available for debt. Assumes 5% vacancy and collection loss and $11,000 per unit for operating expenses and reserves, based on operating pro formas for recent affordable projects in Marin County. (c) Assumes 1.15 Debt Coverage Ratio.
(d) Assumes 4.5% permanent financing interest rate and 30 year loan. (e) Assumes development cost of $705 per net square foot on rental units. (f) Calculated as the difference between development costs and supportable debt. (g) Incorporates 10% studios, 50% one-bedrooms, and 40% two-bedrooms.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
443
SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM IN-LIEU FEE BY HOUSING TYPE
A summary of the affordability gaps by tenure and income level is displayed in Figure 26. The affordability gap is the basis for setting the maximum in-lieu fee. As shown, the maximum in-lieu fee per required affordable unit (rounded) is approximately $377,000 for single-family subdivisions, $289,000 for condominium townhomes, and $423,000 for rental apartments.
The maximum in-lieu fee is highest for rental apartments because the average targeted income is lower (68 percent of AMI, compared to 78 percent AMI for for-sale housing), resulting in a wider affordability gap.
The calculated in-lieu fee is lower for condominium townhomes than single-family subdivisions because the construction cost for townhomes is slightly lower, while the targeted income groups remain the same.
It is important to note that the County of Marin can choose to adopt lower fees than the maximum calculated in-lieu fees shown in Figure 26.
FIGURE 26. SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM IN-LIEU FEES
Income Level
For-sale Gap
Rental Gap
Single-Family
Subdivision
Condominium
Townhome
Very Low-income (50% AMI) $551,315 $459,773 $489,529
Low-income
(65% AMI Rental/ 70% Owner) $419,749 $330,608 $417,602
Moderate Income
(90% AMI Rental)/ 110% AMI Owner) $160,060 $75,568 $361,148 Average Affordability Gap/
Maximum In-Lieu Fee $377,042 $ 288,650 $422,760
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
444
IV. Policy Considerations and Recommendations
This section summarizes key policy issues for the County of Marin to consider when updating its inclusionary housing ordinance and in-lieu fee. The following questions are addressed:
• How do the calculated in-lieu fees compare with the County’s existing fees? • How do the calculated fees compare with in-lieu fees in other jurisdictions? • How much do the calculated in-lieu fees raise development costs in Marin County and impact financial feasibility?
• How do the calculated fees compare with existing municipal fees, such as building permit and other impact fees?
Each of these questions is addressed in the sections below, followed by a set of recommendations.
COMPARISON OF IN-LIEU FEES IN MARIN COUNTY AND NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS The newly calculated in-lieu fees from the previous section are shown along with the existing inlieu fees for for-sale housing for the participating jurisdictions and other nearby jurisdictions for comparison in Figure 27. As shown, the newly calculated maximum in-lieu fee for single-family subdivisions is higher than the existing fee in all the other jurisdictions. However, the calculated fee for for-sale townhomes is lower than the County’s existing fee but higher than the current inlieu fee for for-sale housing in Novato.
The same information is shown for rental housing in Figure 28. As shown, the calculated maximum in-lieu fee for rental projects is higher than the existing fees in Marin County and all the neighboring cities. Larkspur, Novato, and San Francisco charge lower in-lieu fees for rental projects, even though the affordability gap may be higher than for-sale housing.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
445
FIGURE 27: COMPARISON OF CALCULATED IN-LIEU FEES WITH EXISTING IN-LIEU FEES, FOR-SALE DEVELOPMENTS [a] Corte Madera has an in-lieu fee that is calculated based on construction costs and area median incomes. Because the assumptions in the calculation have not been updated for several years, the fee currently evaluates to zero. [b] In-lieu fees for San Francisco and Novato vary by the number of units in the project. Both fee amounts assume the 30-unit condo townhome prototype.
Sources: Available documents from jurisdictions, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.
FIGURE 28: COMPARISON OF CALCULATED IN-LIEU FEES WITH EXISTING IN-LIEU FEES, RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS [a] Corte Madera has an in-lieu fee that is calculated based on construction costs and area median incomes. Because the assumptions in the calculation have not been updated for several years, the fee currently evaluates to zero. [b] In-lieu fees for San Francisco and Novato vary by the number of units in the project. Both fee amounts assume the 100-unit rental apartment prototype.
Sources: Available documents from jurisdictions, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.in-Lieu Fee in Relation to Development costs Using the development cost estimates from the previous section, the Consultant Team calculated the increase in costs that would be experienced when charging the fee in-lieu of an onsite requirement at a level of 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent, and 25 percent. As shown in Figure 29, the cost of the fee for would range from five to 12 percent for the single-family subdivision $377,042
$288,650
$0
$338,126 $329,485 $343,969
$187,885
$359,100
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$422,760
$0
$213,267
$329,485 $343,969
$108,730
$177,334
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
Calculated Fee
for Rental
Corte Madera [a] Larkspur Unincorporated
Marin County
San Rafael Novato [b] San Francisco
[b]
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
446
prototype, four to 11 percent for the condo townhome prototype, and seven to 19 percent for the apartment prototype.
FIGURE 29: IMPACT OF IN-LIEU FEE ON TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS BY PROTOTYPE
Single Family
Subdivision
Condo
Townhome
Rental
Apartment
Total Development Costs per Unit $781,371 $671,697 $563,833 In lieu Fees per Affordable Unit $289,905 $203,088 $422,760 Increase in Total Development Costs
@ 10% Onsite Requirement 5% 4% 7%
@ 15% Onsite Requirement 7% 6% 11%
@ 20% Onsite Requirement 10% 9% 15%
@ 25% Onsite Requirement 12% 11% 19%
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
The calculated in-lieu fee for the apartment prototype has the largest impact on development costs, due to the much higher affordability gap for apartments. Although rental apartments are the least expensive of the three prototypes to build per unit, the smaller households expected to occupy these units, which translates to lower tenant incomes, and the high operating costs of apartments mean that the affordability gap for rentals is higher in this case. This analysis suggests that for-sale developments will be able to accommodate a substantially higher percentage onsite requirement than will rental projects.
BURDEN OF IN-LIEU COMBINED WITH OTHER MUNICIPAL FEES
The Consultant Team reviewed the total burden of the calculated in-lieu fees in the context of other municipal fees charged by the cities, including fees such as building permits as well as any impact fees each jurisdiction might have in place.7 A table of these costs for each jurisdiction is given in Figure 30 below, including the total fees that would be paid on each prototype in-lieu of hypothetical inclusionary requirements ranging from ten to 25 percent.
Because each jurisdiction has its own schedule of fees for new development, the cost of development in each community varies. For example, municipal fees for the prototypes in San Anselmo are currently estimated at two percent of development costs. Enacting maximum in-lieu fees with a 15 percent inclusionary requirement would raise municipal fees to between seven and 14 percent. The Town of Anselmo will need to take into account the impact to total development costs when setting an in-lieu fee and/or inclusionary percentage. 7 Connection fees charged by a local sanitary sewer and water district were also estimated; they would be expected to represent an additional three to four percent of development costs above what is shown in the Figure 30.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
447
FIGURE 30: IN-LIEU FEES AND OTHER MUNICIPAL FEES* BY JURISDICTION Current level of onsite requirement for each jurisdiction in bold.
Per Unit As % of Development Costs
S.F.
Subdiv. Condo Apt.
S.F.
Subdiv. Condo Apt.
Corte Madera
Municipal Fees $35,776 $27,116 $23,339 5% 4% 4%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $64,767 $47,424 $65,615 8% 7% 12%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $79,262 $57,579 $86,753 10% 9% 15% Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $93,757 $67,733 $107,891 12% 10% 19% Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $108,253 $77,888 $129,029 14% 12% 23%
Fairfax
Municipal Fees $13,231 $11,258 $8,104 2% 2% 1%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $42,221 $31,567 $50,380 5% 5% 9%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $56,717 $41,722 $71,518 7% 6% 13%
Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $71,212 $51,876 $92,656 9% 8% 16%
Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $85,707 $62,030 $113,794 11% 9% 20% Larkspur
Municipal Fees $39,839 $25,951 $19,449 5% 4% 3%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $68,830 $46,260 $61,725 9% 7% 11%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $83,325 $56,414 $82,863 11% 8% 15% Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $97,820 $66,569 $104,001 13% 10% 18% Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $112,316 $76,723 $125,139 14% 11% 22% Unincorporated Marin County
County Fees $25,397 $23,656 $5,470 3% 4% 1%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $63,101 $52,521 $47,746 8% 8% 8%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $81,953 $66,954 $68,884 10% 10% 12% Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $100,806 $81,386 $90,022 15% 12% 18% Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $119,658 $95,819 $111,160 17% 15% 22% San Anselmo
Municipal Fees $12,821 $13,837 $14,034 2% 2% 2%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $41,811 $34,146 $56,310 5% 5% 10%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $56,306 $44,300 $77,448 7% 7% 14%
Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $70,802 $54,455 $98,586 9% 8% 17%
Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $85,297 $64,609 $119,724 11% 10% 21% San Rafael
Municipal Fees $27,044 $23,545 $15,113 3% 4% 3%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $56,034 $43,854 $57,389 7% 7% 10%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $70,530 $54,009 $78,527 9% 8% 14%
Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $85,025 $64,163 $99,665 11% 10% 18% Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $99,520 $74,317 $120,803 13% 11% 21% Continued next page
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
448
Continued from previous page
Sausalito
Municipal Fees $7,448 $7,694 $9,987 1% 1% 2%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $36,438 $28,003 $52,263 5% 4% 9%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $50,934 $38,157 $73,401 7% 6% 13%
Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $65,429 $48,311 $94,539 8% 7% 17%
Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $79,924 $58,466 $115,677 10% 9% 21% * Municipal fees include all applicable permits and impact fees charged by the jurisdiction. Water and sanitary sewer connection fees are not included. Based on estimates from Marin Municipal Water District and Ross Valley Sanitary District, water and sewer fees represent and additional four percent to development costs of the single family subdivision and three percent to condo townhomes and apartments.
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
CONVERSION TO PER SQUARE FOOT FEE
Jurisdictions can opt to implement the in-lieu fee as a per square foot fee, rather than a per unit fee, in order to incentivize development projects with smaller units. This may be useful for jurisdictions that primarily see developments with large, luxury units. The per square foot fees are calculated by dividing the per-unit in lieu fee by the weighted average unit square feet for each prototype. This calculation is shown below in Figure 31.
FIGURE 31. EQUIVALENT IN LIEU FEES PER UNIT SQUARE FOOT FOR PROTOTYPES Multifamily
Rental
Condominium
Townhome
Single Family
Subdivision
Weighted Average Unit Sq. Ft. 800 1800 2,200
Affordability Gap per Unit
Very Low Income (50% AMI Rental and Owner) $489,529 $459,773 $551,315 Low Income (65% AMI Rental/ 70% AMI Owner) $417,602 $330,608 $419,749 Moderate Income (90% AMI Rental)/ 110% AMI
Owner) $361,148 $75,568 $160,060
Affordability Gap per Sq. Ft.
Very Low Income (50% AMI) $612 $255 $251
Low Income (65% AMI Rental/ 70% AMI Owner) $522 $184 $191 Moderate Income (90% AMI Rental)/ 110% AMI
Owner) $451 $42 $73
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
449
COMPARISON OF INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS IN SELECTED BAY AREA CITIES Figure 32 summarizes the inclusionary requirements for selected Bay Area cities outside of Marin County for the purposes of comparison. As shown, the cities all have inclusionary requirements on for-sale development projects ranging from a minimum of 5 percent in Oakland to 22 percent in San Francisco. The income targets for for-sale housing are typically low-income and moderateincome households.
For rental housing, the percentage requirement ranges from 5 percent in Oakland to 20 percent in San Francisco. Most of the jurisdictions require some proportion of very low-income units, along with low-income and moderate-income units.
San Francisco, San Jose, and Cupertino have lower requirements for small projects.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
450
FIGURE 32. INCLUSIONARY POLICIES FOR SELECT BAY AREA JURISDICTIONS Jurisdiction For-Sale Housing Rental Housing Fee Option Year Adopted/Updated Berkeley 20% affordable at or below 80% AMI. 20% must be affordable (10% at 80% AMI and 10% at 50% AMI).
For sale: In-lieu fee option (62.5% of
difference between affordable and
market price).
Rental: Affordable housing impact fee
$39,716 per market-rate unit.
2020
Oakland 5% at 50% AMI or 10% at 80% AMI or 10%
at 120% AMI.
5% at 50% AMI or 10% at 80% AMI or
10% at 120% AMI. Fee permitted. 2016
San Francisco
Projects with 25+ units: 22% must be
affordable to 80%-110% AMI.
Projects with 10-24 units: 13% must be
affordable.
Projects with 25+ units: 20% must be
affordable to 55%-110% AMI.
Projects with 10-24 units: 13% must be
affordable to 55% AMI.
Fee permitted but with a higher
percentage requirement than building onsite. Smaller projects pay a lower fee.2017 San Jose
Projects with 20+ units must meet 15%
affordable set-aside at or below 120% AMI.
Smaller projects have lower percentage
requirements.
5% at 100% AMI, 5% at 60% AMI, and
5% at 50% AMI, or 10% at 30% AMI.
Smaller projects have lower percentage
requirements.
Fee permitted. 2021
Santa Cruz 20% must be affordable to households at
or 80% - 100% AMI.
20% must be affordable to households
at or below 80% AMI. On-site units encouraged. 2019
Palo Alto 15% must be affordable to households at
120% AMI or below. No on-site requirement for rental.
For sale: Fee permitted but developer
must demonstrate infeasibility of on-site
units.
Rental: Affordable housing impact fee
charged.
2012
Cupertino 15% must be affordable to 120% or 100%
AMI.
15% must be affordable to 120% or 80%
AMI.
Projects with 1-6 units may provide a unit
or pay a fee. For projects with 7 or more
units, requires City Council approval.
2012
Source: Urban Displacement Project, 2021; City of Berkeley, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
451
Recommendations
A number of considerations inform the decision to update the inclusionary requirements and the in-lieu fees, including market and feasibility factors, comparative policies in other jurisdictions, and the pros and cons of alternative means of compliance. Below is a summary of recommendations tailored for the Town of San Anselmo:
Establish inclusionary percentage requirement of 20 percent for for-sale and rental development projects. The Consultant Team recommends that the Town of San Anselmo establish an inclusionary requirement of 20 percent for for-sale and rental development projects, including single-family subdivisions, townhomes, and rental apartments. This percentage requirement is consistent with many other jurisdictions in the Bay Area. Once the policy has been in effect and the market has responded, the Town may wish to review the policy to determine whether a higher inclusionary requirement can be supported.
Establish income targets that are consistent with other Marin County jurisdictions. The Consultant Team recommends that the inclusionary policy include a mix of very low-, low- and moderateincome households for both for-sale and rental projects.
Establish flexible requirements for housing projects containing six or fewer units. According to the site analysis conducted by Opticos for the Objective Development Design Standards project, a large share of potential housing sites countywide are infill lots that could only accommodate small projects. These types of projects are more challenging to build than larger projects. To ensure they are financially feasible, the Consultant Team recommends that the Town of San Anselmo establish more flexible requirements for these types of projects, which could include:
• Allowing for a higher average income target, with a higher proportion of moderate-income units.
• Providing more flexibility on providing a combination of on-site units and payment of in-lieu fees.
• Allowing for the provision of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), with provisions to ensure that it is made available to renter households.
For ownership housing, designate a separate fee for single-family versus townhome condominium developments, and set the fee amount at the maximum level for each. This study establishes a maximum in-lieu fee of $377,042 for single-family subdivisions and a fee of $288,650 for condominium townhomes. Establishing a lower fee on townhome condominiums relative to singlefamily subdivisions recognizes that higher density ownership housing can be relatively more challenging to build.
For rental housing, establish an in-lieu fee amount below the maximum level to avoid inhibiting development. The maximum calculated fees of $422,760 are considerably higher than the fees in Marin County’s jurisdictions. A high fee would be a significant cost burden on rental projects, which do not command the same values as for-sale housing in San Anselmo. For this reason, the Consultant Team recommends that San Anselmo consider implementing a lower fee than the maximum calculated in-lieu fee on rental development.
Allow for land dedication and off-site converted units as an alternative means of compliance. Many jurisdictions allow for developers to comply with the inclusionary policy by dedicating land for offsite units or acquiring and converting existing housing units to deed-restricted housing. However, Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
452
conversion can result in the provision of units that are not comparable in quality or location to the market-rate development projects. Furthermore, it does not add to the overall supply of housing and burdens the jurisdiction with the cost of monitoring and compliance. The Consultant Team recommends that the Town of San Anselmo develop a policy that prioritizes on-site units, allowing for the payment of in-lieu fees or land dedication as the preferred alternatives. It is recommended that the off-site conversion option is permitted only if the converted units are of a similar quality and located within close proximity to the principal project.
Require for-sale development projects with on-site units to submit a plan for the ongoing maintenance of below-market rate units. According to Marin Housing, some for-sale condominium and townhome projects have not been able to adequately fund the maintenance and repair of below-market rate units. The Consultant Team recommends that the Town of San Anselmo require developers to provide a realistic plan for collecting sufficient reserves for the repair and maintenance of below-market rate units without compromising the affordability of those units.
Explore options for a countywide administration program for inclusionary units. Establishing and administering an inclusionary program requires staff to manage negotiations with developers to provide affordable units (on-site or off-site) in accordance with local requirements, monitor the resales/leasing of below-market rate units to qualified households, and ongoing administration.
Because there is often limited staffing capacity in-house, the Consultant Team recommends that the participating jurisdictions investigate the potential to partner with a non-profit to provide these services. Some cities charge property owners a small administrative fee to help offset the costs of monitoring and compliance.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
453
Appendix A
The Consultant Team spoke with a range of stakeholders for this report, including market-rate housing developers, affordable housing developers, affordable housing advocates, Marin housing authority staff, and local community land trusts. Stakeholders that participated in either one-onone interviews with the Consultant Team, or in developer forums, both of which helped inform this report, are listed below in Figure 33.
FIGURE 33. LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED FOR STUDY
Name Organization/ Affiliation
Judith Bloomberg Marin Organizing Committee
Arianne Dar Bolinas Community Land Trust
Todd David Housing Action Committee
Justin Derby Meritage Homes
Bruce Dorfman Thompson Dorfman
Aaron Eckhouse California YIMBY
Michael Hooper Campus Property Group
Larry Kennings Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative Stacey Laumann Community Land Trust of West Marin
Marianne Lim EAH Housing
Stephanie Lovette Marin Housing Authority
Linda Mandolini Eden Housing
Tom Monahan Monahan Parker Development
Wick Polite Seagate Properties
Kiki La Porta Coalition for a Livable Marin
Phil Richardson Individual developer
Suzanne Sadowsky San Geronimo Valley Affordable Housing Association Carmen Soruco Marin Housing Authority
Mary Kay Sweeney Homeward Bound
Joanne Webster
Housing Crisis Action Group, San Rafael Chamber of
Commerce
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
454
EXHIBIT “B”
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
455
MEMORANDUM
To: Heidi Scoble, Town of San Anselmo
From: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates Date: February 18, 2023
Project: Marin Inclusionary Study
Subject: Commercial Linkage Fee Study
I. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
Purpose and Background
The County of Marin, along with six of the jurisdictions within the County, are collaborating on a regional effort to implement or update existing affordable housing policy tools, namely inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage fees. Some of the jurisdictions currently have inclusionary zoning and/or commercial linkage fee programs they intend to review and update as necessary, while others are establishing new programs. Together, the seven jurisdictions have retained Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates (the Consultant Team) to study and offer recommendations for both these policies.
This memo fulfills Task 4 of the study, which includes an analysis of commercial linkage fees in the seven participating jurisdictions. Currently, three of the seven jurisdictions charge commercial linkage fees, while the remaining four may enact fees based on the results of this study. A commercial linkage fee is a type of impact fee that charges new commercial development for its role in creating new demand for affordable housing. It is based on the finding of a “rational nexus” between the new employment created by commercial development, and the accompanying need for affordable housing for new worker households. There are two main parts to the analysis:
1. The nexus analysis establishes the linkage between new jobs and the needed affordable housing.
2. The affordability gap analysis quantifies the shortfall between what employee households can afford and what new housing costs to build. The affordability gap analysis was performed as part of the In-lieu Fee Study (Task 3) and is summarized in Section IV of this report.
The results of the nexus findings and the affordability gap analysis establish the maximum fees that can be charged on new development projects.
It is important to note that the analysis relies on occupational wage data from the California Employment Development Department collected in December 2019. It does not capture the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on local employment and wages since then.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
456
The Nexus Concept
Many commercial developments are associated with jobs that pay wages that are insufficient to afford local housing costs. A nexus study determines the justifiable commercial linkage fee that might be charged on development based on the need for affordable housing that new development projects create. To establish this relationship, a nexus analysis quantifies any increase in demand for affordable housing that accompanies new commercial development, and the additional funding required to address the uptick in demand. The increase in demand is a result of the net gain in employment directly attributable to the new commercial space that is built.
The magnitude of the nexus, and hence the maximum justifiable fee, depends on the number and types of jobs created and the prevailing cost of providing housing for the new worker households. The ability of the new workers to pay for housing costs is linked to their occupations (and hence salaries).
Some of the new workers will have household incomes below the market prices for new homes and would qualify for income-restricted affordable housing. This study quantifies the demand for housing created at several household income levels and estimates the “affordability gap” between what worker households can afford to pay (to rent or to buy) and the actual costs of building new housing.
Methodology and Report Organization
To perform the nexus analysis, the Consultant Team used an established methodology described below to calculate the relationship between new commercial development and household incomes of employees, which then determines the employees' need for affordable housing. These steps provide the rationale for calculating the maximum justified commercial linkage fee that could be levied on commercial development. An overview of the methodology and contents of the report is provided below. There are ten steps to calculate the maximum nexus fees, which are covered in Section II, Section III, and Section IV of this report. However, most jurisdictions do not implement the maximum fee levels. There are multiple policy considerations that are taken into account, including market factors, the commercial linkage fees enacted in other similar communities, and the potential impact on development. These policy issues are discussed in Section V followed by recommendations for setting or updating the fee levels. Finally, Section VI outlines the fee proposal to be taken up by the jurisdictions based upon this study and follow-up collaboration with planning staff in the jurisdictions.
To satisfy the requirements of recently passed state legislation (AB 602), this section provides further justification on the specific fee proposal under consideration.
STEPS 1-6: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE NEXUS ANALYSIS (SEE SECTION II) Step 1. Define commercial “land use prototypes” that represent broad categories of new commercial development in Marin County.
The purpose of defining prototypes is to estimate future employment linked to various categories of commercial space. The land use prototypes are used to estimate the amount of employment generated from commercial development in the county. Three land use prototypes were selected for the nexus analysis, based on common categories of commercial development in Marin County: 1) Office, R&D, and medical office uses; 2) Retail, restaurants, and services; and 3) Hotel.
Each land use prototype is assumed to be 100,000 square feet in floor area. This number was chosen not because it is necessarily typical of new commercial development, but rather as a round number to Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
457
simplify the calculations in the steps below. (In Section IV, more typical prototypes are designated to evaluate feasibility.)
Step 2. Estimate the number of workers that will work in the new commercial space.
The Consultant Team estimated the employment density for each prototype based on national survey data on employment density for commercial land uses and other sources. The employment density is expressed as the number of square feet of building area per worker.1 For example, a building prototype of 100,000 sf and employing 100 workers would have an employment density of 100,000 / 100 = 1,000 square feet per worker.
Step 3. Estimate the number of new households represented by these new workers.
Since there are multiple wage earners in a household, the number of new workers must be translated into a number of households. This adjustment is based on the average number of wage-earners per worker household for Marin County (1.60), estimated from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015-2019.
Step 4. Estimate wages of new workers.
The first step in calculating employee wages is to identify industries that are typically associated with each prototype. Using industry data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), industries were identified that are associated with each land use category. The next step is to identify all the occupations that are associated with each industry based on data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The national BLS occupational matrix is then calibrated to match the county’s employment mix by weighting the national employment distribution to reflect the distribution of employment by industry within Marin County. Finally, the average wage by worker is calculated using data on average annual wages by occupation in the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley Metropolitan Statistical Area from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Step 5. Estimate household income of worker households.
Worker wage estimates from the previous step are then converted to household incomes. This step assumes that the income of the second wage-earner is similar to the wage of the first wage-earner.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015-2019, there are 1.60 wage-earners per worker household in Marin County. Individual worker wages are therefore multiplied by 1.60 to represent household incomes.
Step 6. Calculate the number of households that would be eligible for affordable housing divided into relevant income categories.
The average household size in Marin is 2.4 persons, based on the US Census, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015-2019. Because household income tables are organized by whole numbers, the average household size was rounded down to 2 persons. Thus, the income groups are defined for a household size of two persons and based on standard household income categories used 1 The analysis takes into account the effects of physical distancing and remote work on employment density by estimating slightly higher assumptions of square feet per employee in office/R&D buildings than were typical before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
458
in California. The income categories analyzed include very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.2
STEPS 7-9: CALCULATION OF THE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY GAP (SEE SECTION III) The affordability gap represents the difference between what households can afford to pay for housing and the development cost of new housing. As part of the In-lieu Fee Study Calculation memo already submitted to participating jurisdictions, the Consultant Team analyzed the affordability gap of new rental and for-sale housing units. The In-lieu Fee Study identified the affordability gap for one rental prototype (rental stacked flats) and two for-sale housing prototypes (condo townhomes and singlefamily subdivision units) for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The affordability gap findings of this previous analysis were applicable here because the household incomes of new worker households identified in Step 5 align with the household income categories that were considered in that analysis. The steps below describe how the affordability gap analysis from the In-lieu Fee Study was adapted for this analysis.
Step 7. Estimate affordable rents and housing prices for households in the targeted income groups.
As part of the In-lieu Fee Study, the affordable rent levels and for-sale housing prices were estimated for each of the worker household income categories described above. Households with incomes in the very low-income range are assumed to occupy rental housing. Households in the low- and moderateincome ranges are assumed to require a combination of rental and for-sale housing. The respective rents and sales prices that are affordable to these households were based on the income limits used by the Marin Housing Authority and the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Step 8. Estimate the development cost of new housing.
As part of the In-lieu Fee Study, the Consultant Team estimated the typical development costs of new units in rental apartment, townhome condo, and single family subdivision developments.
Step 9. Calculate the affordability gap.
The affordability gap is calculated for each of the three income categories. Very low-income households are assumed to be renters, so the affordability gap is the difference between the cost of developing new rental housing and what those households can afford to pay, based on the gap for the rental prototype analyzed in the In-lieu Fee Study. Since low-income and moderate-income households are expected to include a mix of renters and homeowners, the overall gap per household for these income categories is calculated as the average of the three affordability gaps for all three housing types that were considered in the In-lieu Fee Study.
To estimate the total affordability gap for each commercial land use prototype, the total number of very low-, low-, and moderate-income new worker households for each prototype is multiplied by the corresponding affordable housing gap figure.
2 The occupation and wage analysis found no extremely low-income households. These households are defined as earning less than 30 percent of area median income and do not typically earn wages from permanent employment.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
459
STEP 10: CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM LINKAGE FEES (SEE SECTION IV) Step 10. Calculate maximum justifiable commercial linkage fees for each prototype.
For each category of land use, the maximum fee per square foot is the total affordability gap calculated in Step 9 divided by the floor area of the land use prototype (100,000 square feet for each).
MARKET FACTORS, FEASIBILITY, AND OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS (SECTION V) This section of this report contains a discussion and analysis of policy considerations jurisdictions should review before enacting a commercial linkage fee. Typically, a commercial linkage fee is set at a level significantly below the maximum justifiable fee determined in the nexus study. Thus, considerations for setting appropriate fee levels include the impact of fees on the total development costs of typical commercial projects. Jurisdictions will also want to be cognizant of similar linkage fees charged in nearby or comparable cities as well as the amount the commercial linkage fee will raise their existing municipal fees. To facilitate an analysis of these considerations, the Consultant Team created a set of illustrative “fee scenarios” to highlight the fees’ impact on development costs and the existing set of municipal fees for each jurisdiction. These fee scenarios were tested on three development prototypes representative of the three commercial land uses that were evaluated in the nexus study. These “feasibility prototypes” were created based on recent and proposed commercial development projects in Marin County, and in consultation with local developers. Following this analysis is a section with recommendations for setting the fees, as well as a brief analysis of the potential revenues that could be generated by implementing the fee recommendations.
UNIFIED FEE PROPOSAL AND FULFILLING STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADOPTION (SECTION VI) The final section of the report considers the commercial linkage fee program to be formally proposed by the seven jurisdictions based on the recommendations in Section V. To establish more consistency and uniformity across jurisdictions, each of the jurisdictions plans to propose the same schedule of fees in their respective communities. The section first includes an overview of the fees in comparison to the linkage fees currently in place in some of the jurisdictions. Based on the unified fee proposal, Strategic Economics estimated the potential affordable housing revenues that could be raised over a five year period. Strategic Economics also performed further analysis on the unified fee proposal to fulfill the requirements of recently passed state legislation (AB 602) relating to impact fees imposed on new development. As required by AB 602, Strategic Economics summarized the revenues collected from each of the three existing fee programs and provided a justification for the new level of service advanced by the new fee program. Finally, the section concludes with a discussion of the purpose of these fees and the role of new commercial development to contribute to funding affordable housing in Marin County.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
460
II. COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE NEXUS ANALYSIS
This section describes each step of the nexus analysis in detail, including Steps 1 through 6 outlined in the previous section.
Step 1: Commercial Prototypes
This study examined the jobs-housing linkage for three commercial land use prototypes, which are described below. These prototypes were selected because they are the most common categories of commercial development in Marin County, based on a review of recently built, planned, and proposed projects.3
1. Office/ R&D/ Medical Office: Includes professional and business services offices, medical/dental office, and research and development.
2. Retail/Restaurants/Services: Includes retail stores, eating and drinking places (cafes, restaurants, bars, etc.), and personal and financial services such as salons, drycleaners, retail banks.
3. Hotel: Includes full-service hotels, limited-service hotels, motels, and other lodging.
The nexus analysis is calculated based on a 100,000 square foot building, but the actual development projects that are likely to occur in Marin will be smaller. 4 Since the fee is calculated on a per-squarefoot basis, the fee would be proportional to the size of the development project.
Step 2: Number of Workers
For each building prototype, an average employment density was applied based on a combination of national survey data for existing commercial buildings and a review of other recently completed linkage fee nexus studies. Figure 1 summarizes the available research on employment density by building type that formed the basis for establishing average employment density assumptions for the nexus model.
Figure 2 shows the assumptions on worker density for each commercial land use prototype, measured by the average number of square feet per worker. A lower number of square feet per worker implies a higher worker density, which leads to a higher estimate of worker households. For each prototype, the Consultant Team selected an employee density number in the middle of the range; this is a more conservative approach to avoid overestimating the maximum linkage fee amount. The density factors represent the average density for the prototypes; individual projects and buildings may have a greater or lower worker density than the average.
The employee density factor is multiplied by the prototype’s floor area (100,000 square feet) to calculate the total number of workers in each commercial prototype. The density assumption is used to generate the total number of direct workers occupying the commercial space in each prototype. 3 Some commercial developments will lie outside the three major categories of land use analyzed in this study. Examples of such land uses include industrial projects, assisted living facilities, and child care centers. Jurisdictions may still charge a commercial linkage fee on these land uses provided the applicant for development supplies estimates of jobs and wages that accompany the new development. 4 Section V contains financial feasibility testing on a more detailed set of prototypes that would be typical of new development in Marin County. These feasibility prototypes vary in size and contain additional details such as parking, number of floors, and land area.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
461
• Office/Medical Office/R&D. The average density assumption for office is 375 square feet per worker. This is a blended average that represents a combination of business office spaces (estimated to be approximately 300 square feet per worker in the Bay Area), nonprofit offices, medical office, (typically estimated at approximately 500 square feet per worker) and R&D, (approximately 350 square feet per worker).5 Note that there are limited sources on R&D employee density, so the R&D density assumption is based on qualitative research from previous work in the Bay Area conducted by the Consultant Team. • Retail/Restaurants/Services. Worker density varies widely for this category depending on the specific use (food service, grocery stores, dry goods retail, and services all have different average densities). Worker densities are typically higher for independent retailers and tenants in smaller-scale neighborhood centers and urban locations than in large-scale big box retail (around 600 square feet per worker). For this reason, Strategic Economics used a slightly higher density number of 450 square feet per worker.
• Hotel. The average employment density assumption for visitor accommodations is 0.70 workers per room (or approximately 880 square feet per worker).6 This density is consistent with the Vallen and Vallen estimate for select service mid-scale hotels, which are in between full-service “luxury” properties and economy properties. Select service hotels are typical of new development in Marin.
5 In the last decade, there has been a trend towards an increasing density of workers (225-250 square feet per worker) occupying open format office spaces. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that the trend may be reversing as firms implement measures to create more physical distancing and allow employees to work from home. For this reason, the Consultant Team used a density number for business office that represents a return to conventional office spaces rather than open layouts. 6 The assumption of 880 square feet per worker for visitor accommodations assumes an average 0.70 workers per hotel room and an average room size of 615 square feet of gross building area per room.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
462
FIGURE 1. EMPLOYMENT DENSITY DATA AND SOURCES
Employee Density Figure Source
Visitor Accommodations
1.5 workers per full-service (luxury) hotel room Vallen and Vallen, "Chapter 1: The Traditional Hotel Industry," Check-In, Check-Out, 2012
0.5 to 1.0 workers per room for "in-between" hotels Vallen and Vallen, "Chapter 1: The Traditional Hotel Industry," Check-In, Check-Out, 2012 As few as 0.25 workers per room for "budget" hotels Vallen and Vallen, "Chapter 1: The Traditional Hotel Industry," Check-In, Check-Out, 2012 Retail
605 square feet per worker A.C. Nelson, "Reshaping Metropolitan America" (based on calculations from EIA survey) 368 square feet per worker "San Francisco Jobs Housing Nexus Analysis", Keyser Marston Associates, 2019 400 square feet per worker Study Session: City of Emeryville Impact Fees, Helen Bean, Director, Economic Development and Housing Department, 2014.
Office
306 square feet per worker Building Owners and Managers Association Survey, 2012 434 square feet per worker Energy Information Administration, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, Rev. 2006 300 square feet per worker A.C. Nelson, "Reshaping Metropolitan America," 2013 250-350 square feet per worker San Mateo County Housing Needs Study, Economic & Planning Systems, 2006 300 square feet per worker Jobs Housing Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study: City of Napa, CA, Vernazza Wolfe Associates Inc., 2011 312.5 square feet per worker Housing Impact Fee Nexus Study: Mountain View, CA, KMA, 2012 Medical Office
484 square feet per worker for outpatient care Energy Information Administration, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Building Characteristics Tables, Revised June 2006;
513 square feet per worker for inpatient care Energy Information Administration, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Building Characteristics Tables, Revised June 2006;
Note: Many studies of worker density are older. Because information on worker densities is not collected by any public agency, estimates must rely on other studies, which are not routinely done.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
463
FIGURE 2. EMPLOYMENT DENSITY BY PROTOTYPE
Commercial Prototype Prototype Size Average Worker Density Number of Workers in
Prototype
Office/Medical Office/R&D 100,000 sq. ft. 375 sq. ft. per worker 267 workers Retail/Restaurant/Services 100,000 sq. ft. 450 sq. ft. per worker 222 workers Hotel 100,000 sq. ft.;
163 rooms*
880 sq. ft. per worker;
0.70 workers per room
114 workers
* Assumes the gross building area is 615 square feet per room.
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Step 3: Number of Worker Households
Based on the total number of workers directly employed in the prototypes, the Consultant Team estimated the total number of worker households. The number of worker households is calculated by dividing the number of workers by the average number of wage-earners per household in Marin County. Based on data from the U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015- 2019, there is an average of 1.60 workers per household in Marin. The calculation of total new worker households is shown in Figure 3 below, ranging from 71 for hotel to 167 for office.
FIGURE 3. NUMBER OF WORKER HOUSEHOLDS BY PROTOTYPE
Commercial Prototype
Number of New
Workers
Workers per
Household
Number of New
Worker Households
Office/ Medical Office/ R&D 267 1.60 167
Retail/Restaurant/Services 222 1.60 139
Hotel 114 1.60 71
Sources: US Census, American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, 2015-2019; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Step 4: Worker Wages
The first step in calculating employee wages is to establish a list of the industries associated with each prototype (as defined by the North American Industry Classification System, or “NAICS”).
Using industry data from Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), industries were associated with each land use prototype. Figures 4 through 6 below list the industries associated with each prototype.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
464
FIGURE 4. DEFINITION OF INDUSTRIES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D PROTOTYPE NAICS Code Description
Percent Total Workers in
Prototype
5617 Services to buildings and dwellings 9.2%
5511 Management of companies and enterprises 8.8%
5415 Computer systems design and related services 6.5%
6214 Outpatient care centers 6.4%
5416 Management and technical consulting services 5.8%
6211 Offices of physicians 4.9%
6212 Offices of dentists 3.9%
5112 Software publishers 3.9%
5412 Accounting and bookkeeping services 3.9%
5313 Activities related to real estate 3.0%
5239 Other financial investment activities 3.0%
5413 Architectural and engineering services 2.9%
5611 Office administrative services 2.9%
5411 Legal services 2.7%
5221 Depository credit intermediation 2.3%
5311 Lessors of real estate 2.1%
5613 Employment services 2.1%
8133 Social advocacy organizations 2.0%
5419 Other professional and technical services 1.8%
8134 Civic and social organizations 1.7%
6213 Offices of other health practitioners 1.7%
5616 Investigation and security services 1.6%
5418 Advertising, pr, and related services 1.5%
5242 Insurance agencies and brokerages 1.4%
5619 Other support services 1.2%
5312 Offices of real estate agents and brokers 1.2%
5417 Scientific research and development services 1.1%
5111 Newspaper, book, and directory publishers 1.0%
5414 Specialized design services 1.0%
5231 Securities and commodity contracts brokerage 0.9%
5222 Nondepository credit intermediation 0.9%
6117 Educational support services 0.8%
8139 Professional and similar organizations 0.8%
3345 Electronic instrument manufacturing 0.7%
8132 Grantmaking and giving services 0.7%
5223 Activities related to credit intermediation 0.7%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
465
FIGURE 4. DEFINITION OF INDUSTRIES FOR OFFICE/ MEDICAL OFFICE/ R&D PROTOTYPE, CONTINUED NAICS Code Description
Percent Total Workers in
Prototype
5615 Travel arrangement and reservation services 0.7%
6114 Business, computer and management training 0.4%
5241 Insurance carriers 0.4%
5182 Data processing, hosting and related services 0.4% 5191 Other information services 0.3%
5173
Wired and wireless telecommunications
carriers 0.3%
7114 Agents and managers for public figures 0.2%
7113 Promoters of performing arts and sports 0.1%
5122 Sound recording industries 0.1%
3391
Medical equipment and supplies
manufacturing 0.1%
3344 Semiconductor and electronic component mfg. 0.02%
Total 100%
Source: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
466
FIGURE 5. DEFINITION OF INDUSTRIES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANTS/SERVICES PROTOTYPE NAICS Code Description
Percent Total Workers in
Prototype
7225 Restaurants and other eating places 38.6%
4451 Grocery stores 13.3%
4411 Automobile dealers 4.5%
4533 Used merchandise stores 3.7%
4441 Building material and supplies dealers 3.2%
8121 Personal care services 3.2%
4481 Clothing stores 3.1%
4422 Home furnishings stores 2.9%
4522 Department stores 2.9%
4461 Health and personal care stores 2.9%
4523
General merchandise stores, including warehouse
clubs and supercenters 2.6%
4511 Sporting goods and musical instrument stores 2.3%
5121 Motion picture and video industries 1.6%
7223 Special food services 1.6%
8129 Other personal services 1.6%
4431 Electronics and appliance stores 1.5%
4471 Gasoline stations 1.3%
4539 Other miscellaneous store retailers 1.2%
8123 Drycleaning and laundry services 1.1%
4541 Electronic shopping and mail-order houses 0.8%
4413 Auto parts, accessories, and tire stores 0.8%
4452 Specialty food stores 0.7%
4532 Office supplies, stationery, and gift stores 0.6%
4512 Book stores and news dealers 0.5%
4421 Furniture stores 0.5%
7224 Drinking places, alcoholic beverages 0.5%
5321 Automotive equipment rental and leasing 0.5%
4442 Lawn and garden equipment and supplies stores 0.3% 4453 Beer, wine, and liquor stores 0.3%
4482 Shoe stores 0.3%
5322 Consumer goods rental 0.3%
4483 Jewelry, luggage, and leather goods stores 0.2%
4412 Other motor vehicle dealers 0.2%
8122 Death care services 0.2%
4531 Florists 0.1%
4542 Vending machine operators 0.02%
4543 Direct selling establishments 0.02%
Total 100%
Source: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
467
FIGURE 6. DEFINITION OF INDUSTRIES FOR HOTEL PROTOTYPE
NAICS Code Description Percent Total Workers in Prototype 7211 Traveler accommodation 100%
* Note: Unlike other prototypes, the visitor accommodations prototype only includes one NAICS industry category.
Source: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019; Strategic Economics, 2020.
The next step is to identify all the occupations that are associated with each industry based on data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The best available data is at the national level; state level industry-occupation data exist but do not include all relevant industries. The national BLS occupational matrix is calibrated to match the county’s employment mix by weighting the national employment distribution to reflect the distribution of employment by industry within Marin County. Finally, the average wage by worker is calculated using data on average annual wages by occupation in the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley Metropolitan Statistical Area (the smallest geographic level at which wage data are available) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Figure 7 below summarizes the results of these calculations, computing the average weighted wages7 for each prototype. As shown, office/medical office/R&D employees have the highest average wage of the three prototypes, reflecting a greater mix of higher salary occupations in that use. The lowest average annual wages are in the retail/restaurants/services category. Due to the level of detail associated with the data on occupational wages, the full occupation mix in each land use prototype are shown in Figures 35 through 37 at the end of this report.
FIGURE 7. AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGE BY PROTOTYPE
Commercial Prototype Weighted Average Annual Wage (a)
Office/Medical Office/R&D $85,441
Retail/Restaurant/Services $37,493
Hotel $46,473
(a) Average wages are weighted to account for the proportion of jobs in each occupational wage category.
Source: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019; United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, 2019; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021. 7 The weighted average wage accounts for the proportion of jobs in each occupational category.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
468
Step 5: Household Incomes
Based on the employee wage calculations discussed above, household incomes are estimated for each land use prototype. As a standard assumption for nexus studies, the average worker wage is multiplied by the number of wage-earners per household to calculate the annual household income. According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015-2019, the average number of wage-earners per household in Marin County is 1.6. The average annual wage per employee within each occupation was multiplied by 1.6 to determine annual average household income.
Step 6: Household Income Categories
Employee households are then categorized as extremely low-, very low-, low-, moderate-, or above moderate-income based on standard income definitions based on percentage of Area Median Income (AMI).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015-2019, the average household size in Marin County is 2.4. To reference the available income tables, this has been rounded to 2, the nearest whole number. The income categories for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, are therefore based on the household size of two persons, using the income thresholds shown in Figure 8.8 Note that this analysis uses 2020 income thresholds to match up with the affordability gap calculations which were also based on 2020 income figures.
FIGURE 8. AMI LEVELS FOR 2-PERSON HOUSEHOLDS IN MARIN COUNTY, 2020 Income Category Maximum Income
Area Median Income (100% AMI) $114,500
Extremely Low-income (<30% AMI) $34,350
Very Low-income (31-50% AMI) $57,250
Low-income (51-80% AMI) $91,600
Moderate-income (81-120% AMI) $137,400
Source: Marin Housing Authority, 2020. Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Using the income categories described above, the new worker households were sorted into income groups. As shown in Figure 9 below, the distribution of workers within each income group varies markedly between the prototypes. The majority of employment in retail/restaurants/services is in the very low-income group, while the majority of hotel workers are in the low-income group.
Employment in office/medical office/R&D tends to be distributed more in the higher income groups. According to the results of this analysis, the primary affordable housing need associated with these prototypes is at the very low-income, low-income, and moderate-income levels. While the results of this analysis did not demonstrate demand from extremely low-income worker 8 Rounding to two persons per household is a conservative estimate. Using a larger household size assumption would result in a higher maximum commercial linkage fee calculation.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
469
households associated with new commercial development, it is understood that there are worker households in Marin County that require extremely low-income housing.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
470
FIGURE 9. NUMBER OF WORKER HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME CATEGORY Land Use Number of Worker
Households
Percent of Workers
In Prototype
Office/Medical Office/R&D
Extremely Low (<=30% AMI) (a) 0 0%
Very Low-income (31-50% AMI) 4 2%
Low-income (51-80% AMI) 67 40%
Moderate-income (81-120% AMI) 26 16%
Above 120% AMI (b) 69 42%
Total Households Requiring Affordable Housing 97 100%
Total Households 166
Retail/Restaurants/ Services
Extremely Low (<=30% AMI) (a) 0 0%
Very Low-income (31-50% AMI) 74 53%
Low-income (51-80% AMI) 59 42%
Moderate-income (81-120% AMI) 4 3%
Above 120% AMI (b) 2 1%
Total Households Requiring Affordable Housing 137 100%
Total 139
Hotel
Extremely Low (<=30% AMI) (a) 0 0%
Very Low-income (31-50% AMI) 14 19%
Low-income (51-80% AMI) 49 69%
Moderate-income (81-120% AMI) 4 6%
Above 120% AMI (b) 4 6%
Total Households Requiring Affordable Housing 67 100%
Total 71
Notes:
(a) The methodology used to estimate worker household incomes relies on identifying the weighted averages of a large number of occupations present in each land use prototype. According to the results of this analysis, the primary affordable housing need associated with these prototypes is at the very low-income, low-income, and moderate-income levels. While this methodology does not estimate demand from extremely low-income worker households associated with new commercial development, it is understood that there are worker households in Marin County that require extremely low-income housing. (b) Worker households earning above 120% AMI are expected to be able to afford market-rate rental or ownership housing, and therefore they are not incorporated in the affordability gap calculation.
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
471
III. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY GAP
This section summarizes the approach to calculating the housing affordability gap and the results of the analysis (steps 7, 8 and 9). The steps outlined here draw upon a previous estimation of affordability gaps in the In-lieu Fee Study. A more detailed explanation of the methodology and assumptions for the affordability gap calculation can be found in that study (“Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation”).
Methodology
The housing affordability gap is defined as the difference between what very low-, low-, and moderate-income households can afford to pay for housing and the development cost of building new housing units.9 From the nexus methodology section at the beginning of this report, calculating the housing affordability gap involves the following steps 7 through 9:
7. Estimating affordable rents and housing prices for households in the targeted income groups.
8. Estimating development costs of building new housing units, based on current cost and market data.
9. Calculating the difference between what renters and owners can afford to pay for housing and the cost of development of rental and ownership units to arrive at the “affordability gap.”
Step 7: Estimating Affordable Rents and Sales Prices
The first step in calculating the housing affordability gap is to determine the amount that households at the targeted income levels can afford to pay for housing. As introduced in Step 6, for eligibility purposes, most affordable housing programs define very low-income households as those earning 31 to 50 percent of area median income (AMI), low-income households as those earning between 51 and 80 percent of AMI, and moderate-income households as those earning between 81 and 120 percent of AMI.10
Households with incomes in the very low range are assumed to live in rental housing. Households in the low and moderate ranges are assumed to live in a mix of rental and ownership housing.
While the nexus analysis identified some new worker households that would fall above the moderate-income range (above 120 percent of AMI), the Consultant Team did not calculate an affordability gap for this group because it is expected they would find housing at market rates. 9 As shown in the previous section, there are no households created by commercial development in the extremely low-income range (zero to 30 percent of AMI).
10 Drawing on the In-lieu Fee Study, very low-income households were assumed to be at 50% AMI; Low-income households were assumed to be at 70% AMI for ownership housing and 65% AMI for rental housing. Moderate-income households were assumed to be at 110% AMI for ownership housing and 90% AMI for rental housing.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
472
Figure 10 shows the maximum monthly rents and supportable debt for rental housing, as determined by the In-lieu Fee study. Renters are assumed to pay a maximum of 30 percent of their gross monthly income on total housing costs for the housing to be considered “affordable”. The maximum rent is then identified after deducting utility costs from monthly income. It is assumed that one-to-three person households occupy these units. In order to calculate the affordability gap, the affordable rents were converted to supportable debt. The supportable debt represents the onetime value of the rental revenue stream, incorporating assumptions about operating expenses, reserves, vacancy and collection loss, and mortgage terms.
FIGURE 10. AFFORDABLE RENTS AND SUPPORTABLE DEBT BY UNIT TYPE Studio 1-BR 2-BR Weighted Average (a)
Maximum Affordable Rents
Very Low-income (50%) $1,209 $1,379 $1,539 $1,426
Low-income (65%) $1,584 $1,809 $2,022 $1,872
Moderate-income (90%) $2,210 $2,524 $2,827 $2,614
Supportable Debt
Very Low-income (50%) $39,393 $66,904 $92,699 $74,471
Low-income (65%) $100,036 $136,236 $170,691 $146,398
Moderate-income (90%) $153,206 $191,816 $229,058 $202,852 Notes:
(a) The weighted average incorporates a unit mix assumption of 50% 1-bedrooms, 40% 2-bedrooms, and 10% studio units.
Source: Marin Housing Authority, 2020; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Figure 11 shows the maximum sales prices for homeowners, as determined by the In-lieu Fee Study. Homeowners are assumed to pay a maximum of 33 percent of gross monthly income on total housing costs. The maximum affordable price for for-sale housing is then calculated based on the total monthly mortgage payment that a homeowner could afford, using typical mortgage loan assumptions for income-restricted ownership housing, as well as other housing cost assumptions such as homeowner’s association (HOA) fees.11 It is assumed that four-to-six person households occupy these units. Due to varying HOA costs, the maximum sales price varies slightly between the two ownership prototypes, condominium townhomes and single-family subdivision units.
11 The housing cost assumptions for homeowners are based on correspondence with the Marin Housing Authority. It is assumed the homeowner pays a 5% downpayment, and their mortgage is 30-year fixed rate, with an interest rate of 3.8%. Other annual housing costs include: 1) Homeowner’s insurance costing 0.28% of the sales price; 2) Property tax rate of 1.5% the sales price; 3) Private mortgage insurance premium rate of 0.85% the amount financed; 4) Interior property insurance of $1,200; and 5) homeowner’s association fees of $0.35 per square foot for condominium units and $0.25 for single-family units.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
473
FIGURE 11. AFFORDABLE SALES PRICES BY UNIT TYPE
Condo Townhome Single-Family Subdivision
3-BR 4-BR
Weighted
Average (a) 3-BR 4-BR
Weighted
Average (a)
Low-income
(70%) $326,986 $369,293 $341,089 $344,076 $379,167 $361,622 Moderateincome (110%) $572,582 $643,220 $596,128 $589,581 $653,042 $621,311 Notes:
(a) The weighted average for the condo townhome assumes a unit mix of 66% three-bedrooms units and 33% four-bedroom units. For the single-family subdivision, it is assumed half of the units have three bedrooms and half have four bedrooms.
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Step 8: Estimating Housing Development Costs
The next step in calculating the housing affordability gap is to estimate the cost of developing new housing units to address the housing need. As part of the In-lieu Fee Study, the Consultant Team estimated development costs for three prototypes: a single-family subdivision, a development of condominium townhomes, and a rental apartment development. The estimated development costs of those prototypes are shown below in Figure 12.
FIGURE 12. TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS BY PROTOTYPE
Cost Category
Single Family
Subdivision
Condominium
Townhome
Rental
Apartments
Per Unit
Land Cost $350,000 $200,000 $75,000
Hard Costs $335,343 $371,640 $382,228
Soft Costs $96,028 $100,057 $106,605
Development Costs $781,371 $671,697 $563,833
Per Net Residential Sq. Ft.
Land Cost $159 $111 $94
Hard Cost $152 $206 $478
Soft Costs $44 $56 $133
Development Costs $355 $373 $705
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Step 9: Calculating the Housing Affordability Gap
The final step is to calculate the housing affordability gap, or the difference between what renters and owners can afford to pay and the total cost of developing new units. The purpose of the housing affordability gap calculation is to help determine the fee amount that would be necessary to cover the cost of developing housing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The calculation does not assume the availability of any other source of housing subsidy because not all housing is built with public subsidies, and tax credits and tax-exempt bond financing are highly competitive programs that will not always be available to developers of modest housing units.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
474
Figures 13 and 14 shows the housing affordability gap calculation for the rental prototype and the two ownership prototypes respectively.
• For the rental prototype, the gap is defined as the difference between the per-unit cost of development and the supportable debt per unit. The supportable debt is calculated based on the net operating income generated by an affordable monthly rent, incorporating assumptions about operating expenses (including property taxes, insurance, etc.), reserves, vacancy and collection loss, and mortgage terms. • For the ownership housing prototypes, the gap is calculated as the difference between the per-unit cost of development and the affordable sales price for each income level. To calculate the maximum affordable sales price, Strategic Economics relied on the approach used by Marin Housing Authority for local affordable housing homeownership programs.
The mortgage is assumed to be 30-year fixed rate, with an interest rate of 3.8 percent, which is a typical rate at the time of research (December 2020). The owner is assumed to put down a five percent down payment, which is standard for conventional and CalFHA loans. Other monthly housing costs include homeowners’ association dues, property taxes, homeowners’ insurance, interior property insurance, and premiums for private mortgage insurance.
Note that for each prototype, the gaps shown for each income level are the weighted average of the specific gaps for each unit type in the prototype.
The average affordability gap for each income group was then calculated by averaging the affordability gaps for each prototype, shown in Figure 15. Since it is assumed that all households in the very low-income group are renters, the average affordability gap is simply the rental gap.
For more explanation, see the In-lieu Fee Study.
FIGURE 13. AFFORDABILITY GAP CALCULATION FOR RENTAL HOUSING BY INCOME GROUP Supportable Debt (a)
Development Costs
(b) Affordability Gap (c)
Very Low-income (50%) $74,471 $564,000 $489,529
Low-income (65%) $146,398 $564,000 $417,602
Moderate-income (90%) $202,852 $564,000 $361,148
Notes:
(a) Calculated as net operating income generated by an affordable monthly rent, incorporating assumptions about operating expenses, reserves, vacancy and collection loss, and mortgage terms. (b) Assumes development cost of $705 per net square foot on rental units. (c) Calculated as the difference between development costs and supportable debt.
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
475
FIGURE 14. AFFORDABILITY GAP CALCULATION FOR OWNERSHIP HOUSING BY INCOME GROUP Affordable Sales Price (a)
Development
Cost (b) Affordability Gap (c)
Condo Townhome
Low-income (70%) $341,089 $671,697 $330,608
Moderate-income (110%) $596,128 $671,697 $75,568
Single-family Subdivision
Low-income (70%) $361,622 $781,371 $419,749
Moderate-income (110%) $621,311 $781,371 $160,060
Notes:
(a) Based on affordable sales prices identified in Figure 14, this is the weighted average affordable sales price, incorporating the prototypes’ overall unit mix.
(b) Assumes a development cost of $373 per square foot for the condo townhome, and $355 per square foot for the single-family subdivision.
(c) Calculated as the difference between the affordable sales price and development cost.
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
FIGURE 15: AVERAGE AFFORDABILITY GAP FOR VERY LOW-, LOW-, AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS Income Level Rental Gap
Ownership
Gap
Townhome
Ownership
Gap SF
Subdivision
Average
Affordability
Gap
Very Low-income (50% AMI) $489,529 N/A N/A $489,529
Low-income (65% AMI Rental / 70% Owner) $417,602 $330,608 $419,749 $389,320 Moderate-income (90% AMI Rental / 110%
AMI Owner) $361,148 $75,568 $160,060 $198,925
Note: The affordability gap for Above Moderate-income Households (more than 120 percent of AMI) is assumed to be zero.
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
476
This section builds on the findings of the previous analytical steps to calculate the maximum justified linkage fees for each commercial prototype.
Step 10: Maximum Fee Calculation
To derive the maximum nexus-based fee for each land use prototype, the housing affordability gap amounts (see previous section) are applied to the number of worker households in each respective income category (Figure 9). The number of very low-, low-, and moderate-income households associated with each land use prototype is used to calculate the total affordability gap (Figure 16).
The above moderate-income households are included in the number of worker households shown in Figure 16, but there is no affordability gap for this group and it does not contribute to the total affordability gap. Finally, the total gap for each land use prototype is divided by 100,000 square feet to calculate a maximum fee per square foot.
As shown in Figure 16, the maximum fee results (rounded to the nearest dollar) are $331 per square foot for office/medical office/R&D, $601 per square foot for retail/restaurants/services, and $267 per square foot for hotel.
The calculated linkage fees are relatively high because of the high cost of housing development in Marin, leading to large affordability gaps particularly for very low- and low-income households. The maximum fee calculation is highest for retail/restaurants/services because of the relatively low worker wage levels in these industries, combined with a moderate employee density. Hotel uses also employ a large share of lower wage workers, but have a much lower employee density, resulting in the lowest maximum fee of all of the uses. Finally, office/medical/R&D uses have a lower number of lower wage workers, but have the highest employment density, resulting in a maximum fee that is lower than retail/restaurants/services but higher than hotel.
The maximum fees shown in Figure 16 are not the recommended fees for adoption. They are the preliminary nexus-justified fees that represent the maximum that Marin jurisdictions could charge to mitigate affordable housing demand related to commercial development.
FIGURE 16. MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES
Land Use
Number of
Worker
Households*
Average Gap (per
Household)
Total
Affordability Gap
Size of
Prototype (SF)
Max Fee
per SF
Office/Medical Office/R&D 166 $199,226 $33,116,879 100,000 $331 Retail/Restaurants/
Services 139 $432,496 $60,068,911 100,000 $601
Hotel 71 $374,089 $26,673,031 100,000 $267
* The number of worker households includes above moderate-income households. However, these households are assumed to have an affordability gap of zero and, therefore, do not affect the calculations of the total affordability gap and the maximum fee.
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
IV. MAXIMUM LINKAGE FEES
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
477
V. MARKET FACTORS, FEASIBILITY, AND OTHER POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS
The previous section presented the maximum commercial linkage fees for each land use based on the nexus study. These fees are the maximum justifiable fee that jurisdictions can charge to mitigate the affordable housing need. However, for most jurisdictions, other factors are considered when enacting the commercial linkage fees, and, as a result, the fees are almost always set at a level significantly below the maximum amount that is justified by the nexus study.
This section considers market factors and their impact on the feasibility of a range of commercial linkage fee scenarios, as well as other policy factors each jurisdiction will want to consider when setting commercial linkage fees. The first subsection includes a brief market overview of commercial development in Marin County. That is followed by a review of commercial linkage fees in comparable cities, which inform a set of “fee scenarios” that are intended to illustrate a range of reasonable fee levels that could be adopted. Following that is a discussion highlighting the following policy considerations:
• An evaluation of the potential impact of the fee scenarios on the financial feasibility of commercial development; and
• An estimate of the amount the fee scenarios would raise existing municipal fees.
To inform this analysis, the Consultant Team reviewed recent development trends, spoke with local professionals in the development and building trades, and reviewed commercial linkage fee levels in comparable Bay Area jurisdictions.
Finally, this section makes a set of recommendations for setting the commercial linkage fees, including ranges for the fees, possible affordable housing revenues generated, and an approach for updating the fees.
Market Overview
Marin County is considered a secondary market for most commercial development in relation to San Francisco and the more urban areas of the East Bay. Consequently, Marin County’s commands lower rents and attracts less development activity than the primary commercial real estate markets. In the last year, the COVID-19 pandemic has depressed the market for commercial development, with rising vacancy rates and decreasing revenues for office, retail, and hotel uses.
This dynamic presents many challenges for the feasibility of new development projects.
Market conditions for each of the land use categories addressed in this study are discussed separately below in more detail.
OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D
Office employment in Marin is concentrated in downtown San Rafael, with a few areas of lower density office employment in North San Rafael, eastern Larkspur, and Sausalito (see Figure 17).
Recent office development has included the San Rafael Corporate Center, a Class A office development in downtown San Rafael; Biomarin Pharmaceuticals, R&D lab space also in downtown San Rafael; and smaller office developments in San Anselmo and Corte Madera.
According to developers interviewed for this study, because of uncertainties about the timing of the COVID-19 economic recovery, many investors are delaying decisions about building new Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
478
commercial projects. It is unclear whether the Biomarin laboratories will attract additional demand for life sciences R&D space.
Historically, San Rafael has been the center of office development in Marin County. Once the demand for office returns, it is likely that new, larger-scale office and R&D developments will continue to be concentrated in downtown San Rafael. As the primary location for office uses, San Rafael is considered the strongest tier for office uses in Marin County. The other six jurisdictions have not captured significant office development in the last decade, and therefore comprise a weaker office market tier.
RETAIL/RESTAURANTS/SERVICES
Demand for brick-and-mortar retail development nationwide has slowed as an increasing share of retail sales move online. The shelter-in-place restrictions from COVID-19 have accelerated this trend, and it is unclear when significant demand for new retail space will return. Marin County has seen only a small amount of retail development in recent years, limited to single tenant stores such as the RH showroom in Corte Madera. Redevelopment plans for the Northgate Mall in San Rafael will reduce the overall retail area on the site while adding over 1,300 new housing units.
It is unlikely that the county will see significant new retail development in the coming years. When the market does recover, new retail is expected to be relatively small scale, serving a local trade area and/or any new residential development. Rather than concentrating in any one area of the county, retail is likely to be dispersed, favoring sites close to US-101, major highways with good visibility, or serving larger residential developments. For this reason, to the Consultant Team recommends that the jurisdictions adopt a relatively uniform commercial linkage fee. Jurisdictions may also wish to enact lower fees for small and independently-owned businesses. Many jurisdictions exempt retail spaces of under 5,000 square feet from these fees.
HOTEL
Located geographically in between San Francisco and Northern California’s wine country, Marin County is a secondary market for hotel development. Business travel is an important component of demand in San Rafael, serving the downtown employment center, while the market in the remainder of the county is mostly composed of leisure travelers. Although the county has seen no new hotels in over twenty years, currently several hotels and motels have been proposed, planned, or are under construction. These new projects include two in downtown San Rafael (the select service AC Marriot and Hampton Inn and Suites), and three additional proposals in Corte Madera and Larkspur. All of these developments were planned and proposed before the start of the COVID19 pandemic, with the AC Marriot already under construction.
The pandemic has taken a serious toll on hotel demand, causing developers that have yet to break ground to reconsider moving forward with their projects. Developers and industry leaders do not expect the market to recover for several years.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
479
FIGURE 17: OFFICE EMPLOYMENT DENSITY IN MARIN COUNTY, 2018 Source: U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, 2018; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
480
Comparable Cities
Figures 18 through 20 show existing commercial linkage fees for the jurisdictions participating in this study alongside other comparable jurisdictions in Sonoma County, Napa County, San Mateo County, and San Francisco.
As shown in Figure 18, linkage fees for office/medical office/R&D land uses in Marin County range from $3.20 to $10.32 per square foot. The fee in San Rafael is at the high end of this range, reflecting its relative strength as an office center within the county. The selected jurisdictions from Sonoma County, (Petaluma, Santa Rosa, and Unincorporated Sonoma County) all charge approximately $3.00 per square foot. San Francisco, San Mateo County, and South San Francisco have stronger office markets than Marin and all charge much higher fees ranging from $15 to $65 per square foot.12
Figure 19 gives a comparison of linkage fees for retail/restaurants/services. These fees tend to be lower than what is charged for office, except in places where retail markets have been particularly strong. In Marin County the linkage fees on these uses range from $3.28 to $8.38, with Corte Madera at the top of the range. The selected jurisdictions in Sonoma County range from $3.00 to $5.25.
Figure 20 shows linkage fees for hotel uses in the comparable jurisdictions. Fees charged for hotel uses in Marin tend to be lower than for other uses, ranging from $1.20 to $4.63 per square foot.
The selected communities in Sonoma County all charge approximately $3.00 per square foot, and the fee in the City of Napa is as high as $6.00 per square foot. The fee in San Francisco is more than $23 per square foot.
12 South San Francisco is shown because it provides a reference point for life sciences industry clusters that have a high concentration of R&D space.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
481
FIGURE 18: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D ADOPTED IN MARIN AND
COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS
[a] San Rafael’s fee is defined as a percentage of the inclusionary in-lieu fee. [b] Mill Valley’s fee is defined as one percent of the valuation of the proposed project. The Consultant Team assumed the valuation of the office prototype used for feasibility testing (see next section).
Sources: Published schedules of city fees; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021. $4.79
$3.20
$10.32
$7.19
$4.28
$3.04
$3.00
$2.93
$64.83
$15.00
$25.00
Corte Madera - office
Corte Madera - R&D
San Rafael [a]
Unincorporated Marin County
Mill Valley [b]
Unincorporated Sonoma County
Santa Rosa
Petaluma
San Francisco (less than 50K sf)
South San Francisco
Unincorporated San Mateo County
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
482
FIGURE 19: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES ADOPTED IN MARIN AND
COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS
[a] San Rafael’s fee is defined as a percentage of the inclusionary in-lieu fee. [b] Mill Valley’s fee is defined as one percent of the valuation of the proposed project. The Consultant Team assumed the valuation of the retail prototype used for feasibility testing (see next section).
Sources: Published schedules of city fees; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021. $8.38
$4.39
$7.74
$5.40
$3.28
$5.25
$3.00
$5.07
$29.11
$5.00
Corte Madera - retail
Corte Madera - restaurants
San Rafael [a]
Unincorporated Marin County
Mill Valley [b]
Unincorporated Sonoma County
Santa Rosa
Petaluma
San Francisco
Unincorporated San Mateo County
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
483
FIGURE 20: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES FOR HOTEL ADOPTED IN MARIN AND COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS [a] San Rafael’s fee is defined as a percentage of the inclusionary in-lieu fee. [b] Marin County’s fee $1,745 per room. This figure was converted to a value per square foot assuming a hotel development will average 615 square feet of gross building area per room. [c] Mill Valley’s fee is defined as one percent of the valuation of the proposed project. The Consultant Team assumed the valuation of the hotel prototype used for feasibility testing (see next section).
Sources: Published schedules of city fees; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Fee Scenarios
The Consultant Team developed a set of fee scenarios to analyze the impact of a commercial linkage fee adopted for the three categories of land use. The determination of the fee scenarios was based on the range of fee levels that have been adopted in comparable cities and counties in the Bay Area.
The four fee scenarios range from $3.00 per square foot to $15.00 per square foot (Figure 21).
The fee scenarios, which are all only a fraction of the nexus-justified maximum fee, are intended as a guide to illustrate a range of commercial linkage fee amounts that might be implemented for $1.20
$2.58
$2.84
$4.63
$3.04
$3.00
$2.93
$6.00
$23.36
Corte Madera
San Rafael [a]
Unincorporated Marin County [b]
Mill Valley [c]
Unincorporated Sonoma County
Santa Rosa
Petaluma
City of Napa
San Francisco
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
484
each land use category. Jurisdictions may choose to set linkage fees at different scenarios for different land uses, at an amount different from the values shown, or may choose to implement a commercial linkage fee for only certain land uses.
FIGURE 21: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE SCENARIOS PER BUILDING GROSS SQUARE FOOT
Office/Medical
Office/R&D Retail/Restaurant/Services Hotel
Maximum Fee $331 $601 $267
Scenario 1 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
Scenario 2 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00
Scenario 3 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00
Scenario 4 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Feasibility Analysis
One of the important policy considerations when enacting a new fee is the impact of the fee on the financial feasibility of new commercial development. The Consultant Team analyzed the financial feasibility of potential new linkage fees by assessing their impact on overall development costs. While there are no established rules-of-thumb for setting commercial linkage fees in relation to development costs, generally where real estate markets are strong, new development is able to accommodate higher fees if they represent a relatively low share of overall development costs.13
DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES FOR ANALYZING FEASIBILITY
The Consultant Team designated a set of development prototypes to analyze feasibility. These prototypes are different from the commercial prototypes used for the nexus study and introduced in Section II. While the nexus prototypes represent broad categories of use, the development prototypes for feasibility represent more specific developments within each category and include additional details such as land area and parking to facilitate the estimation of costs. The three “feasibility prototypes” are defined as: 1) Class B Office; 2) Small Neighborhood Center; and 3) Select-Service Hotel. These development prototypes, which are designed to represent a typical development within each land use category, are informed by recent and proposed commercial developments in Marin, as well as from interviews with local developers and builders. The prototypes are described below and summarized further in Figure 22. • Class B Office: A smaller, Class B office format was used because Marin is a secondary office market within the Bay Area, and the economics of smaller developments are likely to be more impacted by municipal fees than larger developments. This prototype is 17,000 square feet in two stories on a one acre site. Surface parking is assumed with a ratio of
4.0 (one stall per 250 square feet of gross building area). 13 Over time, fee increases are expected to be capitalized into lower land costs.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
485
• Small Neighborhood Center: This is a 7,600 square-foot neighborhood shopping center on one-half acre. This prototype assumes surface parking with a parking ratio of 4.0 (one stall per 250 square feet of gross building area). Similar to the office prototype above, a smaller center is likely to be more impacted by new fees. In additional, the parcel size is very small because there is very limited retail development occurring in Marin, and developer interviews also suggested that Marin’s limited site availability meant larger retail developments were unlikely to occur.
• Select-Service Hotel: Most recent and pipeline hotel projects in Marin are select-service hotels. This prototype is a 70,000 square foot select service hotel with 115 guest rooms on a 2.5 acre site. It assumes surface parking with a parking ratio of 1.1 spaces per room.
The hotel will include a limited number of high-quality amenities such as a small restaurant/bar, a fitness room, and a business center.
FIGURE 22. DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES
Class B Office
Small Neighborhood
Center
Select Service
Hotel
Land Area
Parcel Size (Sq. Ft.) 43,560 21,780 108,900
Parcel Size (acres) 1.00 0.50 2.50
Building Height and FAR
Total Stories 2 stories Single story 3 stories
FAR 0.40 0.35 0.65
Building Area
Gross area (gsf) 17,424 7,623 70,785
Net area (nsf) 15,682 6,861 n/a
Number of rooms n/a n/a 115
Average Room Size (nsf) n/a n/a 400
Average Room Size (gsf) n/a n/a 615
Parking
Total Spaces (surface) 70 30 127
Parking Ratio (per room) n/a n/a 1.10
Parking Ratio (per 1,000 SF) 4.0 4.0 1.8
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
The Consultant Team estimated development costs based on interviews with developers and general contractors experienced with commercial development in Marin, as well as a review of recent land transactions. Key development cost assumptions are described below, and a summary of the assumptions is provided in Figure 23.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
486
LAND AND SITE COST ASSUMPTIONS
One of the critical cost factors for a commercial development project is land cost. To determine the land value of sites zoned for commercial uses, the Consultant Team combined feedback from developer interviews with an analysis of recent sales transactions of vacant parcels for development in the relevant areas of Marin County. Land costs can range greatly based on the site’s location and characteristics. The Consultant Team reviewed comparable land sales and generally based land cost assumptions on the middle of the range of comparable land prices.
Site costs include the horizontal costs associated with preparation of the site for development and demolition of any existing buildings. As these costs vary widely from site to site, the Consultant Team estimated average site costs based on developer interviews and experience with previous feasibility studies.
BUILDING AREA HARD COSTS
The hard costs for the building area include the cost of vertical construction of the building. This ranges from $300 per gross square foot for the Small Neighborhood Center to $450 per gross square foot for the Class B Office. These costs are informed by developer interviews as well as recent construction cost market reports.
TENANT IMPROVEMENTS AND FF&E COSTS
This cost category includes a separate allowance for tenant improvements for the office and retail prototypes as well as “fixtures, furniture, and equipment” (FF&E) for the hotel prototype. The tenant improvement allowance of $75 per square foot for office and retail is based on recent feasibility studies for these development types in the Bay Area. The FF&E cost of $25,000 per room is based on feedback from developer interviews.
SURFACE PARKING COSTS
The direct cost of parking is assumed to be an average of $10,000 per stall for a surface lot, which applies to all development prototypes.
SOFT COST ASSUMPTIONS
Soft costs include all costs for architecture, engineering, consulting, legal, and accounting fees, as well as taxes, insurance, financing costs, contingency, and any other incidental costs not included in the cost categories listed in this section. Soft costs were estimated as 12 percent of hard costs for all prototypes. Note that existing municipal fees, including utility hook-ups, are not incorporated into this assumption, and are addressed separately, because they vary across the jurisdictions.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
487
FIGURE 23: DEVELOPMENT COST ASSUMPTIONS
Class B
Office
Small
Neighborhood
Center
Select Service
Hotel
Land and Sites Costs (per sf) $75 $75 $40
Building Area Hard Costs (per gsf) $400 $300 $450
Tenant Improvements (per nsf, office and retail only) $75 $75 n/a FF&E (per room, hotel only) n/a n/a $25,000
Surface parking (per space) $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Soft Costs (as % of hard costs) 12% 12% 12%
Sources: Developer Interviews, 2021; Costar, 2021; Rider, Levett, Bucknall Quarterly Construction Cost Report, Q4 2020; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
488
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Based on the assumptions summarized in Figure 23, The Consultant Team estimated the total development costs for the prototypes, summarized in Figure 24. The costs are summarized for the whole project, by square foot of gross building area, and by guest room for hotel. On a per-square foot basis, the Class B Office is the most expensive, and the Select Service Hotel is the least expensive.
FIGURE 24: TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST BY PROTOTYPE
Class B Office
Small Neighborhood
Center Select Service Hotel
Overall Project
Land and Site Costs $3,267,000 $1,633,500 $4,356,000
Building Area Hard Costs $6,969,600 $2,286,900 $31,853,250 Tenant Improvements / FF&E $1,176,120 $514,553 $2,875,641 Surface parking $700,000 $300,000 $1,270,000
Soft Costs $920,352 $310,428 $3,974,790
Total Development Cost $13,033,072 $5,045,381 $44,329,681
Per GSF
Land and Site Costs $188 $214 $62
Building Area Hard Costs $400 $300 $450
Tenant Improvements / FF&E $68 $68 $41
Surface parking $40 $39 $18
Soft Costs $53 $41 $56
Total Development Cost $748 $662 $626
Per Guest Room
Land and Site Costs $37,870
Building Area Hard Costs $276,923
Tenant Improvements / FF&E $25,000
Surface parking $11,041
Soft Costs $34,556
Total Development Cost $385,390
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
489
INCREASES IN DEVELOPMENT COSTS
The fee scenarios were applied to the development costs for each prototype and are summarized below and in Figure 25. A fee level of $3.00 per square foot (Scenario 1) increases development costs by 0.4 to 0.5 percent, depending on the prototype; a fee level of $5.00 (Scenario 2) increases development costs by 0.7 to 0.8 percent; at $10.00 per square foot (Scenario 3), the increase in costs ranges from 1.3 to 1.6 percent; and, finally, at $15.00 per square foot (Scenario 4), the increase in costs ranges from 2.0 to 2.4 percent. In percentage terms, hotel development experiences the largest increase from a new fee because hotel is the least expensive prototype to build per square foot.
FIGURE 25: FEE SCENARIOS AND PERCENTAGE OF DEVELOPMENT COSTS FOR EACH PROTOTYPE Class B
Office
Small Neighborhood
Center
Select Service
Hotel
Total Development Costs before Linkage Fee ($/sf) $748 $662 $626 Linkage Fee Scenarios ($/sf)
Maximum Fee $331 $601 $267
Scenario 1 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
Scenario 2 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00
Scenario 3 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00
Scenario 4 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00
Linkage Fee Scenarios (as % to Total Dev. Costs)
Maximum Fee 44% 91% 43%
Scenario 1 0.4% 0.5% 0.5%
Scenario 2 0.7% 0.8% 0.8%
Scenario 3 1.3% 1.5% 1.6%
Scenario 4 2.0% 2.3% 2.4%
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
FEE SCENARIOS COMBINED WITH OTHER MUNICIPAL FEES
The Consultant Team reviewed the total burden of the fee scenarios in the context of other fees charged by the cities and Marin County, including fees such as building permits as well as any impact fees each jurisdiction might have in place.14 A table of these costs for each jurisdiction is given in Figure 26 below, including the total fees that would be paid on each prototype for the commercial linkage fee scenarios.
Because each jurisdiction has its own schedule of fees for new development, the cost of development in each community varies. For example, municipal fees for the prototypes in Corte Madera range from
0.6 percent to 0.9 percent of development costs, while fees in San Rafael are higher, ranging from 2.2 14 Connection fees charged by a local sanitary sewer and water district were also estimated; they would be expected to represent an additional 1.0 to 2.6 percent of development costs above what is shown in the Figure 26.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
490
to 4.4 percent of development costs. Jurisdictions will need to take into account these baseline costs when setting a commercial linkage fee amount.
FIGURE 26. COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE SCENARIOS AND OTHER MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY FEES* BY JURISDICTION Per GSF As % of Development Costs
Class B
Office
Small
Neighborhood
Center
Select
Service
Hotel
Class B
Office
Small
Neighborhood
Center
Select
Service
Hotel
Corte Madera
Municipal Fees $4.71 $4.75 $5.90 0.6% 0.7% 0.9%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $7.71 $7.75 $8.90 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $9.71 $9.75 $10.90 1.3% 1.5% 1.7% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $14.71 $14.75 $15.90 2.0% 2.2% 2.5% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $19.71 $19.75 $20.90 2.6% 3.0% 3.3% Fairfax
Municipal Fees $8.53 $8.83 $9.42 1.1% 1.3% 1.5%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $11.53 $11.83 $12.42 1.5% 1.8% 2.0% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $13.53 $13.83 $14.42 1.8% 2.1% 2.3% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $18.53 $18.83 $19.42 2.5% 2.8% 3.1% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $23.53 $23.83 $24.42 3.1% 3.6% 3.9% Larkspur
Municipal Fees $16.02 $19.04 $13.05 2.1% 2.9% 2.1%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $19.02 $22.04 $16.05 2.5% 3.3% 2.6% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $21.02 $24.04 $18.05 2.8% 3.6% 2.9% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $26.02 $29.04 $23.05 3.5% 4.4% 3.7% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $31.02 $34.04 $28.05 4.1% 5.1% 4.5% Unincorporated Marin County
County Fees $4.88 $5.38 $5.14 0.7% 0.8% 0.8%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $7.88 $8.38 $8.14 1.1% 1.3% 1.3% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $9.88 $10.38 $10.14 1.3% 1.6% 1.6% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $14.88 $15.38 $15.14 2.0% 2.3% 2.4% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $19.88 $20.38 $20.14 2.7% 3.1% 3.2% San Anselmo
Municipal Fees $10.12 $11.03 $12.86 1.4% 1.7% 2.1%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $13.12 $14.03 $15.86 1.8% 2.1% 2.5% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $15.12 $16.03 $17.86 2.0% 2.4% 2.9% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $20.12 $21.03 $22.86 2.7% 3.2% 3.6% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $25.12 $26.03 $27.86 3.4% 3.9% 4.4% Continued on next page
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
491
Continued from previous page
San Rafael
Municipal Fees $16.59 $29.24 $14.62 2.2% 4.4% 2.3%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $19.59 $32.24 $17.62 2.6% 4.9% 2.8% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $21.59 $34.24 $19.62 2.9% 5.2% 3.1% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $26.59 $39.24 $24.62 3.6% 5.9% 3.9% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $31.59 $44.24 $29.62 4.2% 6.7% 4.7% Sausalito
Municipal Fees $7.18 $7.81 $9.08 1.0% 1.2% 1.4%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $10.18 $10.81 $12.08 1.4% 1.6% 1.9% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $12.18 $12.81 $14.08 1.6% 1.9% 2.2% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $17.18 $17.81 $19.08 2.3% 2.7% 3.0% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $22.18 $22.81 $24.08 3.0% 3.4% 3.8% * Municipal and County fees include all applicable permits and impact fees charged by the jurisdiction. Water and sanitary sewer connection fees are not included. Based on estimates from Marin Municipal Water District and Ross Valley Sanitary District, water and sewer fees represent may add an additional 1.0 percent to development costs of Class B office, 1.9 percent to small neighborhood retail, and 2.6 percent to select service hotel.
Sources: Participating Jurisdictions, 2021; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Fee Recommendations
The Consultant Team evaluated the four fee scenarios based on the analyses summarized above:
market factors, fees in comparable cities, fees as a percentage of development costs, and fees in relation to the municipal/county fees that are currently charged in the seven jurisdictions.
Recommendations for setting a commercial linkage fee are outlined below.
In the wake of the commercial real estate market slowdown due to COVID-19, the Consultant Team recommends that jurisdictions enact commercial linkage fees that are generally comparable across the different jurisdictions within the county, without significantly raising fees in the places that already have them. Several jurisdictions in this study have commercial linkage fees currently in place, and the recommendations below do not represent a significant departure from these fee levels. Jurisdictions without commercial linkage fees should consider adopting fees comparable with their neighbors.
However, there is one exception to this guidance with regard to office/R&D/medical office, where San Rafael can reasonably impose a higher fee than other jurisdictions.
For office/R&D/medical office uses, the Consultant Team recommends the commercial linkage fee for office be set between $10 and $15 per square foot in San Rafael and between $5 and $10 per square foot in the other six jurisdictions. Because the market for office is stronger in San Rafael, new office development is more likely to be able to support the higher fee levels. In San Rafael, the recommended fee level represents an increase in development costs of 0.7 to 1.3 percent for the Class B prototype (Figure 26). Class A office and R&D, which are more expensive product types and more likely to occur in downtown San Rafael, would experience a lower percentage increase. For the other communities, the recommended fees would result in an increase in development costs of 0.4 to
0.7 percent.
The Consultant Team recommends the commercial linkage fee for retail be set between $5 and $10 per square foot for all jurisdictions. The existing fee levels for retail are in this range, which amounts Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
492
to 0.8 to 1.5 percent in development costs for a small neighborhood center (Figure 26). Because the future of retail is very uncertain, it is difficult to generalize where demand will be strong once retail markets recover, and it is recommended the fees be relatively consistent across jurisdictions. Postpandemic demand for retail could materialize in small scale developments dispersed throughout the county, depending on site-specific conditions related to transportation access and nearby amenities and development.
The Consultant Team recommends that jurisdictions consider reducing the commercial linkage fee requirement for small and independent businesses. It is expected that the viability of small-scale retail in particular will be challenging, so jurisdictions may choose to exempt smaller retail projects from paying the fee or reduce the overall fee. For instance, San Rafael does not apply a commercial linkage fee to developments 5,000 square feet and below, while Sonoma County exempts the first 2,000 square feet from its fee. Because many large “big-box” tenants occupy far more than 5,000 square feet, this incentive would not apply to those types of businesses. Because the definition for “small scale retail” may vary by jurisdiction, the Consultant Team recommends that each jurisdiction develop its own appropriate threshold.
For hotel uses, the Consultant Team recommends that all jurisdictions adopt a commercial linkage fee of $3 to $5 per square foot. This fee level would represent between 0.5 and 0.8 percent of development costs for a select service hotel (Figure 26). Fees of $3 to $5 would increase in the cost of development slightly in Corte Madera, San Rafael, and Unincorporated Marin County while keeping them comparable with Mill Valley and the communities in Sonoma County that were reviewed for this study. It is important to note that while jurisdictions may charge on the basis of number of rooms rather that square feet, charging the fee by square foot advantages more efficient hotels with smaller room sizes.
It is advised that the jurisdictions reexamine the potential for raising the fees once the commercial real estate market recovers and development activity picks up. This study provides the economic analysis for higher fees, so that a new study would not be needed if this were to occur in the next five years.
Other Policy Considerations
This section briefly addresses other considerations for adopting or updating a commercial linkage fee, including establishing equivalencies for payment of the fee, and an approach to updating the fees.
EQUIVALENCIES TO PAYMENT OF FEES
It is recommended that jurisdictions establish a process for developers to make an in-kind contribution to affordable housing in lieu of paying a commercial linkage fee. Some examples of alternative mitigation include land dedication, providing on-site affordable units, or providing off-site affordable units. Typically, developers would need to demonstrate that the value of these contributions would be in excess or equal to the value of the commercial linkage fee requirement. In such instances, jurisdictions will want to have an established process in place for financially evaluating these proposals as a substitute for paying the fee to create predictability and consistency for development projects.
UPDATING THE FEES
Similar to any impact fee, it will be necessary to adjust the commercial linkage impact fee on an annual basis. Adjustments are also needed due to possible changes in the affordability gaps. A simple Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
493
approach to annual adjustments is to use an index. The Consultant Team recommends using either the construction cost index (localized to the San Francisco Bay Area region), such as the one published by the Engineering News-Record, or the shelter component of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is higher.
VI. UNIFIED FEE PROPOPAL AND FULFILLING STATE
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADOPTION
Strategic Economics collaborated with staff from the seven jurisdictions to develop a unified fee proposal that will be considered for adoption by each of the jurisdictions. Based on these conversations and the guideline recommendations in the previous section, this section outlines the commercial linkage fee schedule that has been proposed by the jurisdictions. It also provides further analysis on the fee proposal in order to meet state requirements for implementation. For four of the seven jurisdictions, this will be a new fee program. For the other three jurisdictions, the fees will represent an update to an existing commercial linkage fee program in that jurisdiction.
In 2021, the California legislature imposed new requirements (Assembly Bill 602 [2021-2022]) on impact fee nexus studies adopted by local governments after July 1, 2022. The legislation applies to this study in relation to any new commercial linkage fees to be implemented in the seven jurisdictions.
Among other provisions, AB 602 requires the adopted nexus study to provide a justification for new impact fees for affordable housing should they seek a higher “level of service” for the community. The legislation also asks for a review of any current fee programs.
Considering the proposal put forth by the jurisdictions, this report section first includes an overview of the fees in comparison to the linkage fees currently in place in some of the jurisdictions. Based on the unified fee proposal, Strategic Economics estimated the potential affordable housing revenues that could be raised over a five year period. (Although the fee proposal is designed to apply the same fee levels across all seven jurisdictions, the adopted fees in any specific jurisdiction may ultimately deviate from the unified schedule, which would affect the generated revenues.) As required by AB 602, Strategic Economics also summarized the revenues collected from each of the three existing fee programs and provided a justification for the new level of service advanced by the new fee program.
Finally, the section concludes with a discussion of the purpose of these fees and the role of new commercial development to contribute to funding affordable housing in Marin County.
Current and Proposed Commercial Linkage Fees
AB 602 includes the provision: “[i]f a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.” (Government Code § 66016.5). Below is a summary of the fee programs in place (in the jurisdictions that have them) and a discussion of the changes that would occur if the unified fee proposal were adopted.
The current and proposed commercial linkage fee programs are summarized in Figure 27. Three of the jurisdictions (Corte Madera, San Rafael, and the Unincorporated County) currently charge linkage fees on various types of nonresidential development. The fee programs each were proposed and adopted independently in the early 2000’s and tend to have disparate definitions for grouping Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
494
nonresidential development into categories for the application of a fee. Currently Marin County charges a hotel impact fee based on the number of rooms, rather than on a square foot basis;15 in Figure 27, Strategic Economics converted this number to a typical fee per square foot using a gross average room size assumption.
Strategic Economics and the jurisdictions made every best effort to collect data on fee revenues since each program’s inception. In Marin County and Corte Madera, where the full history of fee revenues was not available, revenues collections are reported for those jurisdictions from the earliest dates data could be obtained. As shown in Figures 27 and 28:
• Corte Madera has collected $381,516 since April 2018 (an average of $84,781 annually); • San Rafael has collected $2,556,106 since 2005 ($144,006 annually); and • Unincorporated County has collected $38,680 since 2019 ($10,315 annually) The higher rates of revenue generation in San Rafael and Corte Madera reflect their higher levels of commercial development as retail and office job centers, as compared with Unincorporated Marin County, which is largely suburban and rural.
The unified fee proposal is also shown in Figure 27. The proposed fee levels are $10.00 per square foot for office, medical office, and R&D uses; $8.00 or $10.000 per square foot retail development, depending on the size of the development; and $5.00 per square foot for hotel development. The jurisdictions are proposing a smaller fee level on retail developments up to 2,500 square feet to help lessen the burden of the fee on smaller, locally owned businesses.
In the other three jurisdictions that currently have fee programs, the proposed fees generally represent an increase from current levels. (For example, the fee for office development in Corte Madera would increase from $4.79 per square foot to $10.00 per square foot; while the fee for R&D development would increase from $3.20 per square foot to $10.00 per square foot.) The single exception to the fee increases is office and R&D development in San Rafael, which would experience a slight decrease from $10.32 per square foot to $10.00 per square foot.
15 A provision in AB 602 discourages jurisdictions from assessing impact fees on any basis other than square feet of floor area. All fees proposed in the unified fee schedule are based on this standard.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
495
FIGURE 27: SUMMARY OF CURRENT COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES AND THE UNIFIED PROPOSED FEE LEVELS FOR ALL
SEVEN JURISDICTIONS
Jurisdiction
Program
Effective
Since
Current Fee Levels (per
equivalent square foot)[a]
Revenues
Collected
Unified Fee Proposal
(per square foot)
Corte Madera 2001
Office: $4.79
R&D: $3.20
Retail: $8.38
Restaurant: $4.39
Hotel: $1.20
$381,516 since
April 2018
Office/Medical Office/
R&D: $10.00
Retail/Restaurants/
Services:
- $8.00 (up to
2,500 square feet)
- $10.00 (more
than 2,500 square
feet)
Hotel: $5.00
Fairfax no current policy
Larkspur no current policy
San Anselmo no current policy
San Rafael 2005
Office/R&D: $10.32
Retail/Restaurant/
Services: $7.74
Hotel: $2.58
See Note [b], below.
$2,556,106
since inception
Sausalito no current policy
Unincorporated
Marin County 2003
Office/R&D: $7.19
Retail/Restaurant/
Services: $5.40
Hotel: $2.84 [c]
$38,680 since
2019
[a] In some jurisdictions, linkage fees may exist for other land uses outside the scope of this study. Only the relevant fees are shown. [b] San Rafael’s fees are defined as a percentage of the inclusionary in-lieu fee. [c] Marin County’s fee $1,745 per room. This figure was converted to a value per square foot assuming a hotel development will average 615 square feet of gross building area per room.
Sources: Town of Corte Madera, 2022; City of San Rafael, 2022; County of Marin, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
496
FIGURE 28: AVERAGE ANNUAL COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE REVENUES BY JURISDICTION HAVING A FEE PROGRAM
CURRENTLY IN PLACE
Sources: Town of Corte Madera, 2022; City of San Rafael, 2022; County of Marin, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022.
Potential Fee Revenues under the Unified Fee Program
Figure 29 shows the potential fees that could be generated, along with the potential affordable housing funding that could be leveraged, over a five year period if the fee levels recommended above were adopted. Based on the past pace of new development and the development pipeline, the Consultant Team established very approximate numbers for the volume of development that could take place over a five year period once commercial real estate markets recover from the pandemic.16 Potential fee revenues are on the order of $2.6 million across all jurisdictions. If every dollar in local contributions to affordable housing were able to attract three dollars from other funding sources, approximately $10 million in affordable housing funds could be generated or leveraged through the recommended commercial linkage fees. This three to one leveraging assumption is based on a recent study that found that local contributions for affordable housing projects in the Bay Area accounted for 23 percent of total project costs on average.17 Note that in Marin County, the leveraging ratio may be higher because local jurisdictions tend to have more limited funding for affordable housing. 16 The development estimates in Figure 29 are illustrative of past trends and the development pipeline and do not represent a formal demand estimate.
17 This leveraging ratio will be updated as new information is available. See SPUR, “Housing as Infrastructure,” April 2021, https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/SPUR_Housing_as_Infrastructure_0.pdf. $84,781
$144,006
$10,315
Corte Madera San Rafael Unincorporated Marin County
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
497
FIGURE 29: POTENTIAL FEE REVENUES AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS LEVERAGED OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD Land Use
Unified Fee
Proposal
Potential Development
Areawide over Five Years
[a]
Potential
Commercial
Linkage Fee
Revenues
Office / Medical Office / R&D $10 /sf 100,000 sf $1,000,000 Retail /Restaurants /Services
$8 /sf
(up to 2,500
square feet)
$10 /sf
(more than 2,500
square feet)
35,000 sf $315,000 [b]
Hotel $5 /sf 250,000 sf
(400 rooms) $1,250,000
Subtotal Commercial Linkage Fee Local Revenues $2,565,000 Potential New Affordable Housing Funds Leveraged from Other Sources (3:1 ratio) [c] $7,695,000 Total Potential New Affordable Housing Funds $10,260,000 Notes:
(a) For office/medical office/R&D and retail/restaurants/services, the development estimates are drawn from the pace of new development between 2011 and 2020. For hotel, the Consultant Team reviewed planned and proposed projects and estimated 400 rooms at approximately 615 square feet of gross building area per room. (b) Assumes half of new retail/restaurants/services developments are 2,500 square feet or less and half of new developments are more than 2,500 square feet.
(c) Assumes that every dollar in local revenues leverages another three dollars in other subsidies, including tax credit equity, federal sources, state sources, and other funds. Actual leveraging will vary by project.
Sources: Costar, 2011-2020; Participating Jurisdictions, 2020; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Justification for New Fee Levels
AB 602 requires the nexus study for a new fee to “identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate” (Government Code § 66016.5).
In this study, Strategic Economics defined level of service as the ratio of deed-restricted, “family” affordable units within a jurisdiction to the number of worker households associated with employment in that jurisdiction (see below).
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
498
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑆𝑆 𝑒𝑒 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 =
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓 𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢
𝑤𝑤 𝑤𝑤 ℎ𝑜𝑜 ℎ𝑜𝑜 = 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓 𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢
� 𝑤𝑤 𝑤𝑤
𝑎𝑎. 𝑤𝑤 𝑤𝑤 𝑝𝑝 ℎ𝑜𝑜 ℎ𝑜𝑜 𝑀𝑀 𝐶𝐶 .
�
Only family affordable units were counted because the workers associated with new commercial development are most likely to be family households, rather than, for example, seniors or disabled people applying for subsidized housing. This number was then compared to worker households because households is the standard unit of demand for housing. The number of worker households is estimated as the total employment in the jurisdiction divided by the average number of workers per household in Marin County. As mentioned in the first section of this report, the average workers per household in Marin County is 1.60.
Strategic Economics calculated the current level of service for family affordable housing for the seven jurisdictions as shown in Figure 30. The level of service over all jurisdictions is 0.035, ranging from
0.011 in Sausalito and San Anselmo, to 0.057 in the Unincorporated County. Larger communities such as San Rafael, Corte Madera, and Larkspur, which have had a more comprehensive set of affordable housing tools, generally have a higher proportion of family affordable housing than the smaller communities that are exploring inclusionary and commercial linkage fee programs for the first time.
FIGURE 30: FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, EMPLOYMENT, EMPLOYEE HOUSEHOLDS, AND CURRENT LEVEL OF
SERVICE FOR THE SEVEN JURISDICTIONS
Jurisdiction
Deed-restricted
Family
Affordable
Housing [a]
Total
Employment [b]
Total Worker
Households
[c] = [b] /
1.60 Level of
Service =
[a] / [c]
Corte Madera
130
6,482
4,051
0.032
Fairfax
29 1,806
1,129
0.026
Larkspur
150
6,730
4,206
0.036
San Anselmo
21 3,113
1,946
0.011
San Rafael
780
39,218
24,511
0.032
Sausalito
38 5,627
3,517
0.011
Unincorporated County
561
15,695
9,809
0.057
Total All Seven Jurisdictions 1,709 78,671 49,169 0.035 Sources: [a] Family affordable housing developments supplied by the County of Marin, 2022; Inclusionary affordable units from Marin Housing Authority, 2022; [b] Employment data from U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, 2019; Strategic Economics, 2022.
Next, Strategic Economics calculated the level of service associated with the current and proposed commercial linkage fees, or the number of family affordable units that could be funded per worker household created by new development. This calculation accounts for the employment created by new development for each use, the fee revenues that would be generated, and the affordability gap for Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
499
each use that would need to be filled with the fee revenues. Figure 31 shows a comparison of the level of service metrics for each jurisdiction and for the current and proposed fee programs.
As mentioned earlier, the fees would increase above their current level in nearly all cases and, therefore, would represent an increase in the level of service above any current fee program (or, in the case of four jurisdictions, no current fee program). This increase in level of service is justified for the following reasons:
• Areawide, the level of service associated with the proposed fee program is commensurate with and, in some cases, even below the level of service already supplied by each jurisdiction’s current inventory of family affordable housing. Figure 32 shows a comparison of the current level of service aggregated across all seven jurisdictions with the level of service that would accompany each of the proposed fees. The areawide level of service is 0.035 while the fees have a level of service ranging from 0.013 to 0.030. Further, the proposed fee levels are not placing an undue burden on nonresidential development because they represent only a small fraction of the development’s full impact on housing demand. • The cost of housing development, including affordable housing, has increased significantly since the inception of the current fee programs. Higher fees are needed to cover these escalating costs. For example, while the unincorporated County is considering raising its fees by between 39 percent (for office, medical office, and R&D uses) and 76 percent (hotel), the affordability gap has increased significantly more since the nexus study was performed for the current fee program in 2002. As shown in Figure 33, the affordability gap has increased by 283 percent for Very Low Income households, 371 percent for Low Income households, and 936 percent for Moderate Income households.
• State mandates will require a rapid acceleration in the production of family affordable housing in Marin County. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for Moderate, Low, and Very Low Income households will increase significantly for the upcoming RHNA cycle. Area-wide, the allocations add up to a more than six-fold increase over the last cycle (see Figure 34), while the allocations by jurisdiction have been tied more directly to projected job growth than in past RHNA cycles. A substantial contribution from nonresidential developers is needed to help meet these goals.
In summary, the fee program as proposed by the jurisdictions will accomplish two objectives. First, the unified fee proposal will level the playing field for developers, ensuring they are charged the same fee across all jurisdictions. Secondly, the fee levels are set such that the revenue is sufficient to support new affordable housing development in cities that are expected to experience continued job growth over the next RHNA cycle. Most commercial development and accompanying job growth is expected to occur in San Rafael, and to a lesser extent in Larkspur and Corte Madera.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
500
FIGURE 31: LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISON JURISDICTION-WIDE AND FOR THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES Level of Service - Office Fees Level of Service - Retail Fees Level of Service - Hotel Fees
Jurisdiction
Total Current
Level of Service
Jurisdictionwide Current Proposed Current Proposed <
2,500 sf)
Proposed >
2,500 sf Current Proposed
Corte Madera
0.032
0.012
0.030
0.011
0.013
0.017
0.004
0.019
Fairfax
0.026
-
0.030
-
0.013
0.017
-
0.019
Larkspur
0.036
-
0.030
-
0.013
0.017
-
0.019
San Anselmo
0.011
-
0.030
-
0.013
0.017
-
0.019
San Rafael
0.032
0.031
0.030
0.013
0.013
0.017
0.010
0.019
Sausalito
0.011
-
0.030
-
0.013
0.017
-
0.019
Unincorporated
County
0.057
0.022
0.030
0.009
0.013
0.017
0.011
0.019
Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
501
FIGURE 32: CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE ACROSS ALL JURISDICTIONS AND LEVEL OF SERVICE OF PROPOSED FEES Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.
FIGURE 33: AFFORDABILITY GAP IN MARIN COUNTY FOR VERY LOW, LOW, AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, 2002 AND 2020
Source: David Paul Rosen and Associates, 2002; Strategic Economics, 2020.
0.035
0.030
0.013
0.017
0.019
Current Level of
Service Areawide
Proposed Fee Level
of Service (Office)
Proposed Fee Level
of Service (Retail <
8000 sf)
Proposed Fee Level
of Service (Retail >
8000 sf)
Proposed Fee Level
of Service (Hotel)
$127,700
$82,600
$19,200
$489,529
$389,320
$198,925
Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income
2002 2020
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
502
FIGURE 34: REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATIONS FOR VERY LOW, LOW, AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS,
FIFTH AND SIXTH CYCLES
Source: Department of Housing and Community Development, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022. 0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
5th Cycle (2015-2023) 6th Cycle (2023-2031)
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
503
Data Tables: Occupational Wage by Land Use Prototype
Figures 35-37 provide the full detail of the occupations associated with each land use, and their respective average wages. As a part of Step 4, this data is used to calculate the weighted average wage for each land use prototype (Figure 7).
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
504
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
11-0000 Management Occupations
11-1021 General and Operations Managers $155,850 2.404% 11-3021 Computer and Information Systems Managers $201,960 1.131% 11-3031 Financial Managers $182,190 1.016%
11-9198
Personal Service Managers, All Other; Entertainment
and Recreation Managers, Except Gambling; and
Managers, All Other $168,900 0.594%
11-2021 Marketing Managers $181,720 0.585%
11-9111 Medical and Health Services Managers $142,760 0.507% 11-2022 Sales Managers $159,720 0.504%
11-3010 Administrative Services and Facilities Managers $132,020 0.365% 11-3121 Human Resources Managers $163,810 0.295%
11-1011 Chief Executives $236,060 0.288%
11-9041 Architectural and Engineering Managers $186,500 0.270% 11-3061 Purchasing Managers $154,870 0.117%
11-2030 Public Relations and Fundraising Managers $142,950 0.104% 11-3071 Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers $123,910 0.098% 11-9151 Social and Community Service Managers $73,210 0.087% 11-9021 Construction Managers $134,880 0.082%
11-3051 Industrial Production Managers $140,910 0.082%
11-9051 Food Service Managers $63,460 0.074%
11-3131 Training and Development Managers $152,380 0.072% 11-9121 Natural Sciences Managers $208,910 0.067%
11-9141
Property, Real Estate, and Community Association
Managers $92,930 0.061%
11-3111 Compensation and Benefits Managers $170,770 0.041% 11-2011 Advertising and Promotions Managers $175,210 0.040% 11-9039 Education Administrators, All Other $92,160 0.010% 11-9031
Education and Childcare Administrators, Preschool
and Daycare $70,080 0.008%
11-9081 Lodging Managers $104,250 0.006%
11-9032
Education Administrators, Kindergarten through
Secondary $129,070 0.004%
11-9033 Education Administrators, Postsecondary $130,980 0.003% 11-9161 Emergency Management Directors $132,440 0.003%
11-9013 Farmers, Ranchers, and Other Agricultural Managers n/a 0.002% 11-9071 Gambling Managers $125,300 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $166,968 8.921%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
505
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
13-0000 Business and Financial Operations Occupations
13-2011 Accountants and Auditors $93,590 2.418%
13-1111 Management Analysts $113,750 1.667%
13-1198
Project Management Specialists and Business
Operations Specialists, All Other $93,010 1.648%
13-1161
Market Research Analysts and Marketing
Specialists $91,350 1.294%
13-1071 Human Resources Specialists $89,820 1.023%
13-2098
Financial and Investment Analysts, Financial Risk
Specialists, and Financial Specialists, All Other $119,100 0.681% 13-1020 Buyers and Purchasing Agents $79,040 0.459%
13-1151 Training and Development Specialists $83,550 0.410% 13-1041 Compliance Officers $92,960 0.299%
13-1081 Logisticians $82,010 0.269%
13-1031 Claims Adjusters, Examiners, and Investigators $88,480 0.221% 13-2082 Tax Preparers $72,280 0.210%
13-2072 Loan Officers $84,940 0.184%
13-1141
Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis
Specialists $83,230 0.174%
13-1121 Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners $67,530 0.102% 13-2053 Insurance Underwriters $97,260 0.090%
13-2041 Credit Analysts $109,330 0.087%
13-1051 Cost Estimators $98,960 0.082%
13-2052 Personal Financial Advisors $157,720 0.062%
13-1131 Fundraisers $77,450 0.060%
13-2061 Financial Examiners $124,720 0.057%
13-1075 Labor Relations Specialists $86,370 0.057%
13-2031 Budget Analysts $93,800 0.051%
13-2071 Credit Counselors $53,010 0.028%
13-2020 Property Appraisers and Assessors $98,450 0.013% 13-1032 Insurance Appraisers, Auto Damage $72,630 0.009% 13-1011
Agents and Business Managers of Artists,
Performers, and Athletes $83,260 0.003%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $95,541 11.657%
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
15-1256
Software Developers and Software Quality
Assurance Analysts and Testers $145,250 4.036%
15-1211 Computer Systems Analysts $121,300 1.649%
15-1232 Computer User Support Specialists $75,640 1.418% 15-1299 Computer Occupations, All Other $120,370 0.860% 15-1244 Network and Computer Systems Administrators $104,370 0.745% 15-1251 Computer Programmers $116,400 0.597%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
506
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
15-1241 Computer Network Architects $137,720 0.405%
15-1231 Computer Network Support Specialists $85,990 0.367% 15-1212 Information Security Analysts $122,570 0.353%
15-1257 Web Developers and Digital Interface Designers $110,790 0.338% 15-1245 Database Administrators and Architects $107,930 0.266% 15-2031 Operations Research Analysts $116,910 0.199%
15-2098
Data Scientists and Mathematical Science
Occupations, All Other $140,080 0.079%
15-2041 Statisticians $125,970 0.062%
15-1221 Computer and Information Research Scientists $142,150 0.060% 15-2011 Actuaries $116,500 0.036%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $121,679 11.473%
17-0000 Architecture and Engineering Occupations
17-2051 Civil Engineers $120,110 0.466%
17-2141 Mechanical Engineers $123,270 0.313%
17-2071 Electrical Engineers $120,990 0.234%
17-1011 Architects, Except Landscape and Naval $103,530 0.228% 17-2112 Industrial Engineers $113,920 0.210%
17-3011 Architectural and Civil Drafters $67,050 0.190% 17-2199 Engineers, All Other $113,050 0.181%
17-2061 Computer Hardware Engineers $134,000 0.137%
17-2072 Electronics Engineers, Except Computer $112,800 0.110% 17-3023
Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Technologists and Technicians $67,200 0.108%
17-2081 Environmental Engineers $112,830 0.100%
17-3031 Surveying and Mapping Technicians $76,380 0.092% 17-3022 Civil Engineering Technologists and Technicians $75,160 0.086% 17-3098
Calibration Technologists and Technicians and
Engineering Technologists and Technicians,
Except Drafters, All Other $75,070 0.086%
17-1022 Surveyors $88,860 0.085%
17-1012 Landscape Architects $94,750 0.064%
17-2011 Aerospace Engineers $135,230 0.054%
17-3013 Mechanical Drafters $71,180 0.047%
17-3027
Mechanical Engineering Technologists and
Technicians $61,100 0.046%
17-3025
Environmental Engineering Technologists and
Technicians $60,630 0.033%
17-3026
Industrial Engineering Technologists and
Technicians $61,050 0.028%
17-3012 Electrical and Electronics Drafters $65,810 0.028% 17-2041 Chemical Engineers $106,430 0.024%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
507
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
17-2111
Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining
Safety Engineers and Inspectors $114,800 0.024%
17-2131 Materials Engineers $104,560 0.021%
17-1021 Cartographers and Photogrammetrists $105,970 0.014% 17-3019 Drafters, All Other $73,450 0.014%
17-2031 Bioengineers and Biomedical Engineers $119,000 0.013% 17-2121 Marine Engineers and Naval Architects $136,480 0.010% 17-3024
Electro-Mechanical and Mechatronics
Technologists and Technicians $61,190 0.008%
17-2151
Mining and Geological Engineers, Including
Mining Safety Engineers $132,720 0.008%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $101,626 3.146%
19-0000 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations
19-2041
Environmental Scientists and Specialists,
Including Health $109,180 0.149%
19-1042 Medical Scientists, Except Epidemiologists $120,470 0.095% 19-3031 Clinical, Counseling, and School Psychologists $110,070 0.091% 19-5011 Occupational Health and Safety Specialists $108,230 0.072% 19-4042
Environmental Science and Protection
Technicians, Including Health $58,010 0.060%
19-4099
Life, Physical, and Social Science Technicians, All
Other $61,390 0.055%
19-4031 Chemical Technicians $55,980 0.054%
19-4021 Biological Technicians $60,040 0.042%
19-1021 Biochemists and Biophysicists $124,400 0.033%
19-1029 Biological Scientists, All Other $108,200 0.030% 19-4061 Social Science Research Assistants $54,210 0.024% 19-3011 Economists $133,180 0.024%
19-5012 Occupational Health and Safety Technicians $62,820 0.017% 19-1013 Soil and Plant Scientists $77,070 0.017%
19-3051 Urban and Regional Planners $105,370 0.016%
19-4010 Agricultural and Food Science Technicians $46,060 0.015% 19-1012 Food Scientists and Technologists $90,860 0.015% 19-2012 Physicists $134,500 0.014%
19-3091 Anthropologists and Archeologists $69,480 0.013% 19-3022 Survey Researchers $89,020 0.013%
19-1022 Microbiologists $104,580 0.013%
19-3099 Social Scientists and Related Workers, All Other $90,120 0.012% 19-1023 Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists $75,320 0.012% 19-2099 Physical Scientists, All Other $127,650 0.010%
19-2043 Hydrologists $108,850 0.010%
19-2021 Atmospheric and Space Scientists $114,370 0.009% Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
508
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
19-1031 Conservation Scientists $83,700 0.009%
19-2032 Materials Scientists $119,470 0.008%
19-3039 Psychologists, All Other $106,870 0.007%
19-1032 Foresters $93,760 0.004%
19-4071 Forest and Conservation Technicians $47,410 0.003% 19-1041 Epidemiologists $107,760 0.002%
19-3041 Sociologists $101,420 0.001%
19-4092 Forensic Science Technicians $103,940 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $81,448 1.104%
21-0000 Community and Social Service Occupations
21-1018
Substance Abuse, Behavioral Disorder, and
Mental Health Counselors $60,290 0.449%
21-1093 Social and Human Service Assistants $48,800 0.222% 21-1023
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Social
Workers $77,630 0.181%
21-1022 Healthcare Social Workers $86,560 0.128%
21-1021 Child, Family, and School Social Workers $61,900 0.085% 21-1013 Marriage and Family Therapists $63,470 0.075%
21-1094 Community Health Workers $55,350 0.064%
21-1091 Health Education Specialists $72,560 0.059%
21-1099
Community and Social Service Specialists, All
Other $59,510 0.038%
21-1015 Rehabilitation Counselors $50,320 0.038%
21-1012
Educational, Guidance, and Career Counselors
and Advisors $78,220 0.027%
21-1019 Counselors, All Other $66,150 0.013%
21-1029 Social Workers, All Other $80,980 0.011%
21-2011 Clergy $72,730 0.007%
21-2021 Directors, Religious Activities and Education $67,180 0.003% 21-2099 Religious Workers, All Other $48,670 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $64,024 1.403%
23-0000 Legal Occupations
23-1011 Lawyers $188,910 1.158%
23-2011 Paralegals and Legal Assistants $71,360 0.662%
23-2093 Title Examiners, Abstractors, and Searchers $59,890 0.064% 23-2099 Legal Support Workers, All Other $61,510 0.035% 23-1022 Arbitrators, Mediators, and Conciliators $114,800 0.004% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $141,697 1.923%
25-0000 Educational Instruction and Library Occupations Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
509
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
25-3031 Substitute Teachers, Short-Term $42,940 0.079%
25-9045 Teaching Assistants, Except Postsecondary $39,730 0.046% 25-9031 Instructional Coordinators $77,090 0.041%
25-3021 Self-Enrichment Teachers $53,730 0.038%
25-3097 Tutors and Teachers and Instructors, All Other $50,800 0.030% 25-2011 Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education $45,050 0.024% 25-2059 Special Education Teachers, All Other $66,210 0.011% 25-4022 Librarians and Media Collections Specialists $89,390 0.010% 25-9099
Educational Instruction and Library Workers, All
Other $61,100 0.009%
25-1194
Career/Technical Education Teachers,
Postsecondary $87,990 0.007%
25-4031 Library Technicians $58,980 0.005%
25-3011
Adult Basic Education, Adult Secondary
Education, and English as a Second Language
Instructors $94,920 0.002%
25-2051 Special Education Teachers, Preschool $62,550 0.002% 25-1071 Health Specialties Teachers, Postsecondary $115,900 0.002% 25-4011 Archivists $81,730 0.001%
25-2058 Special Education Teachers, Secondary School $93,110 0.001% 25-2031
Secondary School Teachers, Except Special and
Career/Technical Education $93,350 0.001%
25-2052
Special Education Teachers, Kindergarten and
Elementary School $73,540 0.001%
25-9044 Teaching Assistants, Postsecondary $33,880 0.001% 25-2021
Elementary School Teachers, Except Special
Education $84,040 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $54,651 0.318%
27-0000
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Occupations
27-3031 Public Relations Specialists $84,520 0.274%
27-1024 Graphic Designers $77,110 0.257%
27-3042 Technical Writers $102,500 0.109%
27-1026 Merchandise Displayers and Window Trimmers $38,480 0.102% 27-3041 Editors $86,530 0.091%
27-1025 Interior Designers $72,240 0.068%
27-1011 Art Directors $135,970 0.063%
27-3043 Writers and Authors $93,060 0.062%
27-4021 Photographers $61,530 0.056%
27-3091 Interpreters and Translators $78,250 0.055%
27-1014 Special Effects Artists and Animators $97,570 0.047% 27-2012 Producers and Directors $104,520 0.045%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
510
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
27-1021 Commercial and Industrial Designers $87,530 0.039% 27-1022 Fashion Designers $89,400 0.029%
27-4011 Audio and Video Technicians $64,140 0.026%
27-3023 News Analysts, Reporters, and Journalists $81,080 0.017% 27-1029 Designers, All Other $91,810 0.014%
27-2022 Coaches and Scouts $48,900 0.013%
27-3099 Media and Communication Workers, All Other $63,270 0.009% 27-4032 Film and Video Editors $83,100 0.007%
27-4031 Camera Operators, Television, Video, and Film $59,160 0.005% 27-1023 Floral Designers $39,920 0.005%
27-1013
Fine Artists, Including Painters, Sculptors, and
Illustrators $85,980 0.004%
27-4098
Lighting Technicians and Media and
Communication Equipment Workers, All Other $60,610 0.003% 27-2023 Umpires, Referees, and Other Sports Officials $38,360 0.003% 27-4014 Sound Engineering Technicians $70,470 0.002%
27-1027 Set and Exhibit Designers $60,530 0.002%
27-1019 Artists and Related Workers, All Other $93,840 0.001% 27-1012 Craft Artists $59,460 0.001%
27-4012 Broadcast Technicians $57,390 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $81,665 1.421%
29-0000
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical
Occupations
29-1141 Registered Nurses $138,000 1.900%
29-1228
Physicians, All Other; and Ophthalmologists,
Except Pediatric $173,990 0.831%
29-1292 Dental Hygienists $113,940 0.701%
29-2098
Medical Dosimetrists, Medical Records
Specialists, and Health Technologists and
Technicians, All Other $58,370 0.682%
29-2061
Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational
Nurses $69,490 0.592%
29-1171 Nurse Practitioners $157,150 0.510%
29-1021 Dentists, General $169,730 0.349%
29-1215 Family Medicine Physicians $213,960 0.343%
29-1071 Physician Assistants $126,810 0.330%
29-2034 Radiologic Technologists and Technicians $103,670 0.253% 29-2010 Clinical Laboratory Technologists and Technicians $65,210 0.216% 29-1123 Physical Therapists $102,470 0.211%
29-2057 Ophthalmic Medical Technicians $52,660 0.173%
29-2056 Veterinary Technologists and Technicians $46,670 0.155% 29-2055 Surgical Technologists $72,790 0.119%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
511
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
29-1216 General Internal Medicine Physicians $227,810 0.116% 29-1248 Surgeons, Except Ophthalmologists $256,870 0.108% 29-1151 Nurse Anesthetists $254,860 0.105%
29-1131 Veterinarians $113,930 0.104%
29-1221 Pediatricians, General $213,530 0.093%
29-1051 Pharmacists $148,390 0.093%
29-2052 Pharmacy Technicians $51,090 0.092%
29-1122 Occupational Therapists $103,740 0.086%
29-2081 Opticians, Dispensing $50,840 0.082%
29-2032 Diagnostic Medical Sonographers $115,280 0.081% 29-1127 Speech-Language Pathologists $97,500 0.073%
29-1041 Optometrists $125,680 0.068%
29-1031 Dietitians and Nutritionists $87,890 0.065%
29-9098
Health Information Technologists, Medical
Registrars, Surgical Assistants, and Healthcare
Practitioners and Technical Workers, All Other $81,080 0.064% 29-1218 Obstetricians and Gynecologists $223,430 0.059% 29-1223 Psychiatrists $257,150 0.055%
29-1011 Chiropractors $79,240 0.052%
29-2053 Psychiatric Technicians $54,930 0.044%
29-2031 Cardiovascular Technologists and Technicians $75,720 0.037% 29-2035 Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologists $104,870 0.029% 29-2040 Emergency Medical Technicians and Paramedics $54,180 0.028% 29-1298
Acupuncturists and Healthcare Diagnosing or
Treating Practitioners, All Other $76,670 0.028%
29-1126 Respiratory Therapists $97,950 0.027%
29-1124 Radiation Therapists $142,300 0.025%
29-1181 Audiologists $102,560 0.023%
29-9091 Athletic Trainers $60,150 0.022%
29-1161 Nurse Midwives $156,450 0.018%
29-1081 Podiatrists $132,380 0.016%
29-2033 Nuclear Medicine Technologists $124,660 0.014%
29-1129 Therapists, All Other $62,790 0.011%
29-2091 Orthotists and Prosthetists $81,090 0.007%
29-1125 Recreational Therapists $74,200 0.005%
29-2051 Dietetic Technicians $39,770 0.004%
29-2092 Hearing Aid Specialists $66,050 0.004%
29-9092 Genetic Counselors $108,000 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $124,379 9.259%
31-0000 Healthcare Support Occupations
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
512
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
31-9092 Medical Assistants $48,920 2.108%
31-9091 Dental Assistants $51,510 1.095%
31-1120 Home Health and Personal Care Aides $30,320 0.255% 31-1131 Nursing Assistants $45,100 0.239%
31-9096
Veterinary Assistants and Laboratory Animal
Caretakers $36,590 0.134%
31-2021 Physical Therapist Assistants $63,110 0.095%
31-9094 Medical Transcriptionists $50,060 0.086%
31-9097 Phlebotomists $54,040 0.059%
31-2022 Physical Therapist Aides $35,520 0.059%
31-9011 Massage Therapists $50,560 0.052%
31-9093 Medical Equipment Preparers $60,670 0.047%
31-9099 Healthcare Support Workers, All Other $50,950 0.043% 31-2011 Occupational Therapy Assistants $73,400 0.037%
31-1133 Psychiatric Aides $30,930 0.015%
31-1132 Orderlies $44,730 0.011%
31-9095 Pharmacy Aides $46,430 0.010%
31-2012 Occupational Therapy Aides $47,740 0.007%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $48,408 4.353%
33-0000 Protective Service Occupations
33-9032 Security Guards $38,580 1.039%
33-1090
Miscellaneous First-Line Supervisors, Protective
Service Workers $61,530 0.064%
33-9021 Private Detectives and Investigators $78,150 0.045% 33-9092
Lifeguards, Ski Patrol, and Other Recreational
Protective Service Workers $31,600 0.031%
33-9091 Crossing Guards and Flaggers $52,400 0.031%
33-2011 Firefighters $98,680 0.016%
33-9098
School Bus Monitors and Protective Service
Workers, All Other $49,650 0.016%
33-9011 Animal Control Workers $51,070 0.002%
33-1021
First-Line Supervisors of Firefighting and
Prevention Workers $166,930 0.002%
33-2021 Fire Inspectors and Investigators $119,380 0.001% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $42,511 1.246%
35-0000
Food Preparation and Serving Related
Occupations
35-3011 Bartenders $37,310 0.068%
35-3031 Waiters and Waitresses $37,810 0.062%
35-3023 Fast Food and Counter Workers $31,610 0.057%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
513
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
35-1012
First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and
Serving Workers $44,560 0.052%
35-2021 Food Preparation Workers $31,820 0.030%
35-2014 Cooks, Restaurant $38,430 0.024%
35-2012 Cooks, Institution and Cafeteria $40,710 0.022% 35-9021 Dishwashers $31,680 0.017%
35-9011
Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and
Bartender Helpers $35,040 0.015%
35-1011 Chefs and Head Cooks $63,740 0.012%
35-3041 Food Servers, Nonrestaurant $35,200 0.009%
35-2015 Cooks, Short Order $34,460 0.003%
35-9031
Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and
Coffee Shop $34,520 0.002%
35-2011 Cooks, Fast Food $27,060 0.001%
35-9099
Food Preparation and Serving Related Workers,
All Other $31,250 0.001%
35-2019 Cooks, All Other $40,740 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $37,675 0.377%
37-0000
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance
Occupations
37-2011
Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and
Housekeeping Cleaners $38,870 7.030%
37-3011 Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers $43,940 4.364% 37-2012 Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners $41,430 0.880%
37-2021 Pest Control Workers $47,050 0.584%
37-1012
First-Line Supervisors of Landscaping, Lawn
Service, and Groundskeeping Workers $68,600 0.529%
37-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and
Janitorial Workers $53,550 0.431%
37-3013 Tree Trimmers and Pruners $49,440 0.316%
37-2019 Building Cleaning Workers, All Other $32,430 0.107% 37-3012
Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators,
Vegetation $79,020 0.097%
37-3019 Grounds Maintenance Workers, All Other $54,060 0.020% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $42,914 14.358%
39-0000 Personal Care and Service Occupations
39-2021 Animal Caretakers $34,130 0.074%
39-9031 Exercise Trainers and Group Fitness Instructors $59,340 0.073% 39-9011 Childcare Workers $35,590 0.069%
39-9032 Recreation Workers $36,490 0.067%
39-1098
First-Line Supervisors of Personal Service and
Entertainment and Recreation Workers, Except
Gambling Services $54,240 0.031%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
514
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
39-5094 Skincare Specialists $37,640 0.028%
39-9041 Residential Advisors $42,720 0.018%
39-3091 Amusement and Recreation Attendants $29,650 0.015% 39-9098
Crematory Operators and Personal Care and
Service Workers, All Other $35,060 0.011%
39-7010 Tour and Travel Guides $42,380 0.009%
39-6011 Baggage Porters and Bellhops $33,390 0.008%
39-3031 Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers $33,520 0.008% 39-6012 Concierges $44,060 0.006%
39-5012 Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists $35,410 0.003% 39-3012 Gambling and Sports Book Writers and Runners $32,190 0.002% 39-3093
Locker Room, Coatroom, and Dressing Room
Attendants $41,030 0.001%
39-3019 Gambling Service Workers, All Other $35,260 0.001% 39-2011 Animal Trainers $42,320 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $41,279 0.426%
41-0000 Sales and Related Occupations
41-3091
Sales Representatives of Services, Except
Advertising, Insurance, Financial Services, and
Travel $81,320 1.469%
41-3021 Insurance Sales Agents $109,960 0.419%
41-4012
Sales Representatives, Wholesale and
Manufacturing, Except Technical and Scientific
Products $81,830 0.379%
41-4011
Sales Representatives, Wholesale and
Manufacturing, Technical and Scientific Products $104,680 0.285% 41-2031 Retail Salespersons $34,810 0.171%
41-1012
First-Line Supervisors of Non-Retail Sales
Workers $77,590 0.162%
41-3031
Securities, Commodities, and Financial Services
Sales Agents $101,770 0.139%
41-3011 Advertising Sales Agents $92,720 0.122%
41-9031 Sales Engineers $125,730 0.099%
41-9011 Demonstrators and Product Promoters $36,560 0.078% 41-9041 Telemarketers $33,420 0.072%
41-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers $46,980 0.059% 41-2011 Cashiers $32,150 0.051%
41-3041 Travel Agents $53,520 0.046%
41-9022 Real Estate Sales Agents $71,070 0.037%
41-2021 Counter and Rental Clerks $40,320 0.022%
41-2022 Parts Salespersons $45,260 0.007%
41-2012 Gambling Change Persons and Booth Cashiers $32,010 0.000% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $81,059 3.685%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
515
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
43-0000 Office and Administrative Support Occupations
43-4051 Customer Service Representatives $49,200 2.549% 43-9061 Office Clerks, General $46,920 2.493%
43-4171 Receptionists and Information Clerks $39,990 1.818% 43-3031 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks $54,980 1.729% 43-6014
Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except
Legal, Medical, and Executive $51,170 1.697%
43-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Office and
Administrative Support Workers $71,190 1.447%
43-6013
Medical Secretaries and Administrative
Assistants $49,140 1.382%
43-3021 Billing and Posting Clerks $50,120 0.988%
43-6011
Executive Secretaries and Executive
Administrative Assistants $82,480 0.628%
43-6012 Legal Secretaries and Administrative Assistants $69,990 0.332% 43-9041 Insurance Claims and Policy Processing Clerks $53,480 0.268% 43-5061 Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks $63,180 0.262% 43-3011 Bill and Account Collectors $55,830 0.244%
43-3051 Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks $63,280 0.214%
43-4111 Interviewers, Except Eligibility and Loan $55,180 0.207% 43-9021 Data Entry Keyers $41,790 0.194%
43-5071 Shipping, Receiving, and Inventory Clerks $42,910 0.189% 43-4131 Loan Interviewers and Clerks $49,770 0.176%
43-4161
Human Resources Assistants, Except Payroll and
Timekeeping $53,370 0.148%
43-9199
Office and Administrative Support Workers, All
Other $45,160 0.146%
43-4071 File Clerks $41,240 0.135%
43-5032 Dispatchers, Except Police, Fire, and Ambulance $54,040 0.074% 43-4199 Information and Record Clerks, All Other $57,150 0.067% 43-9051
Mail Clerks and Mail Machine Operators, Except
Postal Service $39,020 0.061%
43-2011
Switchboard Operators, Including Answering
Service $49,560 0.056%
43-3071 Tellers $36,170 0.052%
43-3061 Procurement Clerks $50,680 0.049%
43-5021 Couriers and Messengers $42,320 0.047%
43-4151 Order Clerks $45,220 0.045%
43-9071 Office Machine Operators, Except Computer $35,990 0.038% 43-3099 Financial Clerks, All Other $47,510 0.032%
43-5011 Cargo and Freight Agents $50,610 0.030%
43-4041 Credit Authorizers, Checkers, and Clerks $47,330 0.026% Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
516
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
43-5111
Weighers, Measurers, Checkers, and Samplers,
Recordkeeping $41,640 0.024%
43-4141 New Accounts Clerks $44,890 0.019%
43-9022 Word Processors and Typists $63,600 0.016%
43-4011 Brokerage Clerks $61,580 0.014%
43-4061 Eligibility Interviewers, Government Programs $68,450 0.010% 43-9111 Statistical Assistants $54,820 0.010%
43-9031 Desktop Publishers $64,290 0.008%
43-5041 Meter Readers, Utilities $76,620 0.008%
43-9081 Proofreaders and Copy Markers $51,200 0.007%
43-4081 Hotel, Motel, and Resort Desk Clerks $39,440 0.004% 43-2099 Communications Equipment Operators, All Other $65,500 0.004% 43-4031 Court, Municipal, and License Clerks $68,870 0.003% 43-2021 Telephone Operators $48,480 0.003%
43-4121 Library Assistants, Clerical $43,600 0.003%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $52,314 17.996%
45-0000 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
45-2092
Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop, Nursery, and
Greenhouse $37,430 0.023%
45-2093
Farmworkers, Farm, Ranch, and Aquacultural
Animals $35,610 0.006%
45-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Farming, Fishing, and
Forestry Workers $54,120 0.004%
45-2011 Agricultural Inspectors $71,880 0.002%
45-2091 Agricultural Equipment Operators $35,950 0.002% 45-2099 Agricultural Workers, All Other $40,440 0.002%
45-4011 Forest and Conservation Workers $28,010 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $39,878 0.039%
47-0000 Construction and Extraction Occupations
47-2061 Construction Laborers $55,970 0.208%
47-4011 Construction and Building Inspectors $101,820 0.110% 47-2111 Electricians $100,400 0.068%
47-2031 Carpenters $71,490 0.051%
47-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades and
Extraction Workers $99,580 0.048%
47-2152 Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters $87,230 0.034% 47-2073
Operating Engineers and Other Construction
Equipment Operators $86,240 0.020%
47-2051 Cement Masons and Concrete Finishers $65,350 0.011% 47-2141 Painters, Construction and Maintenance $67,770 0.011% 47-2211 Sheet Metal Workers $68,510 0.008%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
517
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
47-4090 Miscellaneous Construction and Related Workers $63,360 0.007% 47-4041 Hazardous Materials Removal Workers $48,770 0.007% 47-5097
Earth Drillers, Except Oil and Gas; and Explosives
Workers, Ordnance Handling Experts, and
Blasters $64,130 0.006%
47-3019 Helpers, Construction Trades, All Other $36,580 0.003% 47-5022
Excavating and Loading Machine and Dragline
Operators, Surface Mining $91,850 0.003%
47-2181 Roofers $55,100 0.003%
47-2011 Boilermakers $86,630 0.002%
47-2071
Paving, Surfacing, and Tamping Equipment
Operators $63,960 0.001%
47-5081 Helpers--Extraction Workers $48,630 0.001%
47-5012 Rotary Drill Operators, Oil and Gas $112,770 0.001% 47-2221 Structural Iron and Steel Workers $75,630 0.001% 47-3012 Helpers--Carpenters $41,650 0.001%
47-2121 Glaziers $72,550 0.001%
47-2041 Carpet Installers $64,200 0.001%
47-2151 Pipelayers $68,280 0.001%
47-4051 Highway Maintenance Workers $63,210 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $76,185 0.620%
49-0000
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
Occupations
49-9071 Maintenance and Repair Workers, General $56,230 0.473% 49-9099
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Workers,
All Other $55,210 0.152%
49-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers,
and Repairers $89,740 0.113%
49-2098 Security and Fire Alarm Systems Installers $50,410 0.063% 49-2011
Computer, Automated Teller, and Office Machine
Repairers $45,100 0.052%
49-2022
Telecommunications Equipment Installers and
Repairers, Except Line Installers $69,090 0.051%
49-9041 Industrial Machinery Mechanics $78,010 0.036%
49-3053
Outdoor Power Equipment and Other Small
Engine Mechanics $45,750 0.034%
49-3023 Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics $58,630 0.031% 49-3031
Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine
Specialists $68,840 0.027%
49-9052
Telecommunications Line Installers and
Repairers $64,390 0.024%
49-9062 Medical Equipment Repairers $69,330 0.022%
49-3042
Mobile Heavy Equipment Mechanics, Except
Engines $75,510 0.019%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
518
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
49-2094
Electrical and Electronics Repairers, Commercial
and Industrial Equipment $79,500 0.017%
49-9094 Locksmiths and Safe Repairers $63,770 0.016%
49-9098
Helpers--Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
Workers $37,740 0.015%
49-9021
Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration
Mechanics and Installers $76,480 0.013%
49-9043 Maintenance Workers, Machinery $63,090 0.011%
49-9051 Electrical Power-Line Installers and Repairers $111,740 0.007% 49-9044 Millwrights $82,700 0.007%
49-9012
Control and Valve Installers and Repairers,
Except Mechanical Door $63,770 0.006%
49-2097 Audiovisual Equipment Installers and Repairers $59,500 0.005% 49-3041
Farm Equipment Mechanics and Service
Technicians $42,060 0.005%
49-2091 Avionics Technicians $91,240 0.004%
49-9069
Precision Instrument and Equipment Repairers,
All Other $77,950 0.003%
49-3021 Automotive Body and Related Repairers $57,580 0.003% 49-9091
Coin, Vending, and Amusement Machine
Servicers and Repairers $43,550 0.002%
49-2093
Electrical and Electronics Installers and
Repairers, Transportation Equipment $75,530 0.001%
49-2021
Radio, Cellular, and Tower Equipment Installers
and Repairers $85,700 0.001%
49-9031 Home Appliance Repairers $53,820 0.001%
49-9096 Riggers $73,610 0.001%
49-3093 Tire Repairers and Changers $36,640 0.001%
49-9081 Wind Turbine Service Technicians $62,910 0.001% 49-2092 Electric Motor, Power Tool, and Related Repairers $55,250 0.001% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $60,320 1.246%
51-0000 Production Occupations
51-2090 Miscellaneous Assemblers and Fabricators $43,160 0.454% 51-9061
Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and
Weighers $49,860 0.261%
51-9199 Production Workers, All Other $37,130 0.160%
51-9198 Helpers--Production Workers $34,400 0.146%
51-9111
Packaging and Filling Machine Operators and
Tenders $34,740 0.096%
51-2028
Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical
Assemblers, Except Coil Winders, Tapers, and
Finishers $43,800 0.086%
51-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Production and
Operating Workers $76,700 0.084%
51-6011 Laundry and Dry-Cleaning Workers $34,880 0.066% Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
519
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
51-4041 Machinists $59,690 0.059%
51-4121 Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers $58,600 0.046% 51-5112 Printing Press Operators $43,690 0.039%
51-4081
Multiple Machine Tool Setters, Operators, and
Tenders, Metal and Plastic $39,080 0.033%
51-6099
Textile, Apparel, and Furnishings Workers, All
Other $37,420 0.030%
51-4072
Molding, Coremaking, and Casting Machine
Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and
Plastic $44,990 0.023%
51-3092 Food Batchmakers $35,300 0.018%
51-9081 Dental Laboratory Technicians $43,620 0.018%
51-4031
Cutting, Punching, and Press Machine Setters,
Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic $41,700 0.017% 51-9083 Ophthalmic Laboratory Technicians $43,010 0.016% 51-4199 Metal Workers and Plastic Workers, All Other $49,010 0.014% 51-9161 Computer Numerically Controlled Tool Operators $50,790 0.012% 51-6031 Sewing Machine Operators $32,880 0.010%
51-3022 Meat, Poultry, and Fish Cutters and Trimmers $35,910 0.009% 51-9124
Coating, Painting, and Spraying Machine Setters,
Operators, and Tenders $50,520 0.009%
51-5111 Prepress Technicians and Workers $53,090 0.008% 51-3099 Food Processing Workers, All Other $32,410 0.008% 51-8031
Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant and
System Operators $93,680 0.007%
51-9151
Photographic Process Workers and Processing
Machine Operators $51,650 0.007%
51-3011 Bakers $36,960 0.006%
51-9082 Medical Appliance Technicians $56,910 0.006%
51-4111 Tool and Die Makers $72,410 0.006%
51-9195
Molders, Shapers, and Casters, Except Metal and
Plastic $44,460 0.005%
51-9041
Extruding, Forming, Pressing, and Compacting
Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders $38,720 0.005%
51-9023
Mixing and Blending Machine Setters, Operators,
and Tenders $48,700 0.004%
51-8013 Power Plant Operators $105,500 0.004%
51-2041 Structural Metal Fabricators and Fitters $44,090 0.004% 51-8093
Petroleum Pump System Operators, Refinery
Operators, and Gaugers $90,580 0.004%
51-6092 Fabric and Apparel Patternmakers $44,530 0.004% 51-7011 Cabinetmakers and Bench Carpenters $46,910 0.004% 51-5113 Print Binding and Finishing Workers $39,120 0.004% 51-8021 Stationary Engineers and Boiler Operators $103,370 0.004% 51-9032
Cutting and Slicing Machine Setters, Operators,
and Tenders $44,320 0.003%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
520
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
51-9011 Chemical Equipment Operators and Tenders $56,050 0.003% 51-4122
Welding, Soldering, and Brazing Machine Setters,
Operators, and Tenders $45,170 0.003%
51-9162
Computer Numerically Controlled Tool
Programmers $81,250 0.003%
51-8099 Plant and System Operators, All Other $79,160 0.002% 51-9071 Jewelers and Precious Stone and Metal Workers $39,560 0.002% 51-7042
Woodworking Machine Setters, Operators, and
Tenders, Except Sawing $35,680 0.002%
51-7041
Sawing Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders,
Wood $31,740 0.002%
51-6093 Upholsterers $46,490 0.002%
51-4035
Milling and Planing Machine Setters, Operators,
and Tenders, Metal and Plastic $51,190 0.002%
51-3093 Food Cooking Machine Operators and Tenders $29,560 0.002% 51-4023
Rolling Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders,
Metal and Plastic $40,960 0.001%
51-9021
Crushing, Grinding, and Polishing Machine
Setters, Operators, and Tenders $37,690 0.001%
51-4022
Forging Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders,
Metal and Plastic $46,780 0.001%
51-7021 Furniture Finishers $35,980 0.001%
51-4032
Drilling and Boring Machine Tool Setters,
Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic $48,700 0.001% 51-9123 Painting, Coating, and Decorating Workers $49,290 0.001% 51-9012
Separating, Filtering, Clarifying, Precipitating, and
Still Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders $57,140 0.001% 51-3091
Food and Tobacco Roasting, Baking, and Drying
Machine Operators and Tenders $39,920 0.001%
51-3021 Butchers and Meat Cutters $39,080 0.001%
51-6063
Textile Knitting and Weaving Machine Setters,
Operators, and Tenders $27,820 0.001%
51-4033
Grinding, Lapping, Polishing, and Buffing Machine
Tool Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and
Plastic $45,420 0.001%
51-6052 Tailors, Dressmakers, and Custom Sewers $52,870 0.001% 51-4034
Lathe and Turning Machine Tool Setters,
Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic $53,800 0.001% 51-8092 Gas Plant Operators $98,340 0.001%
51-4071 Foundry Mold and Coremakers $43,730 0.001%
51-6021 Pressers, Textile, Garment, and Related Materials $30,100 0.001% 51-2051 Fiberglass Laminators and Fabricators $45,970 0.001% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $44,646 1.867%
53-0000 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
53-7062
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material
Movers, Hand $39,930 1.364%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
521
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
53-3031 Driver/Sales Workers $34,920 0.383%
53-7065 Stockers and Order Fillers $36,170 0.279%
53-7064 Packers and Packagers, Hand $32,950 0.277%
53-3032 Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers $51,440 0.193% 53-7051 Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators $43,940 0.168% 53-3033 Light Truck Drivers $48,790 0.121%
53-7061 Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment $33,470 0.119% 53-1047
First-Line Supervisors of Transportation and
Material Moving Workers, Except Aircraft Cargo
Handling Supervisors $66,690 0.080%
53-3058
Passenger Vehicle Drivers, Except Bus Drivers,
Transit and Intercity $40,610 0.056%
53-3099 Motor Vehicle Operators, All Other $55,930 0.031% 53-6021 Parking Attendants $34,320 0.022%
53-2012 Commercial Pilots $113,260 0.014%
53-3052 Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity $58,860 0.006% 53-7063 Machine Feeders and Offbearers $43,880 0.006%
53-7199 Material Moving Workers, All Other $34,200 0.005% 53-2022 Airfield Operations Specialists $56,410 0.005%
53-6051 Transportation Inspectors $94,170 0.004%
53-6031 Automotive and Watercraft Service Attendants $31,340 0.003% 53-6098
Aircraft Service Attendants and Transportation
Workers, All Other $52,040 0.003%
53-2011 Airline Pilots, Copilots, and Flight Engineers $243,550 0.002% 53-6041 Traffic Technicians $86,560 0.002%
53-2031 Flight Attendants $51,230 0.001%
53-6061 Passenger Attendants $34,080 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $40,712 3.162%
Total, Land Use $85,440.54 100.000%
Notes:
(a) Occupational mix by industry was obtained from US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, 2019. (b) Wage data for the San Francisco Metropolitan Statistical Area was obtained from California Economic Development Department, OES Employment and Wages by Occupation, 2019.
(c) Distribution of workers is calculated based on the existing distribution of employment by industry in Marin County, provided by Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
522
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Retail Workers (c)
11-0000 Management Occupations
11-9051 Food Service Managers $63,460 1.525%
11-1021 General and Operations Managers $155,850 0.800% 11-2022 Sales Managers $159,720 0.046%
11-3031 Financial Managers $182,190 0.016%
11-3010
Administrative Services and Facilities
Managers $132,020 0.008%
11-2021 Marketing Managers $181,720 0.007%
11-9198
Personal Service Managers, All Other;
Entertainment and Recreation Managers,
Except Gambling; and Managers, All Other $168,900 0.005% 11-3121 Human Resources Managers $163,810 0.004%
11-1011 Chief Executives $236,060 0.003%
11-3071
Transportation, Storage, and Distribution
Managers $123,910 0.002%
11-3021 Computer and Information Systems Managers $201,960 0.002% 11-3131 Training and Development Managers $152,380 0.002% 11-9111 Medical and Health Services Managers $142,760 0.001% 11-3061 Purchasing Managers $154,870 0.001%
11-3051 Industrial Production Managers $140,910 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $98,093 2.423%
13-0000
Business and Financial Operations
Occupations
13-1151 Training and Development Specialists $83,550 0.079% 13-1161
Market Research Analysts and Marketing
Specialists $91,350 0.041%
13-2011 Accountants and Auditors $93,590 0.035%
13-1071 Human Resources Specialists $89,820 0.029%
13-1121 Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners $67,530 0.029% 13-1020 Buyers and Purchasing Agents $79,040 0.019%
13-2072 Loan Officers $84,940 0.012%
13-1198
Project Management Specialists and Business
Operations Specialists, All Other $93,010 0.009%
13-1051 Cost Estimators $98,960 0.007%
13-2098
Financial and Investment Analysts, Financial
Risk Specialists, and Financial Specialists, All
Other $119,100 0.003%
13-1111 Management Analysts $113,750 0.001%
13-1081 Logisticians $82,010 0.001%
13-2041 Credit Analysts $109,330 0.001%
13-1041 Compliance Officers $92,960 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $86,096 0.269%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
523
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
15-1232 Computer User Support Specialists $75,640 0.004% 15-1256
Software Developers and Software Quality
Assurance Analysts and Testers $145,250 0.003%
15-1244 Network and Computer Systems Administrators $104,370 0.003% 15-1257 Web Developers and Digital Interface Designers $110,790 0.003% 15-1299 Computer Occupations, All Other $120,370 0.003% 15-1211 Computer Systems Analysts $121,300 0.001%
15-1231 Computer Network Support Specialists $85,990 0.001% 15-1251 Computer Programmers $116,400 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $109,230 0.019%
21-0000 Community and Social Service Occupations
21-1019 Counselors, All Other $66,150 0.001%
21-1022 Healthcare Social Workers $86,560 0.0005%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $73,047 0.001%
23-0000 Legal Occupations
23-2093 Title Examiners, Abstractors, and Searchers $59,890 0.002% 23-2099 Legal Support Workers, All Other $61,510 0.0003% 23-1011 Lawyers $188,910 0.0003%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $73,546 0.002%
25-0000 Educational Instruction and Library Occupations 25-3021 Self-Enrichment Teachers $53,730 0.005%
25-3097 Tutors and Teachers and Instructors, All Other $50,800 0.0001% 25-9031 Instructional Coordinators $77,090 0.0001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $54,313 0.005%
27-0000
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Occupations
27-2012 Producers and Directors $104,520 0.017%
27-3031 Public Relations Specialists $84,520 0.011%
27-1026 Merchandise Displayers and Window Trimmers $38,480 0.011% 27-4032 Film and Video Editors $83,100 0.007%
27-4011 Audio and Video Technicians $64,140 0.005%
27-1024 Graphic Designers $77,110 0.005%
27-1025 Interior Designers $72,240 0.004%
27-1014 Special Effects Artists and Animators $97,570 0.004% 27-4031 Camera Operators, Television, Video, and Film $59,160 0.003% Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
524
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
27-4098
Lighting Technicians and Media and
Communication Equipment Workers, All Other $60,610 0.003% 27-3099 Media and Communication Workers, All Other $63,270 0.002% 27-4021 Photographers $61,530 0.002%
27-1027 Set and Exhibit Designers $60,530 0.002%
27-1011 Art Directors $135,970 0.002%
27-1023 Floral Designers $39,920 0.002%
27-3041 Editors $86,530 0.002%
27-1022 Fashion Designers $89,400 0.001%
27-4014 Sound Engineering Technicians $70,470 0.001%
27-1019 Artists and Related Workers, All Other $93,840 0.001% 27-3043 Writers and Authors $93,060 0.001%
27-1013
Fine Artists, Including Painters, Sculptors, and
Illustrators $85,980 0.001%
27-4012 Broadcast Technicians $57,390 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $66,961 0.102%
29-0000
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical
Occupations
29-2052 Pharmacy Technicians $51,090 0.143%
29-1051 Pharmacists $148,390 0.089%
29-2081 Opticians, Dispensing $50,840 0.014%
29-1041 Optometrists $125,680 0.004%
29-1031 Dietitians and Nutritionists $87,890 0.003%
29-2092 Hearing Aid Specialists $66,050 0.003%
29-1141 Registered Nurses $138,000 0.002%
29-2091 Orthotists and Prosthetists $81,090 0.001%
29-2057 Ophthalmic Medical Technicians $52,660 0.001%
29-1126 Respiratory Therapists $97,950 0.001%
29-1181 Audiologists $102,560 0.001%
29-1171 Nurse Practitioners $157,150 0.001%
29-2098
Medical Dosimetrists, Medical Records
Specialists, and Health Technologists and
Technicians, All Other $58,370 0.001%
29-1298
Acupuncturists and Healthcare Diagnosing or
Treating Practitioners, All Other $76,670 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $86,954 0.266%
31-0000 Healthcare Support Occupations
31-9011 Massage Therapists $50,560 0.041%
31-9095 Pharmacy Aides $46,430 0.017%
31-9099 Healthcare Support Workers, All Other $50,950 0.002% Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
525
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
31-1120 Home Health and Personal Care Aides $30,320 0.001% 31-9092 Medical Assistants $48,920 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $48,986 0.063%
33-0000 Protective Service Occupations
33-9032 Security Guards $38,580 0.106%
33-1090
Miscellaneous First-Line Supervisors, Protective
Service Workers $61,530 0.001%
33-9098
School Bus Monitors and Protective Service
Workers, All Other $49,650 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $38,981 0.108%
35-0000
Food Preparation and Serving Related
Occupations
35-3023 Fast Food and Counter Workers $31,610 28.085%
35-3031 Waiters and Waitresses $37,810 18.684%
35-2014 Cooks, Restaurant $38,430 10.548%
35-1012
First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and
Serving Workers $44,560 6.745%
35-2011 Cooks, Fast Food $27,060 4.527%
35-2021 Food Preparation Workers $31,820 3.926%
35-9021 Dishwashers $31,680 3.412%
35-9031
Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and
Coffee Shop $34,520 3.306%
35-9011
Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and
Bartender Helpers $35,040 2.686%
35-3011 Bartenders $37,310 2.682%
35-2015 Cooks, Short Order $34,460 0.857%
35-1011 Chefs and Head Cooks $63,740 0.599%
35-9099
Food Preparation and Serving Related Workers,
All Other $31,250 0.368%
35-3041 Food Servers, Nonrestaurant $35,200 0.177%
35-2012 Cooks, Institution and Cafeteria $40,710 0.082% 35-2019 Cooks, All Other $40,740 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $35,217 86.687%
37-0000
Building and Grounds Cleaning and
Maintenance Occupations
37-2011
Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and
Housekeeping Cleaners $38,870 0.287%
37-2012 Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners $41,430 0.022%
37-3011 Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers $43,940 0.011% 37-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and
Janitorial Workers $53,550 0.002%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
526
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $39,305 0.321%
39-0000 Personal Care and Service Occupations
39-5012 Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists $35,410 0.243% 39-5092 Manicurists and Pedicurists $29,490 0.079%
39-2021 Animal Caretakers $34,130 0.045%
39-5094 Skincare Specialists $37,640 0.031%
39-1098
First-Line Supervisors of Personal Service and
Entertainment and Recreation Workers, Except
Gambling Services $54,240 0.027%
39-3091 Amusement and Recreation Attendants $29,650 0.025% 39-3031 Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers $33,520 0.020% 39-5011 Barbers $52,940 0.014%
39-5093 Shampooers - 0.009%
39-9098
Crematory Operators and Personal Care and
Service Workers, All Other $35,060 0.007%
39-3093
Locker Room, Coatroom, and Dressing Room
Attendants $41,030 0.005%
39-9031 Exercise Trainers and Group Fitness Instructors $59,340 0.004% 39-2011 Animal Trainers $42,320 0.003%
39-6012 Concierges $44,060 0.002%
39-3021 Motion Picture Projectionists $34,350 0.001%
39-5091 Makeup Artists, Theatrical and Performance - 0.001% 39-4021 Funeral Attendants $39,180 0.001%
39-4031 Morticians, Undertakers, and Funeral Arrangers $60,050 0.001% 39-3092 Costume Attendants $42,930 0.001%
39-6011 Baggage Porters and Bellhops $33,390 0.001%
39-7010 Tour and Travel Guides $42,380 0.001%
39-9011 Childcare Workers $35,590 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $35,291 0.523%
41-0000 Sales and Related Occupations
41-2011 Cashiers $32,150 3.652%
41-2031 Retail Salespersons $34,810 1.668%
41-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers $46,980 0.367% 41-2022 Parts Salespersons $45,260 0.083%
41-3091
Sales Representatives of Services, Except
Advertising, Insurance, Financial Services, and
Travel $81,320 0.080%
41-2021 Counter and Rental Clerks $40,320 0.072%
41-4012
Sales Representatives, Wholesale and
Manufacturing, Except Technical and Scientific
Products $81,830 0.035%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
527
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
41-1012
First-Line Supervisors of Non-Retail Sales
Workers $77,590 0.013%
41-9099 Sales and Related Workers, All Other - 0.010%
41-3031
Securities, Commodities, and Financial Services
Sales Agents $101,770 0.004%
41-4011
Sales Representatives, Wholesale and
Manufacturing, Technical and Scientific
Products $104,680 0.003%
41-9041 Telemarketers $33,420 0.003%
41-9011 Demonstrators and Product Promoters $36,560 0.002% 41-3011 Advertising Sales Agents $92,720 0.001%
41-3021 Insurance Sales Agents $109,960 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $35,176 5.992%
43-0000 Office and Administrative Support Occupations
43-9061 Office Clerks, General $46,920 0.285%
43-4051 Customer Service Representatives $49,200 0.214% 43-3031 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks $54,980 0.202% 43-6014
Secretaries and Administrative Assistants,
Except Legal, Medical, and Executive $51,170 0.094%
43-4171 Receptionists and Information Clerks $39,990 0.093% 43-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Office and
Administrative Support Workers $71,190 0.068%
43-5071 Shipping, Receiving, and Inventory Clerks $42,910 0.045% 43-4151 Order Clerks $45,220 0.016%
43-3051 Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks $63,280 0.015%
43-3021 Billing and Posting Clerks $50,120 0.011%
43-6011
Executive Secretaries and Executive
Administrative Assistants $82,480 0.008%
43-5061 Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks $63,180 0.007% 43-4161
Human Resources Assistants, Except Payroll
and Timekeeping $53,370 0.006%
43-2011
Switchboard Operators, Including Answering
Service $49,560 0.006%
43-9199
Office and Administrative Support Workers, All
Other $45,160 0.005%
43-3011 Bill and Account Collectors $55,830 0.004%
43-5032 Dispatchers, Except Police, Fire, and Ambulance $54,040 0.003% 43-4071 File Clerks $41,240 0.003%
43-3061 Procurement Clerks $50,680 0.003%
43-5021 Couriers and Messengers $42,320 0.003%
43-9021 Data Entry Keyers $41,790 0.002%
43-4199 Information and Record Clerks, All Other $57,150 0.002% 43-4041 Credit Authorizers, Checkers, and Clerks $47,330 0.002% Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
528
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
43-4131 Loan Interviewers and Clerks $49,770 0.002%
43-6013
Medical Secretaries and Administrative
Assistants $49,140 0.001%
43-9041 Insurance Claims and Policy Processing Clerks $53,480 0.001% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $50,617 1.104%
45-0000 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
45-2092
Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop, Nursery, and
Greenhouse $37,430 0.002%
45-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Farming, Fishing, and
Forestry Workers $54,120 0.0001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $38,161 0.002%
47-0000 Construction and Extraction Occupations
47-2031 Carpenters $71,490 0.007%
47-2121 Glaziers $72,550 0.005%
47-2041 Carpet Installers $64,200 0.005%
47-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades
and Extraction Workers $99,580 0.002%
47-2111 Electricians $100,400 0.001%
47-2042
Floor Layers, Except Carpet, Wood, and Hard
Tiles $66,540 0.001%
47-2061 Construction Laborers $55,970 0.001%
47-4031 Fence Erectors $44,820 0.001%
47-2044 Tile and Stone Setters $59,410 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $70,399 0.027%
49-0000
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
Occupations
49-3023 Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics $58,630 0.273% 49-9071 Maintenance and Repair Workers, General $56,230 0.166% 49-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers,
and Repairers $89,740 0.038%
49-3021 Automotive Body and Related Repairers $57,580 0.028% 49-3093 Tire Repairers and Changers $36,640 0.018%
49-9091
Coin, Vending, and Amusement Machine
Servicers and Repairers $43,550 0.010%
49-9099
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Workers,
All Other $55,210 0.009%
49-2011
Computer, Automated Teller, and Office Machine
Repairers $45,100 0.008%
49-9098
Helpers--Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
Workers $37,740 0.007%
49-3031
Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine
Specialists $68,840 0.006%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
529
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
49-3091 Bicycle Repairers $32,090 0.006%
49-9031 Home Appliance Repairers $53,820 0.004%
49-9011 Mechanical Door Repairers $52,210 0.003%
49-9063 Musical Instrument Repairers and Tuners - 0.003% 49-2097 Audiovisual Equipment Installers and Repairers $59,500 0.003% 49-3053
Outdoor Power Equipment and Other Small
Engine Mechanics $45,750 0.003%
49-9062 Medical Equipment Repairers $69,330 0.002%
49-2096
Electronic Equipment Installers and Repairers,
Motor Vehicles $47,500 0.002%
49-9021
Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration
Mechanics and Installers $76,480 0.001%
49-3052 Motorcycle Mechanics $57,800 0.001%
49-3051 Motorboat Mechanics and Service Technicians $59,490 0.001% 49-3092 Recreational Vehicle Service Technicians $42,360 0.001% 49-9096 Riggers $73,610 0.001%
49-9095
Manufactured Building and Mobile Home
Installers - 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $57,919 0.594%
51-0000 Production Occupations
51-3011 Bakers $36,960 0.349%
51-6011 Laundry and Dry-Cleaning Workers $34,880 0.032% 51-3092 Food Batchmakers $35,300 0.032%
51-3021 Butchers and Meat Cutters $39,080 0.018%
51-9012
Separating, Filtering, Clarifying, Precipitating,
and Still Machine Setters, Operators, and
Tenders $57,140 0.014%
51-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Production and
Operating Workers $76,700 0.013%
51-2090 Miscellaneous Assemblers and Fabricators $43,160 0.010% 51-3091
Food and Tobacco Roasting, Baking, and Drying
Machine Operators and Tenders $39,920 0.009%
51-6021
Pressers, Textile, Garment, and Related
Materials $30,100 0.009%
51-6052 Tailors, Dressmakers, and Custom Sewers $52,870 0.007% 51-9083 Ophthalmic Laboratory Technicians $43,010 0.006% 51-9061
Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and
Weighers $49,860 0.005%
51-3022 Meat, Poultry, and Fish Cutters and Trimmers $35,910 0.005% 51-3099 Food Processing Workers, All Other $32,410 0.005% 51-6031 Sewing Machine Operators $32,880 0.004%
51-9124
Coating, Painting, and Spraying Machine
Setters, Operators, and Tenders $50,520 0.003%
51-9198 Helpers--Production Workers $34,400 0.003%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
530
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
51-9151
Photographic Process Workers and Processing
Machine Operators $51,650 0.002%
51-9199 Production Workers, All Other $37,130 0.001%
51-7011 Cabinetmakers and Bench Carpenters $46,910 0.001% 51-9082 Medical Appliance Technicians $56,910 0.001%
51-9194 Etchers and Engravers - 0.001%
51-9195
Molders, Shapers, and Casters, Except Metal
and Plastic $44,460 0.001%
51-5112 Printing Press Operators $43,690 0.001%
51-9023
Mixing and Blending Machine Setters,
Operators, and Tenders $48,700 0.001%
51-9071 Jewelers and Precious Stone and Metal Workers $39,560 0.001% 51-4121 Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers $58,600 0.001% 51-9111
Packaging and Filling Machine Operators and
Tenders $34,740 0.001%
51-7041
Sawing Machine Setters, Operators, and
Tenders, Wood $31,740 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $38,854 0.536%
53-0000
Transportation and Material Moving
Occupations
53-3033 Light Truck Drivers $48,790 0.377%
53-7065 Stockers and Order Fillers $36,170 0.189%
53-7061 Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment $33,470 0.096% 53-7062
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material
Movers, Hand $39,930 0.093%
53-6021 Parking Attendants $34,320 0.063%
53-6031 Automotive and Watercraft Service Attendants $31,340 0.028% 53-1047
First-Line Supervisors of Transportation and
Material Moving Workers, Except Aircraft Cargo
Handling Supervisors $66,690 0.026%
53-3058
Passenger Vehicle Drivers, Except Bus Drivers,
Transit and Intercity $40,610 0.023%
53-3032 Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers $51,440 0.016% 53-7064 Packers and Packagers, Hand $32,950 0.013%
53-3099 Motor Vehicle Operators, All Other $55,930 0.011% 53-7051 Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators $43,940 0.009% 53-7199 Material Moving Workers, All Other $34,200 0.006% 53-3031 Driver/Sales Workers $34,920 0.005%
53-6098
Aircraft Service Attendants and Transportation
Workers, All Other $52,040 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $42,424 0.958%
Total, Land Use $37,493 100.000%
Notes:
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
531
(a) Occupational mix by industry was obtained from US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, 2019. (b) Wage data for the San Francisco Metropolitan Statistical Area was obtained from California Economic Development Department, OES Employment and Wages by Occupation, 2019.
(c) Distribution of workers is calculated based on the existing distribution of employment by industry in Marin County, provided by Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
532
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Hotel Workers (c)
11-0000 Management Occupations
11-9081 Lodging Managers $104,250 1.622%
11-1021 General and Operations Managers $155,850 0.810% 11-9051 Food Service Managers $63,460 0.422%
11-2022 Sales Managers $159,720 0.308%
11-9198
Personal Service Managers, All Other; Entertainment
and Recreation Managers, Except Gambling; and
Managers, All Other $168,900 0.214%
11-3031 Financial Managers $182,190 0.206%
11-3010 Administrative Services and Facilities Managers $132,020 0.192% 11-3121 Human Resources Managers $163,810 0.100%
11-9071 Gambling Managers $125,300 0.094%
11-2021 Marketing Managers $181,720 0.080%
11-3021 Computer and Information Systems Managers $201,960 0.035% 11-1011 Chief Executives $236,060 0.021%
11-3061 Purchasing Managers $154,870 0.021%
11-9141
Property, Real Estate, and Community Association
Managers $92,930 0.019%
11-2030 Public Relations and Fundraising Managers $142,950 0.012% 11-9041 Architectural and Engineering Managers $186,500 0.011% 11-2011 Advertising and Promotions Managers $175,210 0.008% 11-9021 Construction Managers $134,880 0.007%
11-3131 Training and Development Managers $152,380 0.005% 11-3071 Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers $123,910 0.005% 11-3111 Compensation and Benefits Managers $170,770 0.003% 11-3051 Industrial Production Managers $140,910 0.003%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $128,280 4.198%
13-0000 Business and Financial Operations Occupations
13-1121 Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners $67,530 0.441% 13-2011 Accountants and Auditors $93,590 0.438%
13-1071 Human Resources Specialists $89,820 0.225%
13-1161 Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists $91,350 0.182% 13-1198
Project Management Specialists and Business
Operations Specialists, All Other $93,010 0.145%
13-1020 Buyers and Purchasing Agents $79,040 0.087%
13-1151 Training and Development Specialists $83,550 0.040% 13-1041 Compliance Officers $92,960 0.029%
13-2098
Financial and Investment Analysts, Financial Risk
Specialists, and Financial Specialists, All Other $119,100 0.028% 13-1111 Management Analysts $113,750 0.020%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
533
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Hotel
Workers (c)
13-1141
Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis
Specialists $83,230 0.013%
13-1075 Labor Relations Specialists $86,370 0.006%
13-2041 Credit Analysts $109,330 0.003%
13-2031 Budget Analysts $93,800 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $85,441 1.660%
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
15-1232 Computer User Support Specialists $75,640 0.071% 15-1244 Network and Computer Systems Administrators $104,370 0.041% 15-1299 Computer Occupations, All Other $120,370 0.022% 15-1211 Computer Systems Analysts $121,300 0.015%
15-1231 Computer Network Support Specialists $85,990 0.011% 15-1245 Database Administrators and Architects $107,930 0.008% 15-1256
Software Developers and Software Quality
Assurance Analysts and Testers $145,250 0.008%
15-1241 Computer Network Architects $137,720 0.006%
15-1212 Information Security Analysts $122,570 0.005%
15-1257 Web Developers and Digital Interface Designers $110,790 0.005% 15-1251 Computer Programmers $116,400 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $99,597 0.195%
17-0000 Architecture and Engineering Occupations
17-3023
Electrical and Electronic Engineering Technologists
and Technicians $67,200 0.012%
17-2141 Mechanical Engineers $123,270 0.008%
17-2199 Engineers, All Other $113,050 0.004%
17-2051 Civil Engineers $120,110 0.003%
17-3027
Mechanical Engineering Technologists and
Technicians $61,100 0.003%
17-2071 Electrical Engineers $120,990 0.000%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $93,450 0.031%
19-0000 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations
19-5011 Occupational Health and Safety Specialists $108,230 0.005% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $108,230 0.005%
23-0000 Legal Occupations
23-1011 Lawyers $188,910 0.005%
23-2011 Paralegals and Legal Assistants $71,360 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $152,176 0.008%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
534
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Hotel
Workers (c)
27-0000
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Occupations
27-4011 Audio and Video Technicians $64,140 0.139%
27-2022 Coaches and Scouts $48,900 0.065%
27-3031 Public Relations Specialists $84,520 0.039%
27-3099 Media and Communication Workers, All Other $63,270 0.027% 27-1024 Graphic Designers $77,110 0.019%
27-4098
Lighting Technicians and Media and Communication
Equipment Workers, All Other $60,610 0.010%
27-1023 Floral Designers $39,920 0.009%
27-2090
Miscellaneous Entertainers and Performers, Sports
and Related Workers * 0.006%
27-1026 Merchandise Displayers and Window Trimmers $38,480 0.005% 27-2021 Athletes and Sports Competitors - 0.003%
27-2042 Musicians and Singers * 0.002%
27-2011 Actors * 0.000%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $62,212 0.340%
29-0000 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 29-2040 Emergency Medical Technicians and Paramedics $54,180 0.013% 29-1141 Registered Nurses $138,000 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $67,277 0.016%
31-0000 Healthcare Support Occupations
31-9011 Massage Therapists $50,560 0.516%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $50,560 0.516%
33-0000 Protective Service Occupations
33-9032 Security Guards $38,580 1.530%
33-9092
Lifeguards, Ski Patrol, and Other Recreational
Protective Service Workers $31,600 0.338%
33-1090
Miscellaneous First-Line Supervisors, Protective
Service Workers $61,530 0.190%
33-9031
Gambling Surveillance Officers and Gambling
Investigators $43,940 0.149%
33-9098
School Bus Monitors and Protective Service Workers,
All Other $49,650 0.015%
33-9021 Private Detectives and Investigators $78,150 0.003% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $39,966 2.226%
35-0000 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 35-3031 Waiters and Waitresses $37,810 7.632%
35-2014 Cooks, Restaurant $38,430 4.125%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
535
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Hotel
Workers (c)
35-9011
Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and
Bartender Helpers $35,040 2.993%
35-3011 Bartenders $37,310 2.144%
35-9021 Dishwashers $31,680 1.520%
35-1012
First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and
Serving Workers $44,560 1.508%
35-3041 Food Servers, Nonrestaurant $35,200 1.378%
35-3023 Fast Food and Counter Workers $31,610 1.153%
35-9031
Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and
Coffee Shop $34,520 0.949%
35-1011 Chefs and Head Cooks $63,740 0.735%
35-2021 Food Preparation Workers $31,820 0.702%
35-9099
Food Preparation and Serving Related Workers, All
Other $31,250 0.290%
35-2012 Cooks, Institution and Cafeteria $40,710 0.213% 35-2015 Cooks, Short Order $34,460 0.129%
35-2011 Cooks, Fast Food $27,060 0.037%
35-2019 Cooks, All Other $40,740 0.034%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $37,537 25.543%
37-0000
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance
Occupations
37-2012 Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners $41,430 22.801% 37-2011
Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and
Housekeeping Cleaners $38,870 2.336%
37-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and
Janitorial Workers $53,550 1.759%
37-3011 Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers $43,940 0.575% 37-1012
First-Line Supervisors of Landscaping, Lawn Service,
and Groundskeeping Workers $68,600 0.085%
37-3019 Grounds Maintenance Workers, All Other $54,060 0.021% 37-2019 Building Cleaning Workers, All Other $32,430 0.020% 37-3012
Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators,
Vegetation $79,020 0.010%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $42,139 27.608%
39-0000 Personal Care and Service Occupations
39-3011 Gambling Dealers $26,750 2.633%
39-6011 Baggage Porters and Bellhops $33,390 1.139%
39-1013 First-Line Supervisors of Gambling Services Workers $52,020 0.784% 39-3091 Amusement and Recreation Attendants $29,650 0.757% 39-6012 Concierges $44,060 0.635%
39-9032 Recreation Workers $36,490 0.261%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
536
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Hotel
Workers (c)
39-1098
First-Line Supervisors of Personal Service and
Entertainment and Recreation Workers, Except
Gambling Services $54,240 0.249%
39-9098
Crematory Operators and Personal Care and Service
Workers, All Other $35,060 0.238%
39-3019 Gambling Service Workers, All Other $35,260 0.223% 39-3093
Locker Room, Coatroom, and Dressing Room
Attendants $41,030 0.171%
39-9031 Exercise Trainers and Group Fitness Instructors $59,340 0.142% 39-5094 Skincare Specialists $37,640 0.130%
39-3031 Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers $33,520 0.114% 39-3012 Gambling and Sports Book Writers and Runners $32,190 0.072% 39-5092 Manicurists and Pedicurists $29,490 0.070%
39-5012 Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists $35,410 0.068% 39-9011 Childcare Workers $35,590 0.041%
39-7010 Tour and Travel Guides $42,380 0.039%
39-3099
Entertainment Attendants and Related Workers, All
Other $37,000 0.037%
39-3092 Costume Attendants $42,930 0.020%
39-2011 Animal Trainers $42,320 0.000%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $35,162 7.833%
41-0000 Sales and Related Occupations
41-3091
Sales Representatives of Services, Except
Advertising, Insurance, Financial Services, and
Travel $81,320 1.184%
41-2011 Cashiers $32,150 0.704%
41-2031 Retail Salespersons $34,810 0.328%
41-2012 Gambling Change Persons and Booth Cashiers $32,010 0.326% 41-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers $46,980 0.144% 41-1012 First-Line Supervisors of Non-Retail Sales Workers $77,590 0.088% 41-9099 Sales and Related Workers, All Other - 0.041%
41-2021 Counter and Rental Clerks $40,320 0.039%
41-9041 Telemarketers $33,420 0.030%
41-3041 Travel Agents $53,520 0.015%
41-3011 Advertising Sales Agents $92,720 0.007%
41-9021 Real Estate Brokers * 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $54,861 2.959%
43-0000 Office and Administrative Support Occupations
43-4081 Hotel, Motel, and Resort Desk Clerks $39,440 12.021% 43-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative
Support Workers $71,190 1.755%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
537
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Hotel
Workers (c)
43-3031 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks $54,980 1.037% 43-4051 Customer Service Representatives $49,200 0.440% 43-6014
Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except
Legal, Medical, and Executive $51,170 0.427%
43-4181
Reservation and Transportation Ticket Agents and
Travel Clerks * 0.297%
43-3041 Gambling Cage Workers $30,160 0.292%
43-4171 Receptionists and Information Clerks $39,990 0.263% 43-2011 Switchboard Operators, Including Answering Service $49,560 0.233% 43-5071 Shipping, Receiving, and Inventory Clerks $42,910 0.109% 43-6011
Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative
Assistants $82,480 0.100%
43-5032 Dispatchers, Except Police, Fire, and Ambulance $54,040 0.071% 43-4161
Human Resources Assistants, Except Payroll and
Timekeeping $53,370 0.056%
43-9199 Office and Administrative Support Workers, All Other $45,160 0.053% 43-3051 Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks $63,280 0.050%
43-5061 Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks $63,180 0.042% 43-3061 Procurement Clerks $50,680 0.032%
43-3021 Billing and Posting Clerks $50,120 0.024%
43-5021 Couriers and Messengers $42,320 0.020%
43-2021 Telephone Operators $48,480 0.016%
43-4151 Order Clerks $45,220 0.015%
43-5111
Weighers, Measurers, Checkers, and Samplers,
Recordkeeping $41,640 0.011%
43-4199 Information and Record Clerks, All Other $57,150 0.009% 43-3011 Bill and Account Collectors $55,830 0.008%
43-9051
Mail Clerks and Mail Machine Operators, Except
Postal Service $39,020 0.007%
43-4041 Credit Authorizers, Checkers, and Clerks $47,330 0.005% 43-4071 File Clerks $41,240 0.004%
43-2099 Communications Equipment Operators, All Other $65,500 0.003% 43-9021 Data Entry Keyers $41,790 0.003%
43-3099 Financial Clerks, All Other $47,510 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $44,074 17.792%
45-0000 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
45-2093
Farmworkers, Farm, Ranch, and Aquacultural
Animals $35,610 0.007%
45-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Farming, Fishing, and
Forestry Workers $54,120 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $39,723 0.009%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
538
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Hotel
Workers (c)
47-0000 Construction and Extraction Occupations
47-2141 Painters, Construction and Maintenance $67,770 0.093% 47-2031 Carpenters $71,490 0.052%
47-2111 Electricians $100,400 0.040%
47-2152 Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters $87,230 0.018% 47-2073
Operating Engineers and Other Construction
Equipment Operators $86,240 0.017%
47-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades and
Extraction Workers $99,580 0.011%
47-2061 Construction Laborers $55,970 0.006%
47-2011 Boilermakers $86,630 0.003%
47-2041 Carpet Installers $64,200 0.003%
47-4051 Highway Maintenance Workers $63,210 0.002%
47-4090 Miscellaneous Construction and Related Workers $63,360 0.002% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $77,765 0.248%
49-0000 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 49-9071 Maintenance and Repair Workers, General $56,230 4.443% 49-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers, and
Repairers $89,740 0.406%
49-9091
Coin, Vending, and Amusement Machine Servicers
and Repairers $43,550 0.136%
49-9021
Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration
Mechanics and Installers $76,480 0.041%
49-9099
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Workers, All
Other $55,210 0.041%
49-3053
Outdoor Power Equipment and Other Small Engine
Mechanics $45,750 0.021%
49-9098
Helpers--Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
Workers $37,740 0.016%
49-3023 Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics $58,630 0.014% 49-3042 Mobile Heavy Equipment Mechanics, Except Engines $75,510 0.011% 49-9043 Maintenance Workers, Machinery $63,090 0.008%
49-9094 Locksmiths and Safe Repairers $63,770 0.006%
49-9041 Industrial Machinery Mechanics $78,010 0.004%
49-2092 Electric Motor, Power Tool, and Related Repairers $55,250 0.003% 49-2094
Electrical and Electronics Repairers, Commercial and
Industrial Equipment $79,500 0.003%
49-3031
Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine
Specialists $68,840 0.003%
49-2011
Computer, Automated Teller, and Office Machine
Repairers $45,100 0.001%
49-2093
Electrical and Electronics Installers and Repairers,
Transportation Equipment $75,530 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $58,694 5.162%
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
539
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Hotel
Workers (c)
51-0000 Production Occupations
51-6011 Laundry and Dry-Cleaning Workers $34,880 1.846% 51-3011 Bakers $36,960 0.187%
51-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Production and Operating
Workers $76,700 0.051%
51-8021 Stationary Engineers and Boiler Operators $103,370 0.030% 51-9061 Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers $49,860 0.020% 51-6052 Tailors, Dressmakers, and Custom Sewers $52,870 0.018% 51-3021 Butchers and Meat Cutters $39,080 0.010%
51-6031 Sewing Machine Operators $32,880 0.010%
51-6021 Pressers, Textile, Garment, and Related Materials $30,100 0.009% 51-6093 Upholsterers $46,490 0.007%
51-9193
Cooling and Freezing Equipment Operators and
Tenders $39,590 0.006%
51-8031
Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant and System
Operators $93,680 0.005%
51-9199 Production Workers, All Other $37,130 0.002%
51-3092 Food Batchmakers $35,300 0.002%
51-9012
Separating, Filtering, Clarifying, Precipitating, and
Still Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders $57,140 0.002% 51-9111
Packaging and Filling Machine Operators and
Tenders $34,740 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $37,439 2.208%
53-0000 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
53-3058
Passenger Vehicle Drivers, Except Bus Drivers,
Transit and Intercity $40,610 0.437%
53-6021 Parking Attendants $34,320 0.394%
53-7062
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers,
Hand $39,930 0.221%
53-7065 Stockers and Order Fillers $36,170 0.200%
53-3031 Driver/Sales Workers $34,920 0.069%
53-1047
First-Line Supervisors of Transportation and Material
Moving Workers, Except Aircraft Cargo Handling
Supervisors $66,690 0.039%
53-3033 Light Truck Drivers $48,790 0.028%
53-3032 Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers $51,440 0.011% 53-3099 Motor Vehicle Operators, All Other $55,930 0.011% 53-6031 Automotive and Watercraft Service Attendants $31,340 0.007% 53-6061 Passenger Attendants $34,080 0.005%
53-3052 Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity $58,860 0.004% 53-5021 Captains, Mates, and Pilots of Water Vessels $95,770 0.003% 53-7199 Material Moving Workers, All Other $34,200 0.003% Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
540
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Hotel
Workers (c)
53-4041 Subway and Streetcar Operators $56,730 0.003%
53-5022 Motorboat Operators - 0.002%
53-7051 Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators $43,940 0.000% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $39,024 1.444%
Total, Land Use $46,473 100.000%
Notes:
(a) Occupational mix by industry was obtained from US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, 2019. (b) Wage data for the San Francisco Metropolitan Statistical Area was obtained from California Economic Development Department, OES Employment and Wages by Occupation, 2019.
(c) Distribution of workers is calculated based on the existing distribution of employment by industry in Marin County, provided by Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
Item # 3B- Attachment 1
541
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
Heidi Scoble, Town of San Anselmo
Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates
February 10, 2023
Project: Marin Inclusionary Study
Subject: Inclusionary Program and In-Lieu Fee Study for San Anselmo Purpose and Background
The County of Marin, Town of San Anselmo, and five other jurisdictions within Marin County are collaborating on a regional effort to implement or update existing affordable housing policy tools, namely inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage fees. Some of the jurisdictions currently have inclusionary zoning and/or commercial linkage fee programs they intend to review and update as necessary, while others are establishing new programs. Together, the seven jurisdictions have retained Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates (the Consultant Team) to study and offer recommendations for both these policies.
This memo report provides an assessment of the existing inclusionary housing programs, summarizes best practices for setting inclusionary housing requirements, including on-site affordable units and fees in-lieu of providing affordable units on-site. The report provides an updated calculation of in-lieu fees for all the jurisdictions participating in this study. The maximum in-lieu fees were calculated for three different housing product types – single-family subdivisions, townhomes/condominiums, and rental apartments.
This report also includes an analysis of key policy considerations and recommendations to guide San Anselmo’s decision-makers on potential changes to the inclusionary housing requirements and associated in-lieu fees.
The memo is organized into the following sections:
I. Analysis of Existing Inclusionary Policies
II. Best Practices for Inclusionary Policies
III. Affordability Gap/In-lieu Fee Calculation
IV. Policy Considerations and Recommendations
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
542
I. Analysis of Existing Inclusionary Policies
Some of the communities in Marin County have a relatively long history with inclusionary zoning.
Of the seven jurisdictions participating in this study, five already have inclusionary policies, some of which have existed in some form since the 1980s. Sausalito adopted its policy in 2019, while the communities of San Anselmo and Fairfax have not yet adopted a policy. Concurrent to the preparation of this memo, San Rafael adopted a significantly modified inclusionary policy; both the current policy and the newly adopted versions are shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Inclusionary programs typically have a specific onsite requirement to designate a portion of the project for affordable units (see Figure 1 for a comparison of onsite requirements for the seven jurisdictions) as well as alternative means of compliance with the policy, such as the payment of in-lieu fees or land dedication (Figure 2). Below are some key observations of the policy elements across the jurisdictions:
• All jurisdictions apply an inclusionary requirement to both rental and for-sale projects.
Fairfax and San Anselmo do not have existing inclusionary housing ordinances. • The policies for rental projects tend to target lower income households (very low- and lowincome households) while the policies for for-sale projects tend to target a combination of low- and moderate-income households. Exceptions to this include Corte Madera and San Rafael, which have identical affordability targets for both rental and for-sale projects, and Unincorporated Marin County, which has unusually low-income targets: 60 percent of area median income (AMI) for for-sale and 50 percent of AMI for rental developments. • The percentage affordable requirement ranges from ten percent to 25 percent. Some jurisdictions require smaller percentages for smaller projects: Larkspur has a lower requirement for projects less than twenty units in size, while both San Rafael’s current and newly adopted policies include a modified requirement for larger projects. Sausalito requires a higher percentage (with deeper affordability) for projects in commercial districts. • The inclusionary policies generally have a relatively low unit threshold. The unit thresholds (minimum number of units in a project for the policy to be applicable) range from 1 or more units in Corte Madera to 5 or more units in Larkspur. The relatively low unit thresholds reflect the smaller multifamily and subdivision developments characteristic of Marin. • San Rafael recently modified its policy by relaxing the onsite inclusionary requirement, adding flexibility, and shifting the targeted income groups slightly higher. • The jurisdictions take a mix of approaches to alternative means of compliance, but, overall, the alternatives are structured to encourage developers to build units onsite. Jurisdictions either disallow the payment of in-lieu fees in all circumstances (Sausalito), or disallow them in some circumstances (Corte Madera, Larkspur, San Rafael), or allow the payment of inlieu fees on fractional units (Larkspur, Unincorporated Marin County). Land dedication or the provision of offsite units is generally allowed under special circumstances.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
543
FIGURE 1: ONSITE INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS BY JURISDICTION Percentage Affordable by
Project Size
Minimum Size
Threshold
Affordability Target
Rental For-Sale
Corte Madera All projects: 25% 1 unit 5% Very Low-Income; 10% Low-Income; 10% Moderate-Income
Sausalito
Commercial Districts 1-5 units: 1 unit;
6+ units: 20% 1 unit Low-income Moderate-income
Other Areas 15% 4 units Moderate-income
Larkspur 5-19 units: 15%
20+ units: 20% 5 units 50% Very Low-Income;
50% Low-Income
50% Low-Income;
50% Moderate-Income
Unincorporated Marin County 2+ units or lots: 20% 2 units or lots Very Low-Income (50% AMI) Low-Income (60% AMI)
San Rafael
Current Policy
2-10 units: 10%
11-20 units: 15%
21+ units: 20%
2 units 50% Very Low-Income;
50% Low-Income
50% Low-Income;
50% Moderate-Income
New Policy (Approved by City Council 2/21/2021)
Primary Requirement 2-15 units: 10%
16+ units: 5% 2 units Low-Income
Secondary Requirement (in addition to the
primary requirement for 16+ unit projects)
16+ units: Additional 5% or
10% 16 units 5% additional set-aside: Low-Income;
10% additional set-aside: Moderate-Income
Fairfax No Policy
San Anselmo No Policy
Source: Staff from Jurisdictions, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
544
FIGURE 2: INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE BY JURISDICTION Alternative Means of Compliance
Corte Madera 1-9 unit projects can pay in lieu fee. 10+ unit projects must incorporate units on-site.
Sausalito
Commercial Districts Applicants can propose land dedication or off-site units if on-site units are not possible, though there is no in-lieu fee option.
Other Areas Applicants can propose land dedication or off-site units if on-site units are not possible, though there is no in-lieu fee option.
Larkspur
Land donation, transfer of inclusionary credits, second dwelling units; In-lieu fee available for 5-14 unit projects and for fractional units (Rental: $213,267, For-Sale: $338,126).
Unincorporated Marin County 2+ unit projects and subdivisions: In-lieu fee available for fractional units ($329,485 per unit).
San Rafael
Former Policy In-lieu fee for fractional units ($343,969 per unit).
New Policy (Approved by City Council 2/21/2021)
Primary Requirement None (must be on-site)
Secondary Requirement In-lieu fee, off-site units located within 1/2 mile of project, or land donation.
Fairfax No Policy
San Anselmo No Policy
Item #3B- Attachment 2 Item #3B- Attachment 2
545
EFFECTIVENESS OF INCLUSIONARY POLICIES
The Consultant Team surveyed the five participating jurisdictions that currently have policies, including questions about the units produced by their policy, the means of production, and fee revenues collected. The Team also held meetings with market-rate developers, affordable housing providers, and other stakeholders (see Appendix A) to gain their perspective regarding the policies.
To summarize the results of the inclusionary policies, the Consultant Team summarized the number of units produced and the revenues generated from 2016 to 2020, shown in Figure 3. To provide more context on housing product, a summary of allocated and permitted units in the 2015-2023 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) cycle is shown in Figure 4. The effectiveness of the inclusionary policies as a tool for affordable housing production is discussed below.
The jurisdictions in this study produced 58 affordable units through their inclusionary programs over a five-year period. In the last five years, the five jurisdictions with inclusionary policies produced a total of 41 affordable rental units, 17 affordable for-sale units, and approximately $4 million for affordable housing development. San Rafael constituted most of the activity, with all 41 rental units produced there, 13 for-sale units produced, and $3.6 million generated from a single development, the 81-unit Village at Loch Lomond Marina project.1
Inclusionary programs accounted for about 14 percent of affordable housing production in the seven participating jurisdictions. According to the RHNA progress report shown in Figure 4, the participating jurisdictions permitted a total 414 affordable units and 700 market-rate units from 2015 to 2020.
This indicates that the majority of below-market rate housing development has been implemented through 100 percent affordable projects. The jurisdictions are on track to meet their market-rate (over 120% AMI) and low-income (80% AMI) housing allocations. However, they are less likely to meet the target for producing very-low income (50% AMI) and moderate-income (120%) units.
The inclusionary programs have not resulted in significant production of new affordable units in part because of the complexity of residential development in the county. Residential developers participating in this study cited many factors contributing to the complexity of housing development in Marin, including long and unpredictable approvals processes, opposition from some community members, lack of available sites, especially those that are zoned for multi-family housing, high land and construction costs, and inadequate or expensive infrastructure.
Inclusionary requirements can be a secondary factor impacting the viability of new development in Marin, mainly in instances where the requirement is poorly matched to market conditions. Market rate developers participating this study believed that new development projects can support inclusionary requirements for lower income households. However, some noted that the percentage requirement had been increased over time in many cities, without consideration of the relative market strengths of different locations in the county. For example, some jurisdictions have targeted very low-income households for for-sale projects, which requires a deeper subsidy than low- and moderate-income households.
The conversion of off-site units as an alternative means of compliance with the inclusionary requirement can fall short of the communities’ goals for affordable housing. Allowing developers to convert existing units to deed-restricted affordable units can be problematic. First, unlike the 1 The $3.6 million generated from the Loch Lomond Marina project were not from in-lieu fees but rather a “buyout” of a portion of the BMR requirement.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
546
construction of new units, the conversion of existing units fails to expand the overall supply of housing in the county, trading a market rate unit for one below market rate unit rather than expanding the overall supply. Second, converted units are often of lower quality than new units, and may come with hidden costs, such as additional maintenance costs.
In Marin County, the current inclusionary requirement appears to encourage developers to reduce the scale of projects to allow for the payment of in-lieu fees rather than providing on-site units. The County’s policy targets very low-income households: 50 percent of Area Median Income for rental developments and 60 percent for for-sale. These income targets are lower than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area. Projects with two units or more must provide units onsite, with the payment of in-lieu fees allowed only on fractional units. According to County staff, some development projects have reduced the scale of their projects to enable the payment of in-lieu fees rather than providing units onsite.
The variation in inclusionary requirements from jurisdiction to jurisdiction can create confusion and unnecessary complexity for developers. Because each jurisdiction in Marin County has set its inclusionary requirements in an uncoordinated way, the finer details of the many different policies can be difficult for developers to navigate. A more standardized approach that is closely tied to market conditions, rather than jurisdictional boundaries, would help to rationalize the process for developers.
FIGURE 3: AFFORDABLE UNITS PRODUCED AND FEE REVENUES COLLECTED, BY JURISDICTION, 2016-2020.
Jurisdiction Rental Units For-sale Units Fee Revenues
Corte Madera 0 3 $379,478
Fairfax [a] n/a n/a n/a
Larkspur 0 0 0
Unincorporated Marin County 0 1 [d] $213,603
San Anselmo [b] n/a n/a n/a
San Rafael 41 13 $3,600,000 [e]
Sausalito [c] 0 0 0
Total 41 17 $4,193,081 [a] Fairfax does not currently have an inclusionary program. [b] San Anselmo does not currently have an inclusionary program. [c] Sausalito adopted an inclusionary program in 2019. [d] Produced through a shared agreement with Mill Valley. [e] Revenues collected from a buy-out of six Below Market Rate units.
Source: Reported by each jurisdiction, 2016-2020.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
547
FIGURE 4. RHNA
FIFTH CYCLE ALLOCATION AND PERMITTED UNITS BY AFFORDABILITY LEVEL ACROSS JURISDICTIONS, AS OF 2020 Corte Madera Fairfax Larkspur San Anselmo San Rafael Sausalito Unincorporated
Marin County Total
Very Low Income (50% AMI)
RHNA 22 16 40 33 240 26 55 432
Permitted Units 16 13 6 15 5 12 26 93
% Complete 73% 81% 15% 45% 2% 46% 47% 22%
Low Income (80% AMI)
RHNA 13 11 20 17 148 14 32 255
Permitted Units 13 60 11 21 79 20 27 231
% Complete 100% 545% 55% 124% 53% 143% 84% 91%
Moderate Income (120% AMI)
RHNA 13 11 21 19 181 16 37 298
Permitted Units 8 4 9 23 12 6 28 90
% Complete 62% 36% 43% 121% 7% 38% 76% 30%
Market-Rate (>120% AMI)
RHNA 24 23 51 37 438 23 61 657
Permitted Units 179 10 90 39 201 7 174 700
% Complete 746% 43% 176% 105% 46% 30% 285% 107%
Permitted Units Summary
Total Affordable Units (<120% AMI) 37 77 26 59 96 38 81 414 Total Market Rate Units (>120% AMI) 179 10 90 39 201 7 174 700 Affordable Units as Share of Total 17% 89% 22% 60% 32% 84% 32% 37% Source: HCD, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
548
II. Best Practices for Inclusionary Policies
This section provides a discussion of key policy issues for jurisdictions to consider as they introduce a new inclusionary program or modify an existing program, and provides recommendations based on best practices. To identify best practices, the Consultant Team reviewed reports from the UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation, Grounded Solutions Network, and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. To guide the recommendations for best practices, the Consultant Team first designated market area zones. Following that, the policy elements discussed in this section include:
• Considering market factors when setting inclusionary requirements • The income groups targeted in inclusionary requirements • The minimum applicable development size
• Setting in-lieu fees as an alternative to on-site or off-site units, and • Other alternative means of compliance.
MARKET CONDITIONS
It is important to consider market conditions when setting an inclusionary housing requirement to ensure that the policy can be tailored to the unique context of each jurisdiction, and that the policy does not constrain the development of new housing. Jurisdictions that have stronger housing markets can establish higher inclusionary requirements than those with less established or weaker markets.
Based on Zillow home sale data and interviews with residential developers with experience working in Marin County (see Appendix A), the Consultant Team identified three market areas for for-sale housing across the participating jurisdictions in the County. Figures 5 and 6 show Zillow home value indices for both overall home sales and condominium sales.
As shown in Figure 5 , home values are highest in South Marin, which offer the best access to San Francisco via the Golden Gate Bridge and ferries. Home values are slightly lower in Central Marin, and drop in North/ West Marin areas, which are comparatively less accessible.
The market for rental housing is different from for-sale housing in Marin County. The rental housing market is strongest in the more urbanized areas that offer access to transportation infrastructure, jobs, and amenities. Most of the recent market-rate rental development activity has occurred in urban San Rafael. Tam Ridge is another significant rental project which was completed in Corte Madera in 2017.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
549
FIGURE 5: ZILLOW HOME VALUE INDEX FOR MARIN COMMUNITIES Source: Zillow, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.
FIGURE 6: ZILLOW HOME VALUE INDEX FOR CONDO/COOPS IN MARIN COMMUNITIES Source: Zillow, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
North/West Central South
$00K
$200K
$400K
$600K
$800K
$1,000K
$1,200K
San Rafael Fairfax San Anselmo Larkspur Corte Madera Sausalito North
Central
South
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
550
PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENTS
Figure 7 and Figure 8 illustrate the income targets and percentage requirements for the jurisdictions that currently have inclusionary programs. Figure 7 plots the current onsite requirements for rental units, with the percent set-aside on the x-axis and average Area Median Income2 targeted by the policy on the y-axis. Figure 8 shows the same information for for-sale units. Policies that appear toward the lower right of the plots have a higher percentage requirement and deeper affordability, while those toward the upper left have a relatively lower percentage requirement and less affordability.
Five of the seven participating jurisdictions already have inclusionary policies in place requiring affordable units onsite. The percentage of units varies by jurisdiction, ranging from 10 percent (San Rafael) to 25 percent (Corte Madera). Most of the jurisdictions have similar percentage requirements for for-sale and rental development, but the income targeted is typically lower for rental than for forsale housing.
The percentage of affordable housing required in a project should be set at an economically feasible level so that the inclusionary requirement does not create an impediment to housing development.3 According to market-rate housing developers, the market context for inclusionary requirements is particularly important in Marin. Development projects in the southern and central portions of the county, such as Corte Madera, Larkspur, Sausalito and parts of Unincorporated Marin, can more feasibly accommodate a higher percentage of inclusionary and/or a deeper level of affordability, compared to communities located in northern and western portions of the county.
Setting a high inclusionary requirement could be prohibitive for new rental projects in Marin County.
San Rafael recently relaxed its inclusionary requirement to encourage new development, despite being the most active rental market in the county. Because rental developments tend to serve a lower income market segment than for-sale developments, the inclusionary requirement for rentals is sometimes slightly lower than that for for-sale developments. Local jurisdictions can make up that gap by providing zoning incentives to reduce development costs for rental projects. 2 For example, San Rafael requires at least 50 percent of its BMR units to be targeted to very low-income households (maximum income: 50 percent of AMI) and the remainder to be targeted to low-income households (maximum income: 80 percent of AMI). Therefore, the average AMI target for San Rafael is .50*.50 + .50*.80 = 65 percent of AMI. 3 AB1505, also known as the “Palmer Fix” permits California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to review inclusionary zoning ordinances adopted or amended after September 15, 2017 if it requires more than 15% of the units to be affordable to lower income households and if the locality has failed to meet 75% of its share of the above moderate RHNA. HCD can request localities to provide an “economic feasibility study” to demonstrate that the higher inclusionary requirement will not impede development activity.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
551
FIGURE 7: AVERAGE AMI TARGETS AND PERCENT ONSITE REQUIREMENT FOR RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS * Assumes the developer selects the 10% / moderate-income option for the secondary requirement.
Source: Participating jurisdictions, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.
FIGURE 8: AVERAGE AMI TARGETS AND PERCENT SET-ASIDE FOR FOR-SALE DEVELOPMENTS * Assumes the developer selects the 10% / moderate-income option for the secondary requirement.
Source: Participating jurisdictions, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.
Corte Madera
Sausalito
Sausalito (commercial
districts)
Larkspur (5-14 units)
Larkspur (15+ units)
Unincorp. Marin
San Rafael (2-15 units)
San Rafael (16+ units) *
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Average AMI Target
Percent On-site Requirement
Corte Madera
Sausalito
Sausalito (commercial
districts)
Larkspur (5-14 units)
Larkspur (15+ units)
Unincorp. Marin
San Rafael (2-15 units)
San Rafael (16+ units) *
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Average AMI Target
Percent On-site Requirement
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
552
INCOME TARGETS
There is a wide range in the income targets for inclusionary programs among the participating jurisdictions, as shown in Figures 7 and 8. It is common practice for jurisdictions to target lower-income households for renter housing than for ownership housing. This is because it is generally easier for low- and moderate-income households to meet typical lending requirements.
Larkspur, Sausalito, and Unincorporated Marin County target lower-income households for rental units compared to for-sale units. San Rafael and Corte Madera target moderate-income for both rental and for-sale housing.
RENTAL
The income targets for rental units among the jurisdictions vary widely (Figure 7). Unincorporated Marin targets very low-income households, while Larkspur targets a mix of very low- and low-income households. The other jurisdictions have higher income targets overall, including targeting to some moderate-income households.
Currently, the most active rental market in Marin is San Rafael, which, of the jurisdictions in this study, produced the only affordable rental units in the last five years (Figure 3). These units were produced under the city’s previous policy, which targeted low- and very low-income households. San Rafael has relaxed this requirement with its new ordinance, which is designed to further promote new development. Among other changes, the new ordinance eliminates targeting for very low-income households.
FOR-SALE
In comparison to rentals, the income targets for for-sale development are overall more uniform across jurisdictions. The targeted income groups tend to consist of a mix of low- and moderate-income households.
The exception to this pattern is Unincorporated Marin County, which requires a significantly deeper level of affordability (60 percent of AMI) on for-sale projects. This policy can pose a challenge in two ways. First, it can make the County uncompetitive for development with its neighbors. Further, the lower-then-average income targets in Marin County’s policy was identified by developers as being a financial burden on projects such that many do not pencil. As mentioned in Section I, County staff reports that developers tend to reduce the size of their projects in order to build fewer onsite BMR units than otherwise would have been required, preferring to pay the in-lieu fee on fractional units to the greatest extent possible.
UNIT THRESHOLDS
One important element of an inclusionary policy is the minimum size of development (the threshold number of dwelling units) for which the policy will apply. Because smaller scale projects are often more complex and less efficient than larger projects, many inclusionary programs around the country have exemptions or lower requirements on small projects. According to Grounded Solutions Network, California jurisdictions typically set the minimum threshold for an inclusionary requirement at between Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
553
two to five units.4 This is consistent with the policies of the jurisdictions in this study, where the the minimum threshold ranges between one unit and five units.
Because a significant share of new development projects in Marin County’s jurisdictions are quite small, it is it is important that all projects be required to provide affordable units. However, for smaller projects that have more challenging development feasibility, the percentage set-aside required could be lower, or the income group targeted could be set higher. In San Rafael projects with 5 to 15 units have a set-aside requirement of 10 percent, compared to 15 percent for larger projects. Similarly, Larkspur’s ordinance requires 15 percent affordable units for projects with less than 15 units, compared to 20 percent for larger projects. San Francisco has a lower percentage requirement on projects between 10 to 24 units of 12 percent, compared to approximately 21 percent for larger projects.
SETTING IN-LIEU FEES
A jurisdiction’s approach to setting in-lieu fees should consider a number of factors. The first consideration is to compare the in-lieu fee option with the provision of onsite units – which of these options does the jurisdiction wish to encourage? In many California communities, collecting in-lieu fees and leveraging funding from other sources can allow them to build 100 percent affordable housing projects for extremely-low, very-low, and low-income households. However, this approach requires administrative capacity on behalf of city and county staff, capacity from local affordable housing developers, and access to other funding sources. It can also take a significant amount of time to acquire sites and secure funding to build 100 percent affordable projects.
For many of the above reasons, most of the jurisdictions participating in this study would prefer to incentivize on-site production rather than off-site units. Inclusionary housing is an important tool to promote mixed-income housing and to help correct historical patterns of economic and racial segregation. Setting the in-lieu fee at the maximum level can encourage more developers to provide units onsite. When the in-lieu fee option is available, developers are more likely to pay the fee when constructing high value or luxury units, because the revenue sacrificed from building units onsite is higher. (The potential value of luxury units is high, which means the developer must forgo more revenue for each unit that is designated affordable.)
Another consideration for in-lieu fees is the basis of the fee. Is the fee charged on the basis of dwelling units or square feet of residential area? While communities in Marin generally charge on a per unit basis, charging on the fee on a per-square-foot basis can encourage the development of smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms. As an example, San Francisco’s affordable housing in-lieu fee is charged on a per-square-foot basis.
It is recommended that fees be implemented with a schedule for annual adjustments. As economic factors, such as construction costs, change over time, the affordability gap will also change. Fees should be adjusted based on a regularly published cost index.
Further considerations for setting in-lieu fees on the basis of the affordability gap analysis are examined in Section IV.
4 Jacobus, Rick. “Inclusionary Housing: Creating and Maintaining Equitable Communities,” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2015.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
554
ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE
Because circumstances surrounding each project are different, it is important for an inclusionary program to provide alternative ways of meeting the inclusionary requirement other than with the provision of onsite units. Marin County has successfully used alternative means to produce new affordable units and raise revenue for housing; these alternative means include the provision of offsite units, land dedication, and partnerships with affordable housing developers. The option to construct units offsite is typically met with a higher percentage than what would be required onsite.
Market rate developers stress that flexibility in the inclusionary policy is a key determinant of the production of new housing. For some projects, the dedication of land to a jurisdiction or an affordable developer can result in the construction of a greater number of units for lower income households than the provision of on-site inclusionary units.
As mentioned in Section I, some developers may propose to fulfill an inclusionary requirement, not through the construction of new units offsite, but through the conversion of offsite market rate units to deed-restricted affordable units. However, this approach has some disadvantages. First, it does not result in net new housing units. Second, the off-site unit does not create a mixed-income development project. Finally, the conversion of units can sometimes result in affordable housing units that are of lower quality than new construction. If the off-site provision of units is offered as a means of compliance, it is important for the jurisdiction to ensure that the offsite units are of equivalent quality and within close proximity to the market-rate development project. Other best practices are to require that the value of the off-site contribution is equivalent or greater than the value of the in-lieu fees.
BEST PRACTICES FOR SMALL LOT SUBDIVISIONS
Recent state legislation (AB 1315 [2019-2020]) sets forth rules for small lot subdivisions to encourage affordable housing in areas zoned for multifamily development. The law allows developers to subdivide parcels into smaller lots for the construction of small, individual units with limited parking. For the purposes of applying an inclusionary policy, it is advisable to treat a small lot subdivision as if it were a new construction project of the same number of units.
As there may be a significant period of time between the subdivision and when new construction occurs, jurisdictions should clarify for developers the point in time when the inclusionary policy is applied and, for example, any applicable in-lieu fees are paid. Ordinarily, it is the developer entitling the construction of the residential units, and not the developer performing the land division, who will be responsible for fulfilling whatever inclusionary policy is in effect at that time, and paying any applicable fees.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
555
III. Calculation of In-Lieu Fee
Inclusionary zoning requires that new developments provide affordable housing along with marketrate housing units, either on-site or off-site, or comply with alternative measures such as payment of fees “in-lieu” of providing affordable units. The in-lieu fee is calculated based on the housing affordability gap – the difference between what households at various income levels can pay for housing and the cost of developing market rate housing. If this is for-sale housing, then the gap is based on the difference between annual mortgage costs and affordable monthly housing payments, and for rental housing, it is the difference between market rate rents and affordable rents. Once the total gap is calculated, the actual fee that is adopted depends on financial feasibility of the costs of the fee on prototypical residential developments.
For the purposes of this study, the in-lieu fees were calculated for Marin County and participating jurisdictions for three development types:
• For-sale single-family subdivisions
• For-sale condominium townhomes
• Rental apartments
While the study presents the total affordability gap, the actual fee that is adopted in each jurisdiction depends on policy considerations, which are outlined in Section IV of this report.
METHODOLOGY
The affordability gap is defined as the difference between what very low-, low- and moderate-income households can afford to pay for housing and the cost of developing new housing. Because it measures this shortfall that must be made up by a developer offering Below Market Rate units, the affordability gap is useful for setting in-lieu fees as an alternative to producing units directly through the inclusionary program.
The following steps illustrate the methodology used for calculating the affordability gap:
1. Estimate affordable rents and housing prices for households in target groups.
2. Estimate development costs of building new housing units, based on current cost and market data;
3. Calculate the difference between what renters and homeowners can afford to pay for housing, and the cost of developing those rental and for-sale units Because California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) define the ability to pay for housing at the county level, the affordability gap is calculated on the same income categories for the entire county.
The calculated in-lieu fees are valid for all of the jurisdictions participating in this study.
RESIDENTIAL PROTOTYPES
The Consultant Team established three housing prototypes that represent the types of development likely to occur in Marin County. The prototypes are informed by recently built and proposed development projects in Marin as well as conversations with developers with experience in Marin County. Example projects that represent the types of development likely to occur in Marin County are Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
556
shown in Figures 9 and 10. All five projects are in either San Rafael or Corte Madera, which have attracted most of the recent development activity among the participating jurisdictions.
FIGURE 9. MARIN PROJECTS THAT INFORMED PROTOTYPES 1 AND 2 (FOR-SALE PROTOTYPES) Project The Strand Enclave 350 Merrydale Rd.
Building Type Detached single-family and
townhomes Townhomes Townhomes, plus flats
Jurisdiction San Rafael Corte Madera San Rafael
Status Built in 2015 Built in 2019 Proposed
Units 34 detached, 42 townhomes 16 townhomes 41 townhomes, 4 flats Site Size (acres) 8.5 (approximate) 1.3 2.28
Units Per Acre 9 12 20
Unit Size Sq. Ft.
(Approximate)
Townhome: 1,650-1,900 Sq. Ft;
Detached: 1,950-3,300 Sq. Ft. 2,020 Sq. Ft. Townhome: 1,450-2,100 Sq. Ft.; Flat: 800 Sq. Ft.
Parking 2 car garage per unit plus visitor
surface parking
2 car garage per
unit plus visitor
surface parking
2 car garage per townhome
unit; 1 car garage per flat unit;
Surface visitor parking.
Source: Costar, 2021; Various marketing materials for, and articles about projects; Interviews with developers; Strategic Economics, 2021.
FIGURE 10. MARIN PROJECTS THAT INFORMED PROTOTYPE 3 (RENTAL PROTOTYPE) Project Tam Ridge 703 Third St.
Building Type Wood-frame apartment flats over podium,
plus townhomes
Wood-frame apartment flats over
podium, using density bonus, near
SMART station
Jurisdiction Corte Madera San Rafael
Status Built in 2017 Proposed
Units 154 flats, 25 townhomes 120 flats
Site Size (acres) 4.5 0.63
Unit Density 40 190
Unit Size Sq. Ft.
Range (Approximate)
Flats: 750-1,100 Sq. Ft.; Townhome: 1,300
Sq. Ft. 450-900 Sq. Ft.
Parking 1.6 spaces per unit (tenant parking in
podium garage plus visitor surface parking)
1 space per unit in podium
(incorporates mechanical lifts)
Source: Costar, 2021; Various marketing materials for, and articles about projects; Interviews with developers; Strategic Economics, 2021.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
557
The prototypes are generally based on developments built recently or proposed. Some communities in Marin typically see much smaller projects and are unlikely to see new projects of this scale. However, the per-unit cost of development is unlikely to be significantly different even for smaller and lower density projects, because the reductions in construction costs would be counterbalanced with the higher cost of land per unit.
The prototypes developed for the analysis are summarized below and further details are shown in Figure 11.
Prototype 1: Single-Family Subdivision
The single-family subdivision prototype has 14 detached for-sale units at a density of seven units per acre, making it typical for a “small-lot” subdivision. The units, which are two stories, are a mix of three and four-bedrooms and average 2,200 square feet.
Prototype 2: Condominium Townhome
The condominium townhome prototype includes 30 attached for-sale units at a density of 15 units per acre. Two-thirds of the units have three bedrooms while one-third have four bedrooms. The units are three stories with tuck-under garages on the ground level, and the average unit size is 1,800 square feet.
Prototype 3: Rental Apartments
The rental apartment prototype is a 100-unit apartment building. It has a density of 50 units per acre and is five stories. The building is a “Five-over-one” construction type, which means the first floor is a “Type I” concrete podium to accommodate parking, with four stories of “Type V” wood-frame construction for the residential area above. Typical of rental projects, the units in this prototype are a mix of studios, one-bedrooms, and two-bedrooms. The average unit size is 800 square feet.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
558
FIGURE 11. SUMMARY OF PROTOTYPES
Prototype 1:
Single-Family
Subdivision
Prototype 2:
Condominium
Townhome
Prototype 3:
Rental Apartments
Tenure For-Sale For-Sale Rental
Unit Mix 3, 4 bedrooms 3, 4 bedrooms Studios, 1, 2
bedrooms
Construction Type Wood-frame Wood-frame Type V over 1
Residential Stories 2 3 5
Number of Units 14 30 100
Parcel Size (Acres) 2 2 2
Parcel Size (Sq. Ft.) 87,120 87,120 87,120
Dwelling Units Per Acre 7 15 50
Unit Mix 7 3-Bedrooms;
7 4-Bedrooms
20 3-Bedrooms;
10 4-Bedrooms
10 Studios;
50 1-Bedrooms;
40 2-Bedrooms
Average Unit Size 2,200 1,800 800
Net Residential Sq. Ft. 30,800 54,000 80,000
Efficiency Ratio (a) 100% 100% 90%
Gross Residential Sq. Ft. 30,800 54,000 88,889
Parking Type 2-car garage plus
surface
2-car garage plus
surface Podium
Parking Ratio (Per Unit) (b) 2.50 2.25 1.25
Total Parking Spaces 35 68 125
Garage Parking Sq. Ft. (c) 9,800 21,000 43,750
Floor-Area Ratio (Residential Only) 0.35 0.62 1.02
Floor-Area Ratio (Including Structured
Parking) 0.47 0.86 1.52
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
Notes:
(a) Sq. Ft. associated with residential units divided by total interior square feet of building, (excludes space associated with parking). (b) The urban design specifications of these three prototypes, such as their parking ratios, may vary from the building typologies suggested in Opticos’ Objective Design and Development Standards study, currently in process. The parking ratios, as well as other metrics displayed here, are market-based, informed by conversation with residential developers familiar with Marin. (c) Based on “350 sq. ft. per parking space” standard industry assumption, which incorporates circulation.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
559
ESTIMATING AFFORDABLE RENTS AND HOUSING PRICES
Affordable rents and housing prices were identified based on resources from public agencies, such as HUD and HCD, which set income levels and maximum housing costs for federal and state-funded affordable housing programs. The Marin Housing Authority then provided the specific approach for calculating affordable sales prices, which currently vary across jurisdictions because of the different income levels that jurisdictions target as a part of their inclusionary programs.
The Consultant Team identified the affordability targets that would be tested in collaboration with the County of Marin, set at a level typical of existing inclusionary policies among participating jurisdictions.
The affordable targets are shown below in Figure 12. Consistent with best practices from other inclusionary housing programs, the affordability gap for both rental and for-sale units was calculated for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households,.5 In consultation with the client, the Consultant Team identified specific AMI levels to reflect the average incomes of households that these units would serve, with for-sale units typically targeting households with incomes that are slightly higher than rental units within the income categories. The income levels tested for the for-sale prototypes are generally higher than for the rental prototypes because for-sale affordable housing programs tend to serve households at the higher end of the income target ranges.
FIGURE 12. HOUSEHOLD INCOME TARGETS FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS BY TENURE For-sale Housing Rental Housing
Very Low-income 50% AMI 50% AMI
Low-income 70% AMI 65% AMI
Moderate Income 110% AMI 90% AMI
Source: County of Marin; Strategic Economics, 2021.
Figure 13 below shows the maximum affordable monthly rents for rental housing. The household sizes shown are for one, two, and three persons per household, reflecting the typical occupancy of studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units, respectively, in Prototype 3.
Based on HCD guidelines, the affordable rent is calculated as 30 percent of a household’s gross monthly income, minus a deduction for utilities. The utility deduction includes costs that are usually passed onto the tenant, such as heating, water heating, cooking, and electricity. Natural gas is assumed for heating and water heating. (Water, sewer, and trash removal costs are typically covered by the property owner and excluded from the utility deduction.) 5 Households that fall between 30-50% AMI are considered very low-income; households that fall within 50-80% AMI are considered Lowincome; households that fall between 80-120% AMI are considered moderate income.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
560
FIGURE 13. MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE RENT ASSUMPTIONS FOR VERY LOW, LOW, AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS Very Low-income (50%) Household Size
1 2 3
Maximum Annual Household Income $50,075 $57,250 $64,400 Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $1,252 $1,431 $1,610
Unit Type
Studio 1-BR 2-BR
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $1,252 $1,431 $1,610
Utility Allowance (b) $43 $52 $71
Maximum Rent $1,209 $1,379 $1,539
Low-income (65%) Household Size
1 2 3
Maximum Annual Household Income $65,098 $74,425 $83,720 Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $1,627 $1,861 $2,093
Unit Type
Studio 1-BR 2-BR
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (b) $1,627 $1,861 $2,093
Utility Allowance (c) $43 $52 $71
Maximum Rent $1,584 $1,809 $2,022
Moderate Income (90%) Household Size
1 2 3
Maximum Annual Household Income $90,135 $103,050 $115,920 Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (c) $2,253 $2,576 $2,898
Unit Type
Studio 1-BR 2-BR
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $2,253 $2,576 $2,898
Utility Allowance (b) $43 $52 $71
Maximum Rent $2,210 $2,524 $2,827
Sources: Marin Housing Authority, 2020; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2020.
Notes:
(a) 30 percent of maximum monthly household income.
(b) The maximum monthly cost for each unit type is associated with households that have one more person than bedroom. (Ex: Maximum costs for studios are associated with affordability for one-person households; One-bedroom costs are associated with 2-person households; Two-bedroom costs are associated with 3-person households). (c) Utilities for rentals include an allowance for cooking (natural gas), heating (natural gas), water heating (natural gas), and "other electric" utility usage. Assumes water, sewer, and trash charges are included in the rent.
Figures 14 and 15 shows the calculations of affordable sales prices for for-sale housing. The calculations are based on the following assumptions:
• Based on the anticipated households that would occupy the 3- and 4-bedroom units in the two for-sale prototypes (prototypes 1 and 2), it is assumed that, on average, 6-person households Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
561
would occupy 4-bedroom units, while an even mix of 4- and 5-person households would occupy 3-bedroom units.
• Based on the Marin Housing Authority’s approach for calculating affordable sales prices, homeowners were assumed to pay no more than 33 percent of their gross monthly income on housing costs.
• The maximum affordable sales price is determined by the total monthly mortgage payment that a homeowner could afford, which incorporates standard assumptions related to the mortgage terms and other monthly housing costs associated with homeownership. o The mortgage is assumed to be 30-year fixed rate, with an interest rate of 3.8 percent, which is a typical rate at the time of research (December 2020). The owner is assumed to put down a 5 percent down payment, which is standard for conventional and CalFHA loans.
o Other monthly housing costs include homeowners’ association dues, property taxes, homeowners’ insurance, interior property insurance, and premiums for private mortgage insurance required on home purchases with a down payment of less than 20 percent. Note there is no utility deduction, in accordance with MHA’s approach. • Other monthly housing costs overall are assumed to be slightly greater for condominium housing types than for single-family detached housing types, which is driven by different assumptions on monthly homeowner’s association costs. The homeowner’s association costs are expected to be higher on a per-unit basis for condominium units than for detached singlefamily units, which decreases the household budget available for a mortgage. (On the other hand, detached single-family homeowners are responsible for more costs that are not included in Figure 14.)
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
562
FIGURE 14. MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE SALES PRICES FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED SUBDIVISION (PROTOTYPE 1) Household Size (Persons per HH) 4.5 6
Very Low Income (50% AMI)
Annual Household Income at 50% AMI $74,413 $83,000
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $2,046 $2,283
Monthly Deductions (b) $1,074 $1,218
HOA Dues (c) $500 $600
Property Taxes and Insurance (d) $574 $618
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage Payment (e) $973 $1,064 Maximum Mortgage Amount (f) $208,728 $228,378
Maximum Affordable Sales Price (g) $219,714 $240,398
Low Income (70%)
Annual Household Income at 70% AMI $104,178 $116,200
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $2,865 $3,196
Monthly Deductions (b) $1,342 $1,518
HOA Dues (c) $500 $600
Property Taxes and Insurance (d) $842 $918
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage Payment (e) $1,523 $1,678 Maximum Mortgage Amount (f) $326,872 $360,209
Maximum Affordable Sales Price (g) $344,076 $379,167
Moderate Income (110%)
Annual Household Income at 110% AMI $163,708 $182,600
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $4,502 $5,022
Monthly Deductions (b) $1,892 $2,131
HOA Dues (c) $500 $600
Property Taxes and Insurance (d) $1,392 $1,531
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage Payment (e) $2,610 $2,891 Maximum Mortgage Amount (f) $560,102 $620,390
Maximum Affordable Sales Price (g) $589,581 $653,042
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
Notes:
(a) 33 percent of maximum monthly household income.
(b) Unlike for rentals, monthly deductions for for-sale units do not include utility costs. (c) Homeowners Association dues are assuming to average $0.25 per square foot. (d) Assumes annual effective property tax rate of 1.50% percent of sales price, after exemptions; annual private mortgage insurance premium rate of 0.85 percent of mortgage amount.
(e) Maximum monthly housing cost minus deductions.
(f) Assumes 3.8 percent interest rate and 30-year loan term. Interest rate is based on correspondence with Marin Housing Authority. (g) Assumes 5 percent down payment (95 percent loan-to-value ratio).
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
563
FIGURE 15. MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE SALES PRICES FOR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOME (PROTOTYPE 2) Household Size (Persons per HH) 4.5 6
Very Low Income (50% AMI)
Annual Household Income at 50% AMI $74,413 $83,000
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $2,046 $2,283
Monthly Deductions (b)
HOA Dues (c) $613 $665
Property Taxes and Insurance (d) $537 $597
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage Payment (e) $897 $1,020 Maximum Mortgage Amount (f) $192,493 $218,997
Maximum Affordable Sales Price (g) $202,624 $230,523
Low Income (70%)
Annual Household Income at 70% AMI $104,178 $116,200
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $2,865 $3,196
Monthly Deductions (b) $1,418 $1,561
HOA Dues (c) $613 $665
Property Taxes and Insurance (d) $805 $896
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage Payment (e) $1,447 $1,635 Maximum Mortgage Amount (f) $310,637 $350,829
Maximum Affordable Sales Price (g) $326,986 $369,293
Moderate Income (110%)
Annual Household Income at 110% AMI $163,708 $182,600
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $4,502 $5,022
Monthly Deductions (b) $1,967 $2,175
HOA Dues (c) $613 $665
Property Taxes and Insurance (d) $1,355 $1,510
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage Payment (e) $2,535 $2,847 Maximum Mortgage Amount (f) $543,953 $611,059
Maximum Affordable Sales Price (g) $572,582 $643,220
Source: Strategic Economics, 2020.
Notes:
(a) 33 percent of maximum monthly household income.
(b) Unlike for rentals, monthly deductions for for-sale units do not include utility costs. (c) Homeowners Association dues are assuming to average $0.35 per square foot. (d) Assumes annual effective property tax rate of 1.50% percent of sales price, after exemptions; annual private mortgage insurance premium rate of 0.85 percent of mortgage amount.
(e) Maximum monthly housing cost minus deductions.
(f) Assumes 3.8 percent interest rate and 30-year loan term. Interest rate is based on correspondence with Marin Housing Authority. (g) Assumes 5 percent down payment (95 percent loan-to-value ratio).
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
564
MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE RENTS AND SALES PRICES
Figures 16 and 17 provide summaries for the maximum affordable rents and sales prices respectively for the various prototypes that were tested.
FIGURE 16. SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE RENTS
Income Level Studio 1-BR 2-BR
Very Low-income (50%) $1,209 $1,379 $1,539
Low-income (65%) $1,584 $1,809 $2,022
Moderate Income (90%) $2,210 $2,524 $2,827
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
FIGURE 17. SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE SALES PRICES
Single-Family Subdivision Condominium Townhome
3-BR 4-BR 3-BR 4-BR
Very Low Income (50% AMI) $219,714 $240,398 $202,624 $230,523 Low Income (70%) $344,076 $379,167 $326,986 $369,293
Moderate Income (110%) $589,581 $653,042 $572,582 $643,220 Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
ESTIMATING DEVELOPMENT COSTS
The second step in the affordability gap analysis is to estimate development costs for the three prototypes. Development costs include land costs, direct or “hard” construction costs, indirect or “soft” costs, as well as financing costs, a developer fee, and a contingency for overruns.
Because multi-unit residential projects are relatively rare in Marin, the Consultant Team collected available data on the few recent comparable development projects and land sales and supplemented the data with feedback from local developers (see Appendix A), other available studies of costs in the Bay Area, and past experience with pro forma studies.
The development cost assumptions are shown below in Figure 18, and a chart that summarizes the breakdown of overall development costs for the prototypes is shown in Figure 19.
The development costs for for-sale housing are based on interviews with developers and homebuilders experienced with single-family and townhome development projects in Marin. This analysis estimated that total development costs for the single-family subdivision were $355 per net residential square foot while the costs for the condominium townhome were $373 per net residential square foot.
Because there are limited examples of recent multifamily development in Marin, the Consultant Team relied on a variety of sources to identify the multifamily cost assumptions. They are partly based on a pro forma for a proposed Type V development in Marin, as well as an interview with a multifamily developer. The team also relied on cost data and recently completed feasibility studies for similar rental apartment developments in the Bay Area. The analysis estimated that the total development cost for Prototype 3 was $705 per net square foot.
The remainder of this section explains the costs assumptions in more detail.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
565
FIGURE 18. SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT COST ASSUMPTIONS
Single Family
Subdivision
Condominium
Townhome
Rental
Apartments
Land Cost (a)
Per Land Sq. Ft. $56 $69 $86
Per Unit $350,000 $200,000 $75,000
Hard Costs
Site Costs per Land Sq. Ft. (b) $15 $35 $35
Construction Costs per Sq. Ft. of Residential Area $110 $150 $350 Parking Cost per Space (c) n/a n/a $32,500
Other Costs (Displayed as % of Hard Cost)
Soft Costs (d) 12% 12% 12%
Contingency 5% 5% 5%
Developer Overhead 4% 4% 4%
Financing Costs
Amount Financed (% of Hard and Soft Costs) 65% 65% 70%
Construction Loan Fee 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
Term (Months) 18 18 24
Construction Interest Rate 4.5% 4.5% 5.0%
Source: Developer Interviews, 2021; Project Pro Formas, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.
Notes:
(a) Entitled land
(b) Assumes relatively flat site
(c) Parking costs for for-sale prototypes are incorporated into the construction cost. Cost for rental prototype refers to one level of podium (d) Includes architectural, engineering, and consulting fees, as well as taxes, legal, insurance, accounting, and other costs.
FIGURE 19. TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS BY PROTOTYPE
Cost Category
Single Family
Subdivision
Condominium
Townhome
Rental
Apartments
Total Project
Land Cost $4,900,000 $6,000,000 $7,500,000
Hard Costs $4,694,800 $11,149,200 $38,222,811
Soft Costs $1,344,396 $3,001,696 $10,660,521
Development Costs $10,939,196 $20,150,896 $56,383,332
Per Unit
Land Cost $350,000 $200,000 $75,000
Hard Costs $335,343 $371,640 $382,228
Soft Costs $96,028 $100,057 $106,605
Development Costs $781,371 $671,697 $563,833
Per Net Residential Sq. Ft.
Land Cost $159 $111 $94
Hard Cost $152 $206 $478
Soft Costs $44 $56 $133
Development Costs $355 $373 $705
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
566
The following subsections provide further details on how the cost assumptions were identified.
LAND COST
Land costs typically vary widely, depending on factors such as location, zoning, and the amount of site work required to prepare the land for development. Because the price of land is so strongly tied to what can be built upon it, land costs are characterized in this study as the cost per dwelling unit of development. Recent comparable sales that informed land cost for the three prototypes are shown below in Figures 20-22.
• There is only one relevant recent sale for an entitled single-family subdivision. The site is in Mill Valley, which tends to have high land costs compared to the Marin average. • A range of $180,000 per unit to approximately $300,000 per unit was identified for the condominium townhome prototype based on two recent sales, which reflect the high end (Mill Valley) and the low end (Novato) of the Marin County market. • For the rental apartment prototype, two sales for sites entitled for multifamily development had land costs of $75,000 per unit, a number that was corroborated by a developer with experienced in multifamily development in Marin.
Based on these comparable examples and feedback from developers, the land cost assumptions were set at $350,000 per unit for Prototype 1, $200,000 per unit for Prototype 2, and $75,000 per unit for Prototype 3.
FIGURE 20. RECENT LAND SALE FOR SITE ZONED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION Site Address 548 Miller Ave., Mill Valley
Description
Single-family subdivision (13 fee simple
lots, three of which include ADUs)
Site Acres 1.58
Site Sq. Ft. 68,825
Units Per Acre 10
Sale Date September 2019
Sale Price $8,500,000
Price Per Unit $531,250
Source: Costar, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
567
FIGURE 21. RECENT LAND SALES FOR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOMES
Site Address 500 Miller Ave., Mill Valley 7533-7537 Redwood Blvd., Novato Description
Nine condominium townhomes with
underground parking and corner retail
space
50 condominium townhomes
(Atherton Place)
Site Acres 1.2 3.7
Site Sq. Ft. 52,272 161,172
Units Per Acre 7.5 13.5
Sale Date June 2017 July 2018
Sale Price $2,900,000 $9,000,000
Price Per Unit $322,222 $180,000
Source: Costar, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.
FIGURE 22. RECENT LAND SALES FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
Site Address 703 Third St., San Rafael (a) 1203-1211 Lincoln Ave., San Rafael (b) Description
Proposed apartment project with 61
units and underground, automated
parking and incorporating density
bonus
36 condominium flats Type V over I
construction
Site Acres 0.63 0.74
Site Sq. Ft. 27,395 32,234
Units Per Acre 97 49
Sale Date August 2014 March 2017
Sale Price $4,650,000 $2,700,000
Price Per Unit $76,230 $75,000
Source: Costar, 2021; Developer Pro Formas, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.
Notes:
(a) Reflects the site's "base case scenario" which is more comparable to Prototype 3 (b) Site is now associated with pipeline assisted living proposal but at time of sale, it had been planned for condominiums
HARD COSTS
Hard costs refer to both horizontal site costs and vertical construction costs, including the residential area construction and parking construction.
According to developers active in Marin County, construction costs for the county are higher than other locations in the Bay Area because it is less accessible to construction workers. Subcontractors often charge a premium that is equivalent to prevailing wage. The construction cost estimates for residential buildings incorporate these cost factors specific to Marin County.
The construction costs also include horizontal/site costs that include demolition, grading, utility connection installation, paving, and landscaping. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
568
the hypothetical sites are relatively flat, with horizontal costs of $15 per land square foot for the singlefamily subdivision, and $35 per land square foot for the condominium townhomes and apartments.
The construction costs for the single-family subdivision and the condominium townhome, which are based on feedback from Marin developers and homebuilders, are $110 and $150 per gross residential square foot respectively. Note that the cost of garage parking is incorporated into the residential hard cost, while the cost of any surface parking is incorporated into the site cost for these prototypes.
For the rental prototype, the construction cost of the residential area is estimated to be $350 per gross residential square foot. Because there are very few examples of recent and under construction apartments over podium in Marin, the Consultant Team also reviewed pro formas for planned affordable and market-rate projects in San Rafael and other Bay Area cities to estimate costs.
Based on this broad review of costs, the Consultant Team estimated that residential construction costs for Prototype 3 were approximately $350 per gross residential square foot, which translates to per unit costs of $564,000. A review of financial data from affordable housing projects in the San Francisco Bay Area supported these cost estimates, which show that affordable housing per unit costs are in the range of $530,000 to $678,000.
SOFT COSTS
Soft costs refer to necessary costs of development that are not directly related to the physical construction of the building. They include architecture, engineering costs and other professional services fees, as well as other costs associated with doing business, such as insurance and taxes.
Finally, soft costs include city permits and fees, and other miscellaneous costs. It is estimated that soft costs are 12 percent of hard costs for all three prototypes, a standard assumption that was confirmed by developer interviewees. The developer’s contingency and overhead, also account for an additional five and four percent of hard costs, respectively.6
FINANCING COSTS
Financing assumptions are consistent for both for-sale prototypes because the two hypothetical projects would have similar loan terms and construction timelines. Based on input from developers that specialize in owner-occupied single-family and townhome developments, 65 percent of the project cost would be financed with debt, with a typical interest rate of approximately 4.5 percent. The development period for the for-sale prototypes is assumed to be 18 months.
The rental apartment prototype incorporates a slightly higher interest rate at 5 percent, to account for a higher level of risk, with a 24-month development period. The amount financed is also tends to be slightly higher at 70 percent of project cost, according to a multifamily developer.
All three prototypes incorporate a 1.5 percent construction loan fee, which is a standard industry assumption.
6 Developer profit is not included in the consideration of costs.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
569
AFFORDABILITY GAP
The final step is to calculate the housing affordability gap, which is the difference between what very low-, low-, and moderate-income households can afford to pay and the cost of developing those units.
The gap helps determine the in-lieu fee amount that would be required to cover the cost associated with developing affordable housing units.
FOR-SALE HOUSING
Figures 23 and 24 shows the affordability gap calculation for the for-sale housing prototypes. For each unit type, the gap is calculated as the difference between the per-unit cost of development and the affordable sales price for each income level. The average housing affordability gap is weighted based on the unit mix in the prototypes.
FIGURE 23. AFFORDABILITY GAP FOR SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION Income Level and Unit
Type
Unit Size (Sq.
Ft.)
Affordable
Sales Price (a)
Development
Costs (b)
Affordability Gap
(c)
Very Low Income (50%)
3 Bedroom 2,000 $219,714 $710,337 $490,623
4 Bedroom 2,400 $240,398 $852,405 $612,007
Weighted Average $230,056 $781,371 $551,315
Low Income (70%)
3 Bedroom 2,000 $344,076 $710,337 $366,261
4 Bedroom 2,400 $379,167 $852,405 $473,237
Weighted Average $361,622 $781,371 $419,749
Moderate Income (110%)
3 Bedroom 2,000 $589,581 $710,337 $120,757
4 Bedroom 2,400 $653,042 $852,405 $199,363
Weighted Average $621,311 $781,371 $160,060
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
Notes:
(a) See calculation in Figure 14, above.
(b) Assumes $349 per SF for development costs
(c) Calculated as the difference between affordable sales price and development cost (d) Includes 50% three-bedrooms and 50% four-bedrooms.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
570
FIGURE 24. AFFORDABILITY GAP FOR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOME
Income Level and Unit
Type
Unit Size (Sq.
Ft.)
Affordable
Sales Price (a)
Development
Costs (b)
Affordability Gap
(c)
Very Low Income (50%)
3 Bedroom 1,750 $202,624 $653,038 $450,414
4 Bedroom 1,900 $230,523 $709,013 $478,490
Weighted Average $211,924 $671,697 $459,773
Low Income (70%)
3 Bedroom 1,750 $326,986 $653,038 $326,052
4 Bedroom 1,900 $369,293 $709,013 $339,720
Weighted Average $341,089 $671,697 $330,608
Moderate Income (110%)
3 Bedroom 1,750 $572,582 $653,038 $80,456
4 Bedroom 1,900 $643,220 $709,013 $65,793
Weighted Average $596,128 $671,697 $75,568
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
Notes
(a) See calculation in Figure 15, above.
(b) Assumes $393 per square foot for development costs
(c) Calculated as the difference between affordable sales price and development cost (d)Includes two-thirds three-bedrooms and one-third four-bedrooms.
RENTAL HOUSING
Figure 25 shows the affordability gap calculation for the rental prototype. For each rental unit type and income level, the gap is defined as the difference between the per-unit cost of development and the supportable debt per unit. The supportable debt is calculated based on the net operating income generated from the monthly rent from the affordable unit and incorporates assumptions about operating expenses (including property taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc.), reserves, and vacancy. It also incorporates financing assumptions related to the permanent loan on the property. Assumptions on operating costs are informed by data on Victory Village, which is a recent affordable housing development built in Marin. The average housing affordability gap is also weighted based on the unit mix of the prototype.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
571
FIGURE 25. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY GAP FOR RENTAL APARTMENTS Income Level
and Unit Type
Unit Size
(Sq. Ft.)
Maximum
Monthly Rent (a)
Annual
Income
Net Operating
Income (b)
Available for
Debt Service (c)
Supportable
Debt (d)
Development
Costs (e)
Affordability
Gap (f)
Very Low-income (50%)
Studio 650 $1,209 $14,507 $2,781 $2,418 $39,393 $458,250 $418,857 1 Bedroom 750 $1,379 $16,551 $4,723 $4,107 $66,904 $528,750 $461,846 2 Bedroom 900 $1,539 $18,468 $6,545 $5,691 $92,699 $634,500 $541,801 Weighted Average (g) $74,471 $564,000 $489,529
Low-income (65%)
Studio 650 $1,584 $19,013 $7,063 $6,141 $100,036 $458,250 $358,214 1 Bedroom 750 $1,809 $21,704 $9,618 $8,364 $136,236 $528,750 $392,514 2 Bedroom 900 $2,022 $24,264 $12,051 $10,479 $170,691 $634,500 $463,809 Weighted Average (g) $146,398 $564,000 $417,602
Moderate
Income (90%)
Studio 650 $2,210 $26,525 $14,198 $12,346 $153,206 $458,250 $305,044 1 Bedroom 750 $2,524 $30,291 $17,776 $15,458 $191,816 $528,750 $336,934 2 Bedroom 900 $2,827 $33,924 $21,228 $18,459 $229,058 $634,500 $405,442 Weighted Average (g) $202,852 $564,000 $361,148
Notes:
(a) Affordable rent levels based on 2020 income limits
(b) Amount available for debt. Assumes 5% vacancy and collection loss and $11,000 per unit for operating expenses and reserves, based on operating pro formas for recent affordable projects in Marin County. (c) Assumes 1.15 Debt Coverage Ratio.
(d) Assumes 4.5% permanent financing interest rate and 30 year loan. (e) Assumes development cost of $705 per net square foot on rental units. (f) Calculated as the difference between development costs and supportable debt. (g) Incorporates 10% studios, 50% one-bedrooms, and 40% two-bedrooms.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
572
SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM IN-LIEU FEE BY HOUSING TYPE
A summary of the affordability gaps by tenure and income level is displayed in Figure 26. The affordability gap is the basis for setting the maximum in-lieu fee. As shown, the maximum in-lieu fee per required affordable unit (rounded) is approximately $377,000 for single-family subdivisions, $289,000 for condominium townhomes, and $423,000 for rental apartments.
The maximum in-lieu fee is highest for rental apartments because the average targeted income is lower (68 percent of AMI, compared to 78 percent AMI for for-sale housing), resulting in a wider affordability gap.
The calculated in-lieu fee is lower for condominium townhomes than single-family subdivisions because the construction cost for townhomes is slightly lower, while the targeted income groups remain the same.
It is important to note that the County of Marin can choose to adopt lower fees than the maximum calculated in-lieu fees shown in Figure 26.
FIGURE 26. SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM IN-LIEU FEES
Income Level
For-sale Gap
Rental Gap
Single-Family
Subdivision
Condominium
Townhome
Very Low-income (50% AMI) $551,315 $459,773 $489,529
Low-income
(65% AMI Rental/ 70% Owner) $419,749 $330,608 $417,602
Moderate Income
(90% AMI Rental)/ 110% AMI Owner) $160,060 $75,568 $361,148 Average Affordability Gap/
Maximum In-Lieu Fee $377,042 $ 288,650 $422,760
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
573
IV. Policy Considerations and Recommendations
This section summarizes key policy issues for the County of Marin to consider when updating its inclusionary housing ordinance and in-lieu fee. The following questions are addressed:
• How do the calculated in-lieu fees compare with the County’s existing fees? • How do the calculated fees compare with in-lieu fees in other jurisdictions? • How much do the calculated in-lieu fees raise development costs in Marin County and impact financial feasibility?
• How do the calculated fees compare with existing municipal fees, such as building permit and other impact fees?
Each of these questions is addressed in the sections below, followed by a set of recommendations.
COMPARISON OF IN-LIEU FEES IN MARIN COUNTY AND NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS The newly calculated in-lieu fees from the previous section are shown along with the existing inlieu fees for for-sale housing for the participating jurisdictions and other nearby jurisdictions for comparison in Figure 27. As shown, the newly calculated maximum in-lieu fee for single-family subdivisions is higher than the existing fee in all the other jurisdictions. However, the calculated fee for for-sale townhomes is lower than the County’s existing fee but higher than the current inlieu fee for for-sale housing in Novato.
The same information is shown for rental housing in Figure 28. As shown, the calculated maximum in-lieu fee for rental projects is higher than the existing fees in Marin County and all the neighboring cities. Larkspur, Novato, and San Francisco charge lower in-lieu fees for rental projects, even though the affordability gap may be higher than for-sale housing.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
574
FIGURE 27: COMPARISON OF CALCULATED IN-LIEU FEES WITH EXISTING IN-LIEU FEES, FOR-SALE DEVELOPMENTS [a] Corte Madera has an in-lieu fee that is calculated based on construction costs and area median incomes. Because the assumptions in the calculation have not been updated for several years, the fee currently evaluates to zero. [b] In-lieu fees for San Francisco and Novato vary by the number of units in the project. Both fee amounts assume the 30-unit condo townhome prototype.
Sources: Available documents from jurisdictions, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.
FIGURE 28: COMPARISON OF CALCULATED IN-LIEU FEES WITH EXISTING IN-LIEU FEES, RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS [a] Corte Madera has an in-lieu fee that is calculated based on construction costs and area median incomes. Because the assumptions in the calculation have not been updated for several years, the fee currently evaluates to zero. [b] In-lieu fees for San Francisco and Novato vary by the number of units in the project. Both fee amounts assume the 100-unit rental apartment prototype.
Sources: Available documents from jurisdictions, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.in-Lieu Fee in Relation to Development costs Using the development cost estimates from the previous section, the Consultant Team calculated the increase in costs that would be experienced when charging the fee in-lieu of an onsite requirement at a level of 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent, and 25 percent. As shown in Figure 29, the cost of the fee for would range from five to 12 percent for the single-family subdivision $377,042
$288,650
$0
$338,126 $329,485 $343,969
$187,885
$359,100
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$422,760
$0
$213,267
$329,485 $343,969
$108,730
$177,334
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
Calculated Fee
for Rental
Corte Madera [a] Larkspur Unincorporated
Marin County
San Rafael Novato [b] San Francisco
[b]
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
575
prototype, four to 11 percent for the condo townhome prototype, and seven to 19 percent for the apartment prototype.
FIGURE 29: IMPACT OF IN-LIEU FEE ON TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS BY PROTOTYPE
Single Family
Subdivision
Condo
Townhome
Rental
Apartment
Total Development Costs per Unit $781,371 $671,697 $563,833 In lieu Fees per Affordable Unit $289,905 $203,088 $422,760 Increase in Total Development Costs
@ 10% Onsite Requirement 5% 4% 7%
@ 15% Onsite Requirement 7% 6% 11%
@ 20% Onsite Requirement 10% 9% 15%
@ 25% Onsite Requirement 12% 11% 19%
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
The calculated in-lieu fee for the apartment prototype has the largest impact on development costs, due to the much higher affordability gap for apartments. Although rental apartments are the least expensive of the three prototypes to build per unit, the smaller households expected to occupy these units, which translates to lower tenant incomes, and the high operating costs of apartments mean that the affordability gap for rentals is higher in this case. This analysis suggests that for-sale developments will be able to accommodate a substantially higher percentage onsite requirement than will rental projects.
BURDEN OF IN-LIEU COMBINED WITH OTHER MUNICIPAL FEES
The Consultant Team reviewed the total burden of the calculated in-lieu fees in the context of other municipal fees charged by the cities, including fees such as building permits as well as any impact fees each jurisdiction might have in place.7 A table of these costs for each jurisdiction is given in Figure 30 below, including the total fees that would be paid on each prototype in-lieu of hypothetical inclusionary requirements ranging from ten to 25 percent.
Because each jurisdiction has its own schedule of fees for new development, the cost of development in each community varies. For example, municipal fees for the prototypes in San Anselmo are currently estimated at two percent of development costs. Enacting maximum in-lieu fees with a 15 percent inclusionary requirement would raise municipal fees to between seven and 14 percent. The Town of Anselmo will need to take into account the impact to total development costs when setting an in-lieu fee and/or inclusionary percentage. 7 Connection fees charged by a local sanitary sewer and water district were also estimated; they would be expected to represent an additional three to four percent of development costs above what is shown in the Figure 30.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
576
FIGURE 30: IN-LIEU FEES AND OTHER MUNICIPAL FEES* BY JURISDICTION Current level of onsite requirement for each jurisdiction in bold.
Per Unit As % of Development Costs
S.F.
Subdiv. Condo Apt.
S.F.
Subdiv. Condo Apt.
Corte Madera
Municipal Fees $35,776 $27,116 $23,339 5% 4% 4%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $64,767 $47,424 $65,615 8% 7% 12%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $79,262 $57,579 $86,753 10% 9% 15% Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $93,757 $67,733 $107,891 12% 10% 19% Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $108,253 $77,888 $129,029 14% 12% 23%
Fairfax
Municipal Fees $13,231 $11,258 $8,104 2% 2% 1%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $42,221 $31,567 $50,380 5% 5% 9%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $56,717 $41,722 $71,518 7% 6% 13%
Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $71,212 $51,876 $92,656 9% 8% 16%
Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $85,707 $62,030 $113,794 11% 9% 20% Larkspur
Municipal Fees $39,839 $25,951 $19,449 5% 4% 3%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $68,830 $46,260 $61,725 9% 7% 11%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $83,325 $56,414 $82,863 11% 8% 15% Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $97,820 $66,569 $104,001 13% 10% 18% Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $112,316 $76,723 $125,139 14% 11% 22% Unincorporated Marin County
County Fees $25,397 $23,656 $5,470 3% 4% 1%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $63,101 $52,521 $47,746 8% 8% 8%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $81,953 $66,954 $68,884 10% 10% 12% Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $100,806 $81,386 $90,022 15% 12% 18% Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $119,658 $95,819 $111,160 17% 15% 22% San Anselmo
Municipal Fees $12,821 $13,837 $14,034 2% 2% 2%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $41,811 $34,146 $56,310 5% 5% 10%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $56,306 $44,300 $77,448 7% 7% 14%
Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $70,802 $54,455 $98,586 9% 8% 17%
Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $85,297 $64,609 $119,724 11% 10% 21% San Rafael
Municipal Fees $27,044 $23,545 $15,113 3% 4% 3%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $56,034 $43,854 $57,389 7% 7% 10%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $70,530 $54,009 $78,527 9% 8% 14%
Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $85,025 $64,163 $99,665 11% 10% 18% Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $99,520 $74,317 $120,803 13% 11% 21% Continued next page
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
577
Continued from previous page
Sausalito
Municipal Fees $7,448 $7,694 $9,987 1% 1% 2%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $36,438 $28,003 $52,263 5% 4% 9%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $50,934 $38,157 $73,401 7% 6% 13%
Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $65,429 $48,311 $94,539 8% 7% 17%
Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $79,924 $58,466 $115,677 10% 9% 21% * Municipal fees include all applicable permits and impact fees charged by the jurisdiction. Water and sanitary sewer connection fees are not included. Based on estimates from Marin Municipal Water District and Ross Valley Sanitary District, water and sewer fees represent and additional four percent to development costs of the single family subdivision and three percent to condo townhomes and apartments.
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
CONVERSION TO PER SQUARE FOOT FEE
Jurisdictions can opt to implement the in-lieu fee as a per square foot fee, rather than a per unit fee, in order to incentivize development projects with smaller units. This may be useful for jurisdictions that primarily see developments with large, luxury units. The per square foot fees are calculated by dividing the per-unit in lieu fee by the weighted average unit square feet for each prototype. This calculation is shown below in Figure 31.
FIGURE 31. EQUIVALENT IN LIEU FEES PER UNIT SQUARE FOOT FOR PROTOTYPES Multifamily
Rental
Condominium
Townhome
Single Family
Subdivision
Weighted Average Unit Sq. Ft. 800 1800 2,200
Affordability Gap per Unit
Very Low Income (50% AMI Rental and Owner) $489,529 $459,773 $551,315 Low Income (65% AMI Rental/ 70% AMI Owner) $417,602 $330,608 $419,749 Moderate Income (90% AMI Rental)/ 110% AMI
Owner) $361,148 $75,568 $160,060
Affordability Gap per Sq. Ft.
Very Low Income (50% AMI) $612 $255 $251
Low Income (65% AMI Rental/ 70% AMI Owner) $522 $184 $191 Moderate Income (90% AMI Rental)/ 110% AMI
Owner) $451 $42 $73
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
578
COMPARISON OF INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS IN SELECTED BAY AREA CITIES Figure 32 summarizes the inclusionary requirements for selected Bay Area cities outside of Marin County for the purposes of comparison. As shown, the cities all have inclusionary requirements on for-sale development projects ranging from a minimum of 5 percent in Oakland to 22 percent in San Francisco. The income targets for for-sale housing are typically low-income and moderateincome households.
For rental housing, the percentage requirement ranges from 5 percent in Oakland to 20 percent in San Francisco. Most of the jurisdictions require some proportion of very low-income units, along with low-income and moderate-income units.
San Francisco, San Jose, and Cupertino have lower requirements for small projects.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
579
FIGURE 32. INCLUSIONARY POLICIES FOR SELECT BAY AREA JURISDICTIONS Jurisdiction For-Sale Housing Rental Housing Fee Option Year Adopted/Updated Berkeley 20% affordable at or below 80% AMI. 20% must be affordable (10% at 80% AMI and 10% at 50% AMI).
For sale: In-lieu fee option (62.5% of
difference between affordable and
market price).
Rental: Affordable housing impact fee
$39,716 per market-rate unit.
2020
Oakland 5% at 50% AMI or 10% at 80% AMI or 10%
at 120% AMI.
5% at 50% AMI or 10% at 80% AMI or
10% at 120% AMI. Fee permitted. 2016
San Francisco
Projects with 25+ units: 22% must be
affordable to 80%-110% AMI.
Projects with 10-24 units: 13% must be
affordable.
Projects with 25+ units: 20% must be
affordable to 55%-110% AMI.
Projects with 10-24 units: 13% must be
affordable to 55% AMI.
Fee permitted but with a higher
percentage requirement than building onsite. Smaller projects pay a lower fee.2017 San Jose
Projects with 20+ units must meet 15%
affordable set-aside at or below 120% AMI.
Smaller projects have lower percentage
requirements.
5% at 100% AMI, 5% at 60% AMI, and
5% at 50% AMI, or 10% at 30% AMI.
Smaller projects have lower percentage
requirements.
Fee permitted. 2021
Santa Cruz 20% must be affordable to households at
or 80% - 100% AMI.
20% must be affordable to households
at or below 80% AMI. On-site units encouraged. 2019
Palo Alto 15% must be affordable to households at
120% AMI or below. No on-site requirement for rental.
For sale: Fee permitted but developer
must demonstrate infeasibility of on-site
units.
Rental: Affordable housing impact fee
charged.
2012
Cupertino 15% must be affordable to 120% or 100%
AMI.
15% must be affordable to 120% or 80%
AMI.
Projects with 1-6 units may provide a unit
or pay a fee. For projects with 7 or more
units, requires City Council approval.
2012
Source: Urban Displacement Project, 2021; City of Berkeley, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
580
Recommendations
A number of considerations inform the decision to update the inclusionary requirements and the in-lieu fees, including market and feasibility factors, comparative policies in other jurisdictions, and the pros and cons of alternative means of compliance. Below is a summary of recommendations tailored for the Town of San Anselmo:
Establish inclusionary percentage requirement of 20 percent for for-sale and rental development projects. The Consultant Team recommends that the Town of San Anselmo establish an inclusionary requirement of 20 percent for for-sale and rental development projects, including single-family subdivisions, townhomes, and rental apartments. This percentage requirement is consistent with many other jurisdictions in the Bay Area. Once the policy has been in effect and the market has responded, the Town may wish to review the policy to determine whether a higher inclusionary requirement can be supported.
Establish income targets that are consistent with other Marin County jurisdictions. The Consultant Team recommends that the inclusionary policy include a mix of very low-, low- and moderateincome households for both for-sale and rental projects.
Establish flexible requirements for housing projects containing six or fewer units. According to the site analysis conducted by Opticos for the Objective Development Design Standards project, a large share of potential housing sites countywide are infill lots that could only accommodate small projects. These types of projects are more challenging to build than larger projects. To ensure they are financially feasible, the Consultant Team recommends that the Town of San Anselmo establish more flexible requirements for these types of projects, which could include:
• Allowing for a higher average income target, with a higher proportion of moderate-income units.
• Providing more flexibility on providing a combination of on-site units and payment of in-lieu fees.
• Allowing for the provision of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), with provisions to ensure that it is made available to renter households.
For ownership housing, designate a separate fee for single-family versus townhome condominium developments, and set the fee amount at the maximum level for each. This study establishes a maximum in-lieu fee of $377,042 for single-family subdivisions and a fee of $288,650 for condominium townhomes. Establishing a lower fee on townhome condominiums relative to singlefamily subdivisions recognizes that higher density ownership housing can be relatively more challenging to build.
For rental housing, establish an in-lieu fee amount below the maximum level to avoid inhibiting development. The maximum calculated fees of $422,760 are considerably higher than the fees in Marin County’s jurisdictions. A high fee would be a significant cost burden on rental projects, which do not command the same values as for-sale housing in San Anselmo. For this reason, the Consultant Team recommends that San Anselmo consider implementing a lower fee than the maximum calculated in-lieu fee on rental development.
Allow for land dedication and off-site converted units as an alternative means of compliance. Many jurisdictions allow for developers to comply with the inclusionary policy by dedicating land for offsite units or acquiring and converting existing housing units to deed-restricted housing. However, Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
581
conversion can result in the provision of units that are not comparable in quality or location to the market-rate development projects. Furthermore, it does not add to the overall supply of housing and burdens the jurisdiction with the cost of monitoring and compliance. The Consultant Team recommends that the Town of San Anselmo develop a policy that prioritizes on-site units, allowing for the payment of in-lieu fees or land dedication as the preferred alternatives. It is recommended that the off-site conversion option is permitted only if the converted units are of a similar quality and located within close proximity to the principal project.
Require for-sale development projects with on-site units to submit a plan for the ongoing maintenance of below-market rate units. According to Marin Housing, some for-sale condominium and townhome projects have not been able to adequately fund the maintenance and repair of below-market rate units. The Consultant Team recommends that the Town of San Anselmo require developers to provide a realistic plan for collecting sufficient reserves for the repair and maintenance of below-market rate units without compromising the affordability of those units.
Explore options for a countywide administration program for inclusionary units. Establishing and administering an inclusionary program requires staff to manage negotiations with developers to provide affordable units (on-site or off-site) in accordance with local requirements, monitor the resales/leasing of below-market rate units to qualified households, and ongoing administration.
Because there is often limited staffing capacity in-house, the Consultant Team recommends that the participating jurisdictions investigate the potential to partner with a non-profit to provide these services. Some cities charge property owners a small administrative fee to help offset the costs of monitoring and compliance.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
582
Appendix A
The Consultant Team spoke with a range of stakeholders for this report, including market-rate housing developers, affordable housing developers, affordable housing advocates, Marin housing authority staff, and local community land trusts. Stakeholders that participated in either one-onone interviews with the Consultant Team, or in developer forums, both of which helped inform this report, are listed below in Figure 33.
FIGURE 33. LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED FOR STUDY
Name Organization/ Affiliation
Judith Bloomberg Marin Organizing Committee
Arianne Dar Bolinas Community Land Trust
Todd David Housing Action Committee
Justin Derby Meritage Homes
Bruce Dorfman Thompson Dorfman
Aaron Eckhouse California YIMBY
Michael Hooper Campus Property Group
Larry Kennings Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative Stacey Laumann Community Land Trust of West Marin
Marianne Lim EAH Housing
Stephanie Lovette Marin Housing Authority
Linda Mandolini Eden Housing
Tom Monahan Monahan Parker Development
Wick Polite Seagate Properties
Kiki La Porta Coalition for a Livable Marin
Phil Richardson Individual developer
Suzanne Sadowsky San Geronimo Valley Affordable Housing Association Carmen Soruco Marin Housing Authority
Mary Kay Sweeney Homeward Bound
Joanne Webster
Housing Crisis Action Group, San Rafael Chamber of
Commerce
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.
Item #3B- Attachment 2
Item #3B- Attachment 2
583
MEMORANDUM
To: Heidi Scoble, Town of San Anselmo
From: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates Date: February 18, 2023
Project: Marin Inclusionary Study
Subject: Commercial Linkage Fee Study
I. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
Purpose and Background
The County of Marin, along with six of the jurisdictions within the County, are collaborating on a regional effort to implement or update existing affordable housing policy tools, namely inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage fees. Some of the jurisdictions currently have inclusionary zoning and/or commercial linkage fee programs they intend to review and update as necessary, while others are establishing new programs. Together, the seven jurisdictions have retained Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates (the Consultant Team) to study and offer recommendations for both these policies.
This memo fulfills Task 4 of the study, which includes an analysis of commercial linkage fees in the seven participating jurisdictions. Currently, three of the seven jurisdictions charge commercial linkage fees, while the remaining four may enact fees based on the results of this study. A commercial linkage fee is a type of impact fee that charges new commercial development for its role in creating new demand for affordable housing. It is based on the finding of a “rational nexus” between the new employment created by commercial development, and the accompanying need for affordable housing for new worker households. There are two main parts to the analysis:
1. The nexus analysis establishes the linkage between new jobs and the needed affordable housing.
2. The affordability gap analysis quantifies the shortfall between what employee households can afford and what new housing costs to build. The affordability gap analysis was performed as part of the In-lieu Fee Study (Task 3) and is summarized in Section IV of this report.
The results of the nexus findings and the affordability gap analysis establish the maximum fees that can be charged on new development projects.
It is important to note that the analysis relies on occupational wage data from the California Employment Development Department collected in December 2019. It does not capture the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on local employment and wages since then.
Item #3B- Attachment 3 Item #3B- Attachment 3
584
The Nexus Concept
Many commercial developments are associated with jobs that pay wages that are insufficient to afford local housing costs. A nexus study determines the justifiable commercial linkage fee that might be charged on development based on the need for affordable housing that new development projects create. To establish this relationship, a nexus analysis quantifies any increase in demand for affordable housing that accompanies new commercial development, and the additional funding required to address the uptick in demand. The increase in demand is a result of the net gain in employment directly attributable to the new commercial space that is built.
The magnitude of the nexus, and hence the maximum justifiable fee, depends on the number and types of jobs created and the prevailing cost of providing housing for the new worker households. The ability of the new workers to pay for housing costs is linked to their occupations (and hence salaries).
Some of the new workers will have household incomes below the market prices for new homes and would qualify for income-restricted affordable housing. This study quantifies the demand for housing created at several household income levels and estimates the “affordability gap” between what worker households can afford to pay (to rent or to buy) and the actual costs of building new housing.
Methodology and Report Organization
To perform the nexus analysis, the Consultant Team used an established methodology described below to calculate the relationship between new commercial development and household incomes of employees, which then determines the employees' need for affordable housing. These steps provide the rationale for calculating the maximum justified commercial linkage fee that could be levied on commercial development. An overview of the methodology and contents of the report is provided below. There are ten steps to calculate the maximum nexus fees, which are covered in Section II, Section III, and Section IV of this report. However, most jurisdictions do not implement the maximum fee levels. There are multiple policy considerations that are taken into account, including market factors, the commercial linkage fees enacted in other similar communities, and the potential impact on development. These policy issues are discussed in Section V followed by recommendations for setting or updating the fee levels. Finally, Section VI outlines the fee proposal to be taken up by the jurisdictions based upon this study and follow-up collaboration with planning staff in the jurisdictions.
To satisfy the requirements of recently passed state legislation (AB 602), this section provides further justification on the specific fee proposal under consideration.
STEPS 1-6: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE NEXUS ANALYSIS (SEE SECTION II) Step 1. Define commercial “land use prototypes” that represent broad categories of new commercial development in Marin County.
The purpose of defining prototypes is to estimate future employment linked to various categories of commercial space. The land use prototypes are used to estimate the amount of employment generated from commercial development in the county. Three land use prototypes were selected for the nexus analysis, based on common categories of commercial development in Marin County: 1) Office, R&D, and medical office uses; 2) Retail, restaurants, and services; and 3) Hotel.
Each land use prototype is assumed to be 100,000 square feet in floor area. This number was chosen not because it is necessarily typical of new commercial development, but rather as a round number to Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
585
simplify the calculations in the steps below. (In Section IV, more typical prototypes are designated to evaluate feasibility.)
Step 2. Estimate the number of workers that will work in the new commercial space.
The Consultant Team estimated the employment density for each prototype based on national survey data on employment density for commercial land uses and other sources. The employment density is expressed as the number of square feet of building area per worker.1 For example, a building prototype of 100,000 sf and employing 100 workers would have an employment density of 100,000 / 100 = 1,000 square feet per worker.
Step 3. Estimate the number of new households represented by these new workers.
Since there are multiple wage earners in a household, the number of new workers must be translated into a number of households. This adjustment is based on the average number of wage-earners per worker household for Marin County (1.60), estimated from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015-2019.
Step 4. Estimate wages of new workers.
The first step in calculating employee wages is to identify industries that are typically associated with each prototype. Using industry data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), industries were identified that are associated with each land use category. The next step is to identify all the occupations that are associated with each industry based on data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The national BLS occupational matrix is then calibrated to match the county’s employment mix by weighting the national employment distribution to reflect the distribution of employment by industry within Marin County. Finally, the average wage by worker is calculated using data on average annual wages by occupation in the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley Metropolitan Statistical Area from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Step 5. Estimate household income of worker households.
Worker wage estimates from the previous step are then converted to household incomes. This step assumes that the income of the second wage-earner is similar to the wage of the first wage-earner.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015-2019, there are 1.60 wage-earners per worker household in Marin County. Individual worker wages are therefore multiplied by 1.60 to represent household incomes.
Step 6. Calculate the number of households that would be eligible for affordable housing divided into relevant income categories.
The average household size in Marin is 2.4 persons, based on the US Census, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015-2019. Because household income tables are organized by whole numbers, the average household size was rounded down to 2 persons. Thus, the income groups are defined for a household size of two persons and based on standard household income categories used 1 The analysis takes into account the effects of physical distancing and remote work on employment density by estimating slightly higher assumptions of square feet per employee in office/R&D buildings than were typical before the COVID-19 pandemic.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
586
in California. The income categories analyzed include very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.2
STEPS 7-9: CALCULATION OF THE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY GAP (SEE SECTION III) The affordability gap represents the difference between what households can afford to pay for housing and the development cost of new housing. As part of the In-lieu Fee Study Calculation memo already submitted to participating jurisdictions, the Consultant Team analyzed the affordability gap of new rental and for-sale housing units. The In-lieu Fee Study identified the affordability gap for one rental prototype (rental stacked flats) and two for-sale housing prototypes (condo townhomes and singlefamily subdivision units) for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The affordability gap findings of this previous analysis were applicable here because the household incomes of new worker households identified in Step 5 align with the household income categories that were considered in that analysis. The steps below describe how the affordability gap analysis from the In-lieu Fee Study was adapted for this analysis.
Step 7. Estimate affordable rents and housing prices for households in the targeted income groups.
As part of the In-lieu Fee Study, the affordable rent levels and for-sale housing prices were estimated for each of the worker household income categories described above. Households with incomes in the very low-income range are assumed to occupy rental housing. Households in the low- and moderateincome ranges are assumed to require a combination of rental and for-sale housing. The respective rents and sales prices that are affordable to these households were based on the income limits used by the Marin Housing Authority and the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Step 8. Estimate the development cost of new housing.
As part of the In-lieu Fee Study, the Consultant Team estimated the typical development costs of new units in rental apartment, townhome condo, and single family subdivision developments.
Step 9. Calculate the affordability gap.
The affordability gap is calculated for each of the three income categories. Very low-income households are assumed to be renters, so the affordability gap is the difference between the cost of developing new rental housing and what those households can afford to pay, based on the gap for the rental prototype analyzed in the In-lieu Fee Study. Since low-income and moderate-income households are expected to include a mix of renters and homeowners, the overall gap per household for these income categories is calculated as the average of the three affordability gaps for all three housing types that were considered in the In-lieu Fee Study.
To estimate the total affordability gap for each commercial land use prototype, the total number of very low-, low-, and moderate-income new worker households for each prototype is multiplied by the corresponding affordable housing gap figure.
2 The occupation and wage analysis found no extremely low-income households. These households are defined as earning less than 30 percent of area median income and do not typically earn wages from permanent employment.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
587
STEP 10: CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM LINKAGE FEES (SEE SECTION IV) Step 10. Calculate maximum justifiable commercial linkage fees for each prototype.
For each category of land use, the maximum fee per square foot is the total affordability gap calculated in Step 9 divided by the floor area of the land use prototype (100,000 square feet for each).
MARKET FACTORS, FEASIBILITY, AND OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS (SECTION V) This section of this report contains a discussion and analysis of policy considerations jurisdictions should review before enacting a commercial linkage fee. Typically, a commercial linkage fee is set at a level significantly below the maximum justifiable fee determined in the nexus study. Thus, considerations for setting appropriate fee levels include the impact of fees on the total development costs of typical commercial projects. Jurisdictions will also want to be cognizant of similar linkage fees charged in nearby or comparable cities as well as the amount the commercial linkage fee will raise their existing municipal fees. To facilitate an analysis of these considerations, the Consultant Team created a set of illustrative “fee scenarios” to highlight the fees’ impact on development costs and the existing set of municipal fees for each jurisdiction. These fee scenarios were tested on three development prototypes representative of the three commercial land uses that were evaluated in the nexus study. These “feasibility prototypes” were created based on recent and proposed commercial development projects in Marin County, and in consultation with local developers. Following this analysis is a section with recommendations for setting the fees, as well as a brief analysis of the potential revenues that could be generated by implementing the fee recommendations.
UNIFIED FEE PROPOSAL AND FULFILLING STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADOPTION (SECTION VI) The final section of the report considers the commercial linkage fee program to be formally proposed by the seven jurisdictions based on the recommendations in Section V. To establish more consistency and uniformity across jurisdictions, each of the jurisdictions plans to propose the same schedule of fees in their respective communities. The section first includes an overview of the fees in comparison to the linkage fees currently in place in some of the jurisdictions. Based on the unified fee proposal, Strategic Economics estimated the potential affordable housing revenues that could be raised over a five year period. Strategic Economics also performed further analysis on the unified fee proposal to fulfill the requirements of recently passed state legislation (AB 602) relating to impact fees imposed on new development. As required by AB 602, Strategic Economics summarized the revenues collected from each of the three existing fee programs and provided a justification for the new level of service advanced by the new fee program. Finally, the section concludes with a discussion of the purpose of these fees and the role of new commercial development to contribute to funding affordable housing in Marin County.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
588
II. COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE NEXUS ANALYSIS
This section describes each step of the nexus analysis in detail, including Steps 1 through 6 outlined in the previous section.
Step 1: Commercial Prototypes
This study examined the jobs-housing linkage for three commercial land use prototypes, which are described below. These prototypes were selected because they are the most common categories of commercial development in Marin County, based on a review of recently built, planned, and proposed projects.3
1. Office/ R&D/ Medical Office: Includes professional and business services offices, medical/dental office, and research and development.
2. Retail/Restaurants/Services: Includes retail stores, eating and drinking places (cafes, restaurants, bars, etc.), and personal and financial services such as salons, drycleaners, retail banks.
3. Hotel: Includes full-service hotels, limited-service hotels, motels, and other lodging.
The nexus analysis is calculated based on a 100,000 square foot building, but the actual development projects that are likely to occur in Marin will be smaller. 4 Since the fee is calculated on a per-squarefoot basis, the fee would be proportional to the size of the development project.
Step 2: Number of Workers
For each building prototype, an average employment density was applied based on a combination of national survey data for existing commercial buildings and a review of other recently completed linkage fee nexus studies. Figure 1 summarizes the available research on employment density by building type that formed the basis for establishing average employment density assumptions for the nexus model.
Figure 2 shows the assumptions on worker density for each commercial land use prototype, measured by the average number of square feet per worker. A lower number of square feet per worker implies a higher worker density, which leads to a higher estimate of worker households. For each prototype, the Consultant Team selected an employee density number in the middle of the range; this is a more conservative approach to avoid overestimating the maximum linkage fee amount. The density factors represent the average density for the prototypes; individual projects and buildings may have a greater or lower worker density than the average.
The employee density factor is multiplied by the prototype’s floor area (100,000 square feet) to calculate the total number of workers in each commercial prototype. The density assumption is used to generate the total number of direct workers occupying the commercial space in each prototype. 3 Some commercial developments will lie outside the three major categories of land use analyzed in this study. Examples of such land uses include industrial projects, assisted living facilities, and child care centers. Jurisdictions may still charge a commercial linkage fee on these land uses provided the applicant for development supplies estimates of jobs and wages that accompany the new development. 4 Section V contains financial feasibility testing on a more detailed set of prototypes that would be typical of new development in Marin County. These feasibility prototypes vary in size and contain additional details such as parking, number of floors, and land area.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
589
• Office/Medical Office/R&D. The average density assumption for office is 375 square feet per worker. This is a blended average that represents a combination of business office spaces (estimated to be approximately 300 square feet per worker in the Bay Area), nonprofit offices, medical office, (typically estimated at approximately 500 square feet per worker) and R&D, (approximately 350 square feet per worker).5 Note that there are limited sources on R&D employee density, so the R&D density assumption is based on qualitative research from previous work in the Bay Area conducted by the Consultant Team. • Retail/Restaurants/Services. Worker density varies widely for this category depending on the specific use (food service, grocery stores, dry goods retail, and services all have different average densities). Worker densities are typically higher for independent retailers and tenants in smaller-scale neighborhood centers and urban locations than in large-scale big box retail (around 600 square feet per worker). For this reason, Strategic Economics used a slightly higher density number of 450 square feet per worker.
• Hotel. The average employment density assumption for visitor accommodations is 0.70 workers per room (or approximately 880 square feet per worker).6 This density is consistent with the Vallen and Vallen estimate for select service mid-scale hotels, which are in between full-service “luxury” properties and economy properties. Select service hotels are typical of new development in Marin.
5 In the last decade, there has been a trend towards an increasing density of workers (225-250 square feet per worker) occupying open format office spaces. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that the trend may be reversing as firms implement measures to create more physical distancing and allow employees to work from home. For this reason, the Consultant Team used a density number for business office that represents a return to conventional office spaces rather than open layouts. 6 The assumption of 880 square feet per worker for visitor accommodations assumes an average 0.70 workers per hotel room and an average room size of 615 square feet of gross building area per room.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
590
FIGURE 1. EMPLOYMENT DENSITY DATA AND SOURCES
Employee Density Figure Source
Visitor Accommodations
1.5 workers per full-service (luxury) hotel room Vallen and Vallen, "Chapter 1: The Traditional Hotel Industry," Check-In, Check-Out, 2012
0.5 to 1.0 workers per room for "in-between" hotels Vallen and Vallen, "Chapter 1: The Traditional Hotel Industry," Check-In, Check-Out, 2012 As few as 0.25 workers per room for "budget" hotels Vallen and Vallen, "Chapter 1: The Traditional Hotel Industry," Check-In, Check-Out, 2012 Retail
605 square feet per worker A.C. Nelson, "Reshaping Metropolitan America" (based on calculations from EIA survey) 368 square feet per worker "San Francisco Jobs Housing Nexus Analysis", Keyser Marston Associates, 2019 400 square feet per worker Study Session: City of Emeryville Impact Fees, Helen Bean, Director, Economic Development and Housing Department, 2014.
Office
306 square feet per worker Building Owners and Managers Association Survey, 2012 434 square feet per worker Energy Information Administration, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, Rev. 2006 300 square feet per worker A.C. Nelson, "Reshaping Metropolitan America," 2013 250-350 square feet per worker San Mateo County Housing Needs Study, Economic & Planning Systems, 2006 300 square feet per worker Jobs Housing Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study: City of Napa, CA, Vernazza Wolfe Associates Inc., 2011 312.5 square feet per worker Housing Impact Fee Nexus Study: Mountain View, CA, KMA, 2012 Medical Office
484 square feet per worker for outpatient care Energy Information Administration, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Building Characteristics Tables, Revised June 2006;
513 square feet per worker for inpatient care Energy Information Administration, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Building Characteristics Tables, Revised June 2006;
Note: Many studies of worker density are older. Because information on worker densities is not collected by any public agency, estimates must rely on other studies, which are not routinely done.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
591
FIGURE 2. EMPLOYMENT DENSITY BY PROTOTYPE
Commercial Prototype Prototype Size Average Worker Density Number of Workers in
Prototype
Office/Medical Office/R&D 100,000 sq. ft. 375 sq. ft. per worker 267 workers Retail/Restaurant/Services 100,000 sq. ft. 450 sq. ft. per worker 222 workers Hotel 100,000 sq. ft.;
163 rooms*
880 sq. ft. per worker;
0.70 workers per room
114 workers
* Assumes the gross building area is 615 square feet per room.
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Step 3: Number of Worker Households
Based on the total number of workers directly employed in the prototypes, the Consultant Team estimated the total number of worker households. The number of worker households is calculated by dividing the number of workers by the average number of wage-earners per household in Marin County. Based on data from the U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015- 2019, there is an average of 1.60 workers per household in Marin. The calculation of total new worker households is shown in Figure 3 below, ranging from 71 for hotel to 167 for office.
FIGURE 3. NUMBER OF WORKER HOUSEHOLDS BY PROTOTYPE
Commercial Prototype
Number of New
Workers
Workers per
Household
Number of New
Worker Households
Office/ Medical Office/ R&D 267 1.60 167
Retail/Restaurant/Services 222 1.60 139
Hotel 114 1.60 71
Sources: US Census, American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, 2015-2019; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Step 4: Worker Wages
The first step in calculating employee wages is to establish a list of the industries associated with each prototype (as defined by the North American Industry Classification System, or “NAICS”).
Using industry data from Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), industries were associated with each land use prototype. Figures 4 through 6 below list the industries associated with each prototype.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
592
FIGURE 4. DEFINITION OF INDUSTRIES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D PROTOTYPE NAICS Code Description
Percent Total Workers in
Prototype
5617 Services to buildings and dwellings 9.2%
5511 Management of companies and enterprises 8.8%
5415 Computer systems design and related services 6.5%
6214 Outpatient care centers 6.4%
5416 Management and technical consulting services 5.8%
6211 Offices of physicians 4.9%
6212 Offices of dentists 3.9%
5112 Software publishers 3.9%
5412 Accounting and bookkeeping services 3.9%
5313 Activities related to real estate 3.0%
5239 Other financial investment activities 3.0%
5413 Architectural and engineering services 2.9%
5611 Office administrative services 2.9%
5411 Legal services 2.7%
5221 Depository credit intermediation 2.3%
5311 Lessors of real estate 2.1%
5613 Employment services 2.1%
8133 Social advocacy organizations 2.0%
5419 Other professional and technical services 1.8%
8134 Civic and social organizations 1.7%
6213 Offices of other health practitioners 1.7%
5616 Investigation and security services 1.6%
5418 Advertising, pr, and related services 1.5%
5242 Insurance agencies and brokerages 1.4%
5619 Other support services 1.2%
5312 Offices of real estate agents and brokers 1.2%
5417 Scientific research and development services 1.1%
5111 Newspaper, book, and directory publishers 1.0%
5414 Specialized design services 1.0%
5231 Securities and commodity contracts brokerage 0.9%
5222 Nondepository credit intermediation 0.9%
6117 Educational support services 0.8%
8139 Professional and similar organizations 0.8%
3345 Electronic instrument manufacturing 0.7%
8132 Grantmaking and giving services 0.7%
5223 Activities related to credit intermediation 0.7%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
593
FIGURE 4. DEFINITION OF INDUSTRIES FOR OFFICE/ MEDICAL OFFICE/ R&D PROTOTYPE, CONTINUED NAICS Code Description
Percent Total Workers in
Prototype
5615 Travel arrangement and reservation services 0.7%
6114 Business, computer and management training 0.4%
5241 Insurance carriers 0.4%
5182 Data processing, hosting and related services 0.4% 5191 Other information services 0.3%
5173
Wired and wireless telecommunications
carriers 0.3%
7114 Agents and managers for public figures 0.2%
7113 Promoters of performing arts and sports 0.1%
5122 Sound recording industries 0.1%
3391
Medical equipment and supplies
manufacturing 0.1%
3344 Semiconductor and electronic component mfg. 0.02%
Total 100%
Source: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
594
FIGURE 5. DEFINITION OF INDUSTRIES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANTS/SERVICES PROTOTYPE NAICS Code Description
Percent Total Workers in
Prototype
7225 Restaurants and other eating places 38.6%
4451 Grocery stores 13.3%
4411 Automobile dealers 4.5%
4533 Used merchandise stores 3.7%
4441 Building material and supplies dealers 3.2%
8121 Personal care services 3.2%
4481 Clothing stores 3.1%
4422 Home furnishings stores 2.9%
4522 Department stores 2.9%
4461 Health and personal care stores 2.9%
4523
General merchandise stores, including warehouse
clubs and supercenters 2.6%
4511 Sporting goods and musical instrument stores 2.3%
5121 Motion picture and video industries 1.6%
7223 Special food services 1.6%
8129 Other personal services 1.6%
4431 Electronics and appliance stores 1.5%
4471 Gasoline stations 1.3%
4539 Other miscellaneous store retailers 1.2%
8123 Drycleaning and laundry services 1.1%
4541 Electronic shopping and mail-order houses 0.8%
4413 Auto parts, accessories, and tire stores 0.8%
4452 Specialty food stores 0.7%
4532 Office supplies, stationery, and gift stores 0.6%
4512 Book stores and news dealers 0.5%
4421 Furniture stores 0.5%
7224 Drinking places, alcoholic beverages 0.5%
5321 Automotive equipment rental and leasing 0.5%
4442 Lawn and garden equipment and supplies stores 0.3% 4453 Beer, wine, and liquor stores 0.3%
4482 Shoe stores 0.3%
5322 Consumer goods rental 0.3%
4483 Jewelry, luggage, and leather goods stores 0.2%
4412 Other motor vehicle dealers 0.2%
8122 Death care services 0.2%
4531 Florists 0.1%
4542 Vending machine operators 0.02%
4543 Direct selling establishments 0.02%
Total 100%
Source: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
595
FIGURE 6. DEFINITION OF INDUSTRIES FOR HOTEL PROTOTYPE
NAICS Code Description Percent Total Workers in Prototype 7211 Traveler accommodation 100%
* Note: Unlike other prototypes, the visitor accommodations prototype only includes one NAICS industry category.
Source: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019; Strategic Economics, 2020.
The next step is to identify all the occupations that are associated with each industry based on data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The best available data is at the national level; state level industry-occupation data exist but do not include all relevant industries. The national BLS occupational matrix is calibrated to match the county’s employment mix by weighting the national employment distribution to reflect the distribution of employment by industry within Marin County. Finally, the average wage by worker is calculated using data on average annual wages by occupation in the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley Metropolitan Statistical Area (the smallest geographic level at which wage data are available) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Figure 7 below summarizes the results of these calculations, computing the average weighted wages7 for each prototype. As shown, office/medical office/R&D employees have the highest average wage of the three prototypes, reflecting a greater mix of higher salary occupations in that use. The lowest average annual wages are in the retail/restaurants/services category. Due to the level of detail associated with the data on occupational wages, the full occupation mix in each land use prototype are shown in Figures 35 through 37 at the end of this report.
FIGURE 7. AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGE BY PROTOTYPE
Commercial Prototype Weighted Average Annual Wage (a)
Office/Medical Office/R&D $85,441
Retail/Restaurant/Services $37,493
Hotel $46,473
(a) Average wages are weighted to account for the proportion of jobs in each occupational wage category.
Source: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019; United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, 2019; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021. 7 The weighted average wage accounts for the proportion of jobs in each occupational category.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
596
Step 5: Household Incomes
Based on the employee wage calculations discussed above, household incomes are estimated for each land use prototype. As a standard assumption for nexus studies, the average worker wage is multiplied by the number of wage-earners per household to calculate the annual household income. According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015-2019, the average number of wage-earners per household in Marin County is 1.6. The average annual wage per employee within each occupation was multiplied by 1.6 to determine annual average household income.
Step 6: Household Income Categories
Employee households are then categorized as extremely low-, very low-, low-, moderate-, or above moderate-income based on standard income definitions based on percentage of Area Median Income (AMI).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015-2019, the average household size in Marin County is 2.4. To reference the available income tables, this has been rounded to 2, the nearest whole number. The income categories for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, are therefore based on the household size of two persons, using the income thresholds shown in Figure 8.8 Note that this analysis uses 2020 income thresholds to match up with the affordability gap calculations which were also based on 2020 income figures.
FIGURE 8. AMI LEVELS FOR 2-PERSON HOUSEHOLDS IN MARIN COUNTY, 2020 Income Category Maximum Income
Area Median Income (100% AMI) $114,500
Extremely Low-income (<30% AMI) $34,350
Very Low-income (31-50% AMI) $57,250
Low-income (51-80% AMI) $91,600
Moderate-income (81-120% AMI) $137,400
Source: Marin Housing Authority, 2020. Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Using the income categories described above, the new worker households were sorted into income groups. As shown in Figure 9 below, the distribution of workers within each income group varies markedly between the prototypes. The majority of employment in retail/restaurants/services is in the very low-income group, while the majority of hotel workers are in the low-income group.
Employment in office/medical office/R&D tends to be distributed more in the higher income groups. According to the results of this analysis, the primary affordable housing need associated with these prototypes is at the very low-income, low-income, and moderate-income levels. While the results of this analysis did not demonstrate demand from extremely low-income worker 8 Rounding to two persons per household is a conservative estimate. Using a larger household size assumption would result in a higher maximum commercial linkage fee calculation.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
597
households associated with new commercial development, it is understood that there are worker households in Marin County that require extremely low-income housing.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
598
FIGURE 9. NUMBER OF WORKER HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME CATEGORY Land Use Number of Worker
Households
Percent of Workers
In Prototype
Office/Medical Office/R&D
Extremely Low (<=30% AMI) (a) 0 0%
Very Low-income (31-50% AMI) 4 2%
Low-income (51-80% AMI) 67 40%
Moderate-income (81-120% AMI) 26 16%
Above 120% AMI (b) 69 42%
Total Households Requiring Affordable Housing 97 100%
Total Households 166
Retail/Restaurants/ Services
Extremely Low (<=30% AMI) (a) 0 0%
Very Low-income (31-50% AMI) 74 53%
Low-income (51-80% AMI) 59 42%
Moderate-income (81-120% AMI) 4 3%
Above 120% AMI (b) 2 1%
Total Households Requiring Affordable Housing 137 100%
Total 139
Hotel
Extremely Low (<=30% AMI) (a) 0 0%
Very Low-income (31-50% AMI) 14 19%
Low-income (51-80% AMI) 49 69%
Moderate-income (81-120% AMI) 4 6%
Above 120% AMI (b) 4 6%
Total Households Requiring Affordable Housing 67 100%
Total 71
Notes:
(a) The methodology used to estimate worker household incomes relies on identifying the weighted averages of a large number of occupations present in each land use prototype. According to the results of this analysis, the primary affordable housing need associated with these prototypes is at the very low-income, low-income, and moderate-income levels. While this methodology does not estimate demand from extremely low-income worker households associated with new commercial development, it is understood that there are worker households in Marin County that require extremely low-income housing. (b) Worker households earning above 120% AMI are expected to be able to afford market-rate rental or ownership housing, and therefore they are not incorporated in the affordability gap calculation.
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
599
III. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY GAP
This section summarizes the approach to calculating the housing affordability gap and the results of the analysis (steps 7, 8 and 9). The steps outlined here draw upon a previous estimation of affordability gaps in the In-lieu Fee Study. A more detailed explanation of the methodology and assumptions for the affordability gap calculation can be found in that study (“Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation”).
Methodology
The housing affordability gap is defined as the difference between what very low-, low-, and moderate-income households can afford to pay for housing and the development cost of building new housing units.9 From the nexus methodology section at the beginning of this report, calculating the housing affordability gap involves the following steps 7 through 9:
7. Estimating affordable rents and housing prices for households in the targeted income groups.
8. Estimating development costs of building new housing units, based on current cost and market data.
9. Calculating the difference between what renters and owners can afford to pay for housing and the cost of development of rental and ownership units to arrive at the “affordability gap.”
Step 7: Estimating Affordable Rents and Sales Prices
The first step in calculating the housing affordability gap is to determine the amount that households at the targeted income levels can afford to pay for housing. As introduced in Step 6, for eligibility purposes, most affordable housing programs define very low-income households as those earning 31 to 50 percent of area median income (AMI), low-income households as those earning between 51 and 80 percent of AMI, and moderate-income households as those earning between 81 and 120 percent of AMI.10
Households with incomes in the very low range are assumed to live in rental housing. Households in the low and moderate ranges are assumed to live in a mix of rental and ownership housing.
While the nexus analysis identified some new worker households that would fall above the moderate-income range (above 120 percent of AMI), the Consultant Team did not calculate an affordability gap for this group because it is expected they would find housing at market rates. 9 As shown in the previous section, there are no households created by commercial development in the extremely low-income range (zero to 30 percent of AMI).
10 Drawing on the In-lieu Fee Study, very low-income households were assumed to be at 50% AMI; Low-income households were assumed to be at 70% AMI for ownership housing and 65% AMI for rental housing. Moderate-income households were assumed to be at 110% AMI for ownership housing and 90% AMI for rental housing.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
600
Figure 10 shows the maximum monthly rents and supportable debt for rental housing, as determined by the In-lieu Fee study. Renters are assumed to pay a maximum of 30 percent of their gross monthly income on total housing costs for the housing to be considered “affordable”. The maximum rent is then identified after deducting utility costs from monthly income. It is assumed that one-to-three person households occupy these units. In order to calculate the affordability gap, the affordable rents were converted to supportable debt. The supportable debt represents the onetime value of the rental revenue stream, incorporating assumptions about operating expenses, reserves, vacancy and collection loss, and mortgage terms.
FIGURE 10. AFFORDABLE RENTS AND SUPPORTABLE DEBT BY UNIT TYPE Studio 1-BR 2-BR Weighted Average (a)
Maximum Affordable Rents
Very Low-income (50%) $1,209 $1,379 $1,539 $1,426
Low-income (65%) $1,584 $1,809 $2,022 $1,872
Moderate-income (90%) $2,210 $2,524 $2,827 $2,614
Supportable Debt
Very Low-income (50%) $39,393 $66,904 $92,699 $74,471
Low-income (65%) $100,036 $136,236 $170,691 $146,398
Moderate-income (90%) $153,206 $191,816 $229,058 $202,852 Notes:
(a) The weighted average incorporates a unit mix assumption of 50% 1-bedrooms, 40% 2-bedrooms, and 10% studio units.
Source: Marin Housing Authority, 2020; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Figure 11 shows the maximum sales prices for homeowners, as determined by the In-lieu Fee Study. Homeowners are assumed to pay a maximum of 33 percent of gross monthly income on total housing costs. The maximum affordable price for for-sale housing is then calculated based on the total monthly mortgage payment that a homeowner could afford, using typical mortgage loan assumptions for income-restricted ownership housing, as well as other housing cost assumptions such as homeowner’s association (HOA) fees.11 It is assumed that four-to-six person households occupy these units. Due to varying HOA costs, the maximum sales price varies slightly between the two ownership prototypes, condominium townhomes and single-family subdivision units.
11 The housing cost assumptions for homeowners are based on correspondence with the Marin Housing Authority. It is assumed the homeowner pays a 5% downpayment, and their mortgage is 30-year fixed rate, with an interest rate of 3.8%. Other annual housing costs include: 1) Homeowner’s insurance costing 0.28% of the sales price; 2) Property tax rate of 1.5% the sales price; 3) Private mortgage insurance premium rate of 0.85% the amount financed; 4) Interior property insurance of $1,200; and 5) homeowner’s association fees of $0.35 per square foot for condominium units and $0.25 for single-family units.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
601
FIGURE 11. AFFORDABLE SALES PRICES BY UNIT TYPE
Condo Townhome Single-Family Subdivision
3-BR 4-BR
Weighted
Average (a) 3-BR 4-BR
Weighted
Average (a)
Low-income
(70%) $326,986 $369,293 $341,089 $344,076 $379,167 $361,622 Moderateincome (110%) $572,582 $643,220 $596,128 $589,581 $653,042 $621,311 Notes:
(a) The weighted average for the condo townhome assumes a unit mix of 66% three-bedrooms units and 33% four-bedroom units. For the single-family subdivision, it is assumed half of the units have three bedrooms and half have four bedrooms.
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Step 8: Estimating Housing Development Costs
The next step in calculating the housing affordability gap is to estimate the cost of developing new housing units to address the housing need. As part of the In-lieu Fee Study, the Consultant Team estimated development costs for three prototypes: a single-family subdivision, a development of condominium townhomes, and a rental apartment development. The estimated development costs of those prototypes are shown below in Figure 12.
FIGURE 12. TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS BY PROTOTYPE
Cost Category
Single Family
Subdivision
Condominium
Townhome
Rental
Apartments
Per Unit
Land Cost $350,000 $200,000 $75,000
Hard Costs $335,343 $371,640 $382,228
Soft Costs $96,028 $100,057 $106,605
Development Costs $781,371 $671,697 $563,833
Per Net Residential Sq. Ft.
Land Cost $159 $111 $94
Hard Cost $152 $206 $478
Soft Costs $44 $56 $133
Development Costs $355 $373 $705
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Step 9: Calculating the Housing Affordability Gap
The final step is to calculate the housing affordability gap, or the difference between what renters and owners can afford to pay and the total cost of developing new units. The purpose of the housing affordability gap calculation is to help determine the fee amount that would be necessary to cover the cost of developing housing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The calculation does not assume the availability of any other source of housing subsidy because not all housing is built with public subsidies, and tax credits and tax-exempt bond financing are highly competitive programs that will not always be available to developers of modest housing units.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
602
Figures 13 and 14 shows the housing affordability gap calculation for the rental prototype and the two ownership prototypes respectively.
• For the rental prototype, the gap is defined as the difference between the per-unit cost of development and the supportable debt per unit. The supportable debt is calculated based on the net operating income generated by an affordable monthly rent, incorporating assumptions about operating expenses (including property taxes, insurance, etc.), reserves, vacancy and collection loss, and mortgage terms. • For the ownership housing prototypes, the gap is calculated as the difference between the per-unit cost of development and the affordable sales price for each income level. To calculate the maximum affordable sales price, Strategic Economics relied on the approach used by Marin Housing Authority for local affordable housing homeownership programs.
The mortgage is assumed to be 30-year fixed rate, with an interest rate of 3.8 percent, which is a typical rate at the time of research (December 2020). The owner is assumed to put down a five percent down payment, which is standard for conventional and CalFHA loans. Other monthly housing costs include homeowners’ association dues, property taxes, homeowners’ insurance, interior property insurance, and premiums for private mortgage insurance.
Note that for each prototype, the gaps shown for each income level are the weighted average of the specific gaps for each unit type in the prototype.
The average affordability gap for each income group was then calculated by averaging the affordability gaps for each prototype, shown in Figure 15. Since it is assumed that all households in the very low-income group are renters, the average affordability gap is simply the rental gap.
For more explanation, see the In-lieu Fee Study.
FIGURE 13. AFFORDABILITY GAP CALCULATION FOR RENTAL HOUSING BY INCOME GROUP Supportable Debt (a)
Development Costs
(b) Affordability Gap (c)
Very Low-income (50%) $74,471 $564,000 $489,529
Low-income (65%) $146,398 $564,000 $417,602
Moderate-income (90%) $202,852 $564,000 $361,148
Notes:
(a) Calculated as net operating income generated by an affordable monthly rent, incorporating assumptions about operating expenses, reserves, vacancy and collection loss, and mortgage terms. (b) Assumes development cost of $705 per net square foot on rental units. (c) Calculated as the difference between development costs and supportable debt.
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
603
FIGURE 14. AFFORDABILITY GAP CALCULATION FOR OWNERSHIP HOUSING BY INCOME GROUP Affordable Sales Price (a)
Development
Cost (b) Affordability Gap (c)
Condo Townhome
Low-income (70%) $341,089 $671,697 $330,608
Moderate-income (110%) $596,128 $671,697 $75,568
Single-family Subdivision
Low-income (70%) $361,622 $781,371 $419,749
Moderate-income (110%) $621,311 $781,371 $160,060
Notes:
(a) Based on affordable sales prices identified in Figure 14, this is the weighted average affordable sales price, incorporating the prototypes’ overall unit mix.
(b) Assumes a development cost of $373 per square foot for the condo townhome, and $355 per square foot for the single-family subdivision.
(c) Calculated as the difference between the affordable sales price and development cost.
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
FIGURE 15: AVERAGE AFFORDABILITY GAP FOR VERY LOW-, LOW-, AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS Income Level Rental Gap
Ownership
Gap
Townhome
Ownership
Gap SF
Subdivision
Average
Affordability
Gap
Very Low-income (50% AMI) $489,529 N/A N/A $489,529
Low-income (65% AMI Rental / 70% Owner) $417,602 $330,608 $419,749 $389,320 Moderate-income (90% AMI Rental / 110%
AMI Owner) $361,148 $75,568 $160,060 $198,925
Note: The affordability gap for Above Moderate-income Households (more than 120 percent of AMI) is assumed to be zero.
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
604
This section builds on the findings of the previous analytical steps to calculate the maximum justified linkage fees for each commercial prototype.
Step 10: Maximum Fee Calculation
To derive the maximum nexus-based fee for each land use prototype, the housing affordability gap amounts (see previous section) are applied to the number of worker households in each respective income category (Figure 9). The number of very low-, low-, and moderate-income households associated with each land use prototype is used to calculate the total affordability gap (Figure 16).
The above moderate-income households are included in the number of worker households shown in Figure 16, but there is no affordability gap for this group and it does not contribute to the total affordability gap. Finally, the total gap for each land use prototype is divided by 100,000 square feet to calculate a maximum fee per square foot.
As shown in Figure 16, the maximum fee results (rounded to the nearest dollar) are $331 per square foot for office/medical office/R&D, $601 per square foot for retail/restaurants/services, and $267 per square foot for hotel.
The calculated linkage fees are relatively high because of the high cost of housing development in Marin, leading to large affordability gaps particularly for very low- and low-income households. The maximum fee calculation is highest for retail/restaurants/services because of the relatively low worker wage levels in these industries, combined with a moderate employee density. Hotel uses also employ a large share of lower wage workers, but have a much lower employee density, resulting in the lowest maximum fee of all of the uses. Finally, office/medical/R&D uses have a lower number of lower wage workers, but have the highest employment density, resulting in a maximum fee that is lower than retail/restaurants/services but higher than hotel.
The maximum fees shown in Figure 16 are not the recommended fees for adoption. They are the preliminary nexus-justified fees that represent the maximum that Marin jurisdictions could charge to mitigate affordable housing demand related to commercial development.
FIGURE 16. MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES
Land Use
Number of
Worker
Households*
Average Gap (per
Household)
Total
Affordability Gap
Size of
Prototype (SF)
Max Fee
per SF
Office/Medical Office/R&D 166 $199,226 $33,116,879 100,000 $331 Retail/Restaurants/
Services 139 $432,496 $60,068,911 100,000 $601
Hotel 71 $374,089 $26,673,031 100,000 $267
* The number of worker households includes above moderate-income households. However, these households are assumed to have an affordability gap of zero and, therefore, do not affect the calculations of the total affordability gap and the maximum fee.
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
IV. MAXIMUM LINKAGE FEES
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
605
V. MARKET FACTORS, FEASIBILITY, AND OTHER POLICY
CONSIDERATIONS
The previous section presented the maximum commercial linkage fees for each land use based on the nexus study. These fees are the maximum justifiable fee that jurisdictions can charge to mitigate the affordable housing need. However, for most jurisdictions, other factors are considered when enacting the commercial linkage fees, and, as a result, the fees are almost always set at a level significantly below the maximum amount that is justified by the nexus study.
This section considers market factors and their impact on the feasibility of a range of commercial linkage fee scenarios, as well as other policy factors each jurisdiction will want to consider when setting commercial linkage fees. The first subsection includes a brief market overview of commercial development in Marin County. That is followed by a review of commercial linkage fees in comparable cities, which inform a set of “fee scenarios” that are intended to illustrate a range of reasonable fee levels that could be adopted. Following that is a discussion highlighting the following policy considerations:
• An evaluation of the potential impact of the fee scenarios on the financial feasibility of commercial development; and
• An estimate of the amount the fee scenarios would raise existing municipal fees.
To inform this analysis, the Consultant Team reviewed recent development trends, spoke with local professionals in the development and building trades, and reviewed commercial linkage fee levels in comparable Bay Area jurisdictions.
Finally, this section makes a set of recommendations for setting the commercial linkage fees, including ranges for the fees, possible affordable housing revenues generated, and an approach for updating the fees.
Market Overview
Marin County is considered a secondary market for most commercial development in relation to San Francisco and the more urban areas of the East Bay. Consequently, Marin County’s commands lower rents and attracts less development activity than the primary commercial real estate markets. In the last year, the COVID-19 pandemic has depressed the market for commercial development, with rising vacancy rates and decreasing revenues for office, retail, and hotel uses.
This dynamic presents many challenges for the feasibility of new development projects.
Market conditions for each of the land use categories addressed in this study are discussed separately below in more detail.
OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D
Office employment in Marin is concentrated in downtown San Rafael, with a few areas of lower density office employment in North San Rafael, eastern Larkspur, and Sausalito (see Figure 17).
Recent office development has included the San Rafael Corporate Center, a Class A office development in downtown San Rafael; Biomarin Pharmaceuticals, R&D lab space also in downtown San Rafael; and smaller office developments in San Anselmo and Corte Madera.
According to developers interviewed for this study, because of uncertainties about the timing of the COVID-19 economic recovery, many investors are delaying decisions about building new Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
606
commercial projects. It is unclear whether the Biomarin laboratories will attract additional demand for life sciences R&D space.
Historically, San Rafael has been the center of office development in Marin County. Once the demand for office returns, it is likely that new, larger-scale office and R&D developments will continue to be concentrated in downtown San Rafael. As the primary location for office uses, San Rafael is considered the strongest tier for office uses in Marin County. The other six jurisdictions have not captured significant office development in the last decade, and therefore comprise a weaker office market tier.
RETAIL/RESTAURANTS/SERVICES
Demand for brick-and-mortar retail development nationwide has slowed as an increasing share of retail sales move online. The shelter-in-place restrictions from COVID-19 have accelerated this trend, and it is unclear when significant demand for new retail space will return. Marin County has seen only a small amount of retail development in recent years, limited to single tenant stores such as the RH showroom in Corte Madera. Redevelopment plans for the Northgate Mall in San Rafael will reduce the overall retail area on the site while adding over 1,300 new housing units.
It is unlikely that the county will see significant new retail development in the coming years. When the market does recover, new retail is expected to be relatively small scale, serving a local trade area and/or any new residential development. Rather than concentrating in any one area of the county, retail is likely to be dispersed, favoring sites close to US-101, major highways with good visibility, or serving larger residential developments. For this reason, to the Consultant Team recommends that the jurisdictions adopt a relatively uniform commercial linkage fee. Jurisdictions may also wish to enact lower fees for small and independently-owned businesses. Many jurisdictions exempt retail spaces of under 5,000 square feet from these fees.
HOTEL
Located geographically in between San Francisco and Northern California’s wine country, Marin County is a secondary market for hotel development. Business travel is an important component of demand in San Rafael, serving the downtown employment center, while the market in the remainder of the county is mostly composed of leisure travelers. Although the county has seen no new hotels in over twenty years, currently several hotels and motels have been proposed, planned, or are under construction. These new projects include two in downtown San Rafael (the select service AC Marriot and Hampton Inn and Suites), and three additional proposals in Corte Madera and Larkspur. All of these developments were planned and proposed before the start of the COVID19 pandemic, with the AC Marriot already under construction.
The pandemic has taken a serious toll on hotel demand, causing developers that have yet to break ground to reconsider moving forward with their projects. Developers and industry leaders do not expect the market to recover for several years.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
607
FIGURE 17: OFFICE EMPLOYMENT DENSITY IN MARIN COUNTY, 2018 Source: U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, 2018; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
608
Comparable Cities
Figures 18 through 20 show existing commercial linkage fees for the jurisdictions participating in this study alongside other comparable jurisdictions in Sonoma County, Napa County, San Mateo County, and San Francisco.
As shown in Figure 18, linkage fees for office/medical office/R&D land uses in Marin County range from $3.20 to $10.32 per square foot. The fee in San Rafael is at the high end of this range, reflecting its relative strength as an office center within the county. The selected jurisdictions from Sonoma County, (Petaluma, Santa Rosa, and Unincorporated Sonoma County) all charge approximately $3.00 per square foot. San Francisco, San Mateo County, and South San Francisco have stronger office markets than Marin and all charge much higher fees ranging from $15 to $65 per square foot.12
Figure 19 gives a comparison of linkage fees for retail/restaurants/services. These fees tend to be lower than what is charged for office, except in places where retail markets have been particularly strong. In Marin County the linkage fees on these uses range from $3.28 to $8.38, with Corte Madera at the top of the range. The selected jurisdictions in Sonoma County range from $3.00 to $5.25.
Figure 20 shows linkage fees for hotel uses in the comparable jurisdictions. Fees charged for hotel uses in Marin tend to be lower than for other uses, ranging from $1.20 to $4.63 per square foot.
The selected communities in Sonoma County all charge approximately $3.00 per square foot, and the fee in the City of Napa is as high as $6.00 per square foot. The fee in San Francisco is more than $23 per square foot.
12 South San Francisco is shown because it provides a reference point for life sciences industry clusters that have a high concentration of R&D space.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
609
FIGURE 18: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D ADOPTED IN MARIN AND
COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS
[a] San Rafael’s fee is defined as a percentage of the inclusionary in-lieu fee. [b] Mill Valley’s fee is defined as one percent of the valuation of the proposed project. The Consultant Team assumed the valuation of the office prototype used for feasibility testing (see next section).
Sources: Published schedules of city fees; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021. $4.79
$3.20
$10.32
$7.19
$4.28
$3.04
$3.00
$2.93
$64.83
$15.00
$25.00
Corte Madera - office
Corte Madera - R&D
San Rafael [a]
Unincorporated Marin County
Mill Valley [b]
Unincorporated Sonoma County
Santa Rosa
Petaluma
San Francisco (less than 50K sf)
South San Francisco
Unincorporated San Mateo County
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
610
FIGURE 19: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES ADOPTED IN MARIN AND
COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS
[a] San Rafael’s fee is defined as a percentage of the inclusionary in-lieu fee. [b] Mill Valley’s fee is defined as one percent of the valuation of the proposed project. The Consultant Team assumed the valuation of the retail prototype used for feasibility testing (see next section).
Sources: Published schedules of city fees; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021. $8.38
$4.39
$7.74
$5.40
$3.28
$5.25
$3.00
$5.07
$29.11
$5.00
Corte Madera - retail
Corte Madera - restaurants
San Rafael [a]
Unincorporated Marin County
Mill Valley [b]
Unincorporated Sonoma County
Santa Rosa
Petaluma
San Francisco
Unincorporated San Mateo County
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
611
FIGURE 20: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES FOR HOTEL ADOPTED IN MARIN AND COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS [a] San Rafael’s fee is defined as a percentage of the inclusionary in-lieu fee. [b] Marin County’s fee $1,745 per room. This figure was converted to a value per square foot assuming a hotel development will average 615 square feet of gross building area per room. [c] Mill Valley’s fee is defined as one percent of the valuation of the proposed project. The Consultant Team assumed the valuation of the hotel prototype used for feasibility testing (see next section).
Sources: Published schedules of city fees; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Fee Scenarios
The Consultant Team developed a set of fee scenarios to analyze the impact of a commercial linkage fee adopted for the three categories of land use. The determination of the fee scenarios was based on the range of fee levels that have been adopted in comparable cities and counties in the Bay Area.
The four fee scenarios range from $3.00 per square foot to $15.00 per square foot (Figure 21).
The fee scenarios, which are all only a fraction of the nexus-justified maximum fee, are intended as a guide to illustrate a range of commercial linkage fee amounts that might be implemented for $1.20
$2.58
$2.84
$4.63
$3.04
$3.00
$2.93
$6.00
$23.36
Corte Madera
San Rafael [a]
Unincorporated Marin County [b]
Mill Valley [c]
Unincorporated Sonoma County
Santa Rosa
Petaluma
City of Napa
San Francisco
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
612
each land use category. Jurisdictions may choose to set linkage fees at different scenarios for different land uses, at an amount different from the values shown, or may choose to implement a commercial linkage fee for only certain land uses.
FIGURE 21: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE SCENARIOS PER BUILDING GROSS SQUARE FOOT
Office/Medical
Office/R&D Retail/Restaurant/Services Hotel
Maximum Fee $331 $601 $267
Scenario 1 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
Scenario 2 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00
Scenario 3 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00
Scenario 4 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Feasibility Analysis
One of the important policy considerations when enacting a new fee is the impact of the fee on the financial feasibility of new commercial development. The Consultant Team analyzed the financial feasibility of potential new linkage fees by assessing their impact on overall development costs. While there are no established rules-of-thumb for setting commercial linkage fees in relation to development costs, generally where real estate markets are strong, new development is able to accommodate higher fees if they represent a relatively low share of overall development costs.13
DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES FOR ANALYZING FEASIBILITY
The Consultant Team designated a set of development prototypes to analyze feasibility. These prototypes are different from the commercial prototypes used for the nexus study and introduced in Section II. While the nexus prototypes represent broad categories of use, the development prototypes for feasibility represent more specific developments within each category and include additional details such as land area and parking to facilitate the estimation of costs. The three “feasibility prototypes” are defined as: 1) Class B Office; 2) Small Neighborhood Center; and 3) Select-Service Hotel. These development prototypes, which are designed to represent a typical development within each land use category, are informed by recent and proposed commercial developments in Marin, as well as from interviews with local developers and builders. The prototypes are described below and summarized further in Figure 22. • Class B Office: A smaller, Class B office format was used because Marin is a secondary office market within the Bay Area, and the economics of smaller developments are likely to be more impacted by municipal fees than larger developments. This prototype is 17,000 square feet in two stories on a one acre site. Surface parking is assumed with a ratio of
4.0 (one stall per 250 square feet of gross building area). 13 Over time, fee increases are expected to be capitalized into lower land costs.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
613
• Small Neighborhood Center: This is a 7,600 square-foot neighborhood shopping center on one-half acre. This prototype assumes surface parking with a parking ratio of 4.0 (one stall per 250 square feet of gross building area). Similar to the office prototype above, a smaller center is likely to be more impacted by new fees. In additional, the parcel size is very small because there is very limited retail development occurring in Marin, and developer interviews also suggested that Marin’s limited site availability meant larger retail developments were unlikely to occur.
• Select-Service Hotel: Most recent and pipeline hotel projects in Marin are select-service hotels. This prototype is a 70,000 square foot select service hotel with 115 guest rooms on a 2.5 acre site. It assumes surface parking with a parking ratio of 1.1 spaces per room.
The hotel will include a limited number of high-quality amenities such as a small restaurant/bar, a fitness room, and a business center.
FIGURE 22. DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES
Class B Office
Small Neighborhood
Center
Select Service
Hotel
Land Area
Parcel Size (Sq. Ft.) 43,560 21,780 108,900
Parcel Size (acres) 1.00 0.50 2.50
Building Height and FAR
Total Stories 2 stories Single story 3 stories
FAR 0.40 0.35 0.65
Building Area
Gross area (gsf) 17,424 7,623 70,785
Net area (nsf) 15,682 6,861 n/a
Number of rooms n/a n/a 115
Average Room Size (nsf) n/a n/a 400
Average Room Size (gsf) n/a n/a 615
Parking
Total Spaces (surface) 70 30 127
Parking Ratio (per room) n/a n/a 1.10
Parking Ratio (per 1,000 SF) 4.0 4.0 1.8
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
The Consultant Team estimated development costs based on interviews with developers and general contractors experienced with commercial development in Marin, as well as a review of recent land transactions. Key development cost assumptions are described below, and a summary of the assumptions is provided in Figure 23.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
614
LAND AND SITE COST ASSUMPTIONS
One of the critical cost factors for a commercial development project is land cost. To determine the land value of sites zoned for commercial uses, the Consultant Team combined feedback from developer interviews with an analysis of recent sales transactions of vacant parcels for development in the relevant areas of Marin County. Land costs can range greatly based on the site’s location and characteristics. The Consultant Team reviewed comparable land sales and generally based land cost assumptions on the middle of the range of comparable land prices.
Site costs include the horizontal costs associated with preparation of the site for development and demolition of any existing buildings. As these costs vary widely from site to site, the Consultant Team estimated average site costs based on developer interviews and experience with previous feasibility studies.
BUILDING AREA HARD COSTS
The hard costs for the building area include the cost of vertical construction of the building. This ranges from $300 per gross square foot for the Small Neighborhood Center to $450 per gross square foot for the Class B Office. These costs are informed by developer interviews as well as recent construction cost market reports.
TENANT IMPROVEMENTS AND FF&E COSTS
This cost category includes a separate allowance for tenant improvements for the office and retail prototypes as well as “fixtures, furniture, and equipment” (FF&E) for the hotel prototype. The tenant improvement allowance of $75 per square foot for office and retail is based on recent feasibility studies for these development types in the Bay Area. The FF&E cost of $25,000 per room is based on feedback from developer interviews.
SURFACE PARKING COSTS
The direct cost of parking is assumed to be an average of $10,000 per stall for a surface lot, which applies to all development prototypes.
SOFT COST ASSUMPTIONS
Soft costs include all costs for architecture, engineering, consulting, legal, and accounting fees, as well as taxes, insurance, financing costs, contingency, and any other incidental costs not included in the cost categories listed in this section. Soft costs were estimated as 12 percent of hard costs for all prototypes. Note that existing municipal fees, including utility hook-ups, are not incorporated into this assumption, and are addressed separately, because they vary across the jurisdictions.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
615
FIGURE 23: DEVELOPMENT COST ASSUMPTIONS
Class B
Office
Small
Neighborhood
Center
Select Service
Hotel
Land and Sites Costs (per sf) $75 $75 $40
Building Area Hard Costs (per gsf) $400 $300 $450
Tenant Improvements (per nsf, office and retail only) $75 $75 n/a FF&E (per room, hotel only) n/a n/a $25,000
Surface parking (per space) $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Soft Costs (as % of hard costs) 12% 12% 12%
Sources: Developer Interviews, 2021; Costar, 2021; Rider, Levett, Bucknall Quarterly Construction Cost Report, Q4 2020; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
616
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Based on the assumptions summarized in Figure 23, The Consultant Team estimated the total development costs for the prototypes, summarized in Figure 24. The costs are summarized for the whole project, by square foot of gross building area, and by guest room for hotel. On a per-square foot basis, the Class B Office is the most expensive, and the Select Service Hotel is the least expensive.
FIGURE 24: TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST BY PROTOTYPE
Class B Office
Small Neighborhood
Center Select Service Hotel
Overall Project
Land and Site Costs $3,267,000 $1,633,500 $4,356,000
Building Area Hard Costs $6,969,600 $2,286,900 $31,853,250 Tenant Improvements / FF&E $1,176,120 $514,553 $2,875,641 Surface parking $700,000 $300,000 $1,270,000
Soft Costs $920,352 $310,428 $3,974,790
Total Development Cost $13,033,072 $5,045,381 $44,329,681
Per GSF
Land and Site Costs $188 $214 $62
Building Area Hard Costs $400 $300 $450
Tenant Improvements / FF&E $68 $68 $41
Surface parking $40 $39 $18
Soft Costs $53 $41 $56
Total Development Cost $748 $662 $626
Per Guest Room
Land and Site Costs $37,870
Building Area Hard Costs $276,923
Tenant Improvements / FF&E $25,000
Surface parking $11,041
Soft Costs $34,556
Total Development Cost $385,390
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
617
INCREASES IN DEVELOPMENT COSTS
The fee scenarios were applied to the development costs for each prototype and are summarized below and in Figure 25. A fee level of $3.00 per square foot (Scenario 1) increases development costs by 0.4 to 0.5 percent, depending on the prototype; a fee level of $5.00 (Scenario 2) increases development costs by 0.7 to 0.8 percent; at $10.00 per square foot (Scenario 3), the increase in costs ranges from 1.3 to 1.6 percent; and, finally, at $15.00 per square foot (Scenario 4), the increase in costs ranges from 2.0 to 2.4 percent. In percentage terms, hotel development experiences the largest increase from a new fee because hotel is the least expensive prototype to build per square foot.
FIGURE 25: FEE SCENARIOS AND PERCENTAGE OF DEVELOPMENT COSTS FOR EACH PROTOTYPE Class B
Office
Small Neighborhood
Center
Select Service
Hotel
Total Development Costs before Linkage Fee ($/sf) $748 $662 $626 Linkage Fee Scenarios ($/sf)
Maximum Fee $331 $601 $267
Scenario 1 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
Scenario 2 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00
Scenario 3 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00
Scenario 4 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00
Linkage Fee Scenarios (as % to Total Dev. Costs)
Maximum Fee 44% 91% 43%
Scenario 1 0.4% 0.5% 0.5%
Scenario 2 0.7% 0.8% 0.8%
Scenario 3 1.3% 1.5% 1.6%
Scenario 4 2.0% 2.3% 2.4%
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
FEE SCENARIOS COMBINED WITH OTHER MUNICIPAL FEES
The Consultant Team reviewed the total burden of the fee scenarios in the context of other fees charged by the cities and Marin County, including fees such as building permits as well as any impact fees each jurisdiction might have in place.14 A table of these costs for each jurisdiction is given in Figure 26 below, including the total fees that would be paid on each prototype for the commercial linkage fee scenarios.
Because each jurisdiction has its own schedule of fees for new development, the cost of development in each community varies. For example, municipal fees for the prototypes in Corte Madera range from
0.6 percent to 0.9 percent of development costs, while fees in San Rafael are higher, ranging from 2.2 14 Connection fees charged by a local sanitary sewer and water district were also estimated; they would be expected to represent an additional 1.0 to 2.6 percent of development costs above what is shown in the Figure 26.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
618
to 4.4 percent of development costs. Jurisdictions will need to take into account these baseline costs when setting a commercial linkage fee amount.
FIGURE 26. COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE SCENARIOS AND OTHER MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY FEES* BY JURISDICTION Per GSF As % of Development Costs
Class B
Office
Small
Neighborhood
Center
Select
Service
Hotel
Class B
Office
Small
Neighborhood
Center
Select
Service
Hotel
Corte Madera
Municipal Fees $4.71 $4.75 $5.90 0.6% 0.7% 0.9%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $7.71 $7.75 $8.90 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $9.71 $9.75 $10.90 1.3% 1.5% 1.7% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $14.71 $14.75 $15.90 2.0% 2.2% 2.5% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $19.71 $19.75 $20.90 2.6% 3.0% 3.3% Fairfax
Municipal Fees $8.53 $8.83 $9.42 1.1% 1.3% 1.5%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $11.53 $11.83 $12.42 1.5% 1.8% 2.0% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $13.53 $13.83 $14.42 1.8% 2.1% 2.3% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $18.53 $18.83 $19.42 2.5% 2.8% 3.1% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $23.53 $23.83 $24.42 3.1% 3.6% 3.9% Larkspur
Municipal Fees $16.02 $19.04 $13.05 2.1% 2.9% 2.1%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $19.02 $22.04 $16.05 2.5% 3.3% 2.6% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $21.02 $24.04 $18.05 2.8% 3.6% 2.9% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $26.02 $29.04 $23.05 3.5% 4.4% 3.7% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $31.02 $34.04 $28.05 4.1% 5.1% 4.5% Unincorporated Marin County
County Fees $4.88 $5.38 $5.14 0.7% 0.8% 0.8%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $7.88 $8.38 $8.14 1.1% 1.3% 1.3% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $9.88 $10.38 $10.14 1.3% 1.6% 1.6% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $14.88 $15.38 $15.14 2.0% 2.3% 2.4% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $19.88 $20.38 $20.14 2.7% 3.1% 3.2% San Anselmo
Municipal Fees $10.12 $11.03 $12.86 1.4% 1.7% 2.1%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $13.12 $14.03 $15.86 1.8% 2.1% 2.5% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $15.12 $16.03 $17.86 2.0% 2.4% 2.9% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $20.12 $21.03 $22.86 2.7% 3.2% 3.6% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $25.12 $26.03 $27.86 3.4% 3.9% 4.4% Continued on next page
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
619
Continued from previous page
San Rafael
Municipal Fees $16.59 $29.24 $14.62 2.2% 4.4% 2.3%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $19.59 $32.24 $17.62 2.6% 4.9% 2.8% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $21.59 $34.24 $19.62 2.9% 5.2% 3.1% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $26.59 $39.24 $24.62 3.6% 5.9% 3.9% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $31.59 $44.24 $29.62 4.2% 6.7% 4.7% Sausalito
Municipal Fees $7.18 $7.81 $9.08 1.0% 1.2% 1.4%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $10.18 $10.81 $12.08 1.4% 1.6% 1.9% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $12.18 $12.81 $14.08 1.6% 1.9% 2.2% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $17.18 $17.81 $19.08 2.3% 2.7% 3.0% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $22.18 $22.81 $24.08 3.0% 3.4% 3.8% * Municipal and County fees include all applicable permits and impact fees charged by the jurisdiction. Water and sanitary sewer connection fees are not included. Based on estimates from Marin Municipal Water District and Ross Valley Sanitary District, water and sewer fees represent may add an additional 1.0 percent to development costs of Class B office, 1.9 percent to small neighborhood retail, and 2.6 percent to select service hotel.
Sources: Participating Jurisdictions, 2021; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Fee Recommendations
The Consultant Team evaluated the four fee scenarios based on the analyses summarized above:
market factors, fees in comparable cities, fees as a percentage of development costs, and fees in relation to the municipal/county fees that are currently charged in the seven jurisdictions.
Recommendations for setting a commercial linkage fee are outlined below.
In the wake of the commercial real estate market slowdown due to COVID-19, the Consultant Team recommends that jurisdictions enact commercial linkage fees that are generally comparable across the different jurisdictions within the county, without significantly raising fees in the places that already have them. Several jurisdictions in this study have commercial linkage fees currently in place, and the recommendations below do not represent a significant departure from these fee levels. Jurisdictions without commercial linkage fees should consider adopting fees comparable with their neighbors.
However, there is one exception to this guidance with regard to office/R&D/medical office, where San Rafael can reasonably impose a higher fee than other jurisdictions.
For office/R&D/medical office uses, the Consultant Team recommends the commercial linkage fee for office be set between $10 and $15 per square foot in San Rafael and between $5 and $10 per square foot in the other six jurisdictions. Because the market for office is stronger in San Rafael, new office development is more likely to be able to support the higher fee levels. In San Rafael, the recommended fee level represents an increase in development costs of 0.7 to 1.3 percent for the Class B prototype (Figure 26). Class A office and R&D, which are more expensive product types and more likely to occur in downtown San Rafael, would experience a lower percentage increase. For the other communities, the recommended fees would result in an increase in development costs of 0.4 to
0.7 percent.
The Consultant Team recommends the commercial linkage fee for retail be set between $5 and $10 per square foot for all jurisdictions. The existing fee levels for retail are in this range, which amounts Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
620
to 0.8 to 1.5 percent in development costs for a small neighborhood center (Figure 26). Because the future of retail is very uncertain, it is difficult to generalize where demand will be strong once retail markets recover, and it is recommended the fees be relatively consistent across jurisdictions. Postpandemic demand for retail could materialize in small scale developments dispersed throughout the county, depending on site-specific conditions related to transportation access and nearby amenities and development.
The Consultant Team recommends that jurisdictions consider reducing the commercial linkage fee requirement for small and independent businesses. It is expected that the viability of small-scale retail in particular will be challenging, so jurisdictions may choose to exempt smaller retail projects from paying the fee or reduce the overall fee. For instance, San Rafael does not apply a commercial linkage fee to developments 5,000 square feet and below, while Sonoma County exempts the first 2,000 square feet from its fee. Because many large “big-box” tenants occupy far more than 5,000 square feet, this incentive would not apply to those types of businesses. Because the definition for “small scale retail” may vary by jurisdiction, the Consultant Team recommends that each jurisdiction develop its own appropriate threshold.
For hotel uses, the Consultant Team recommends that all jurisdictions adopt a commercial linkage fee of $3 to $5 per square foot. This fee level would represent between 0.5 and 0.8 percent of development costs for a select service hotel (Figure 26). Fees of $3 to $5 would increase in the cost of development slightly in Corte Madera, San Rafael, and Unincorporated Marin County while keeping them comparable with Mill Valley and the communities in Sonoma County that were reviewed for this study. It is important to note that while jurisdictions may charge on the basis of number of rooms rather that square feet, charging the fee by square foot advantages more efficient hotels with smaller room sizes.
It is advised that the jurisdictions reexamine the potential for raising the fees once the commercial real estate market recovers and development activity picks up. This study provides the economic analysis for higher fees, so that a new study would not be needed if this were to occur in the next five years.
Other Policy Considerations
This section briefly addresses other considerations for adopting or updating a commercial linkage fee, including establishing equivalencies for payment of the fee, and an approach to updating the fees.
EQUIVALENCIES TO PAYMENT OF FEES
It is recommended that jurisdictions establish a process for developers to make an in-kind contribution to affordable housing in lieu of paying a commercial linkage fee. Some examples of alternative mitigation include land dedication, providing on-site affordable units, or providing off-site affordable units. Typically, developers would need to demonstrate that the value of these contributions would be in excess or equal to the value of the commercial linkage fee requirement. In such instances, jurisdictions will want to have an established process in place for financially evaluating these proposals as a substitute for paying the fee to create predictability and consistency for development projects.
UPDATING THE FEES
Similar to any impact fee, it will be necessary to adjust the commercial linkage impact fee on an annual basis. Adjustments are also needed due to possible changes in the affordability gaps. A simple Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
621
approach to annual adjustments is to use an index. The Consultant Team recommends using either the construction cost index (localized to the San Francisco Bay Area region), such as the one published by the Engineering News-Record, or the shelter component of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is higher.
VI. UNIFIED FEE PROPOPAL AND FULFILLING STATE
REQUIREMENTS FOR ADOPTION
Strategic Economics collaborated with staff from the seven jurisdictions to develop a unified fee proposal that will be considered for adoption by each of the jurisdictions. Based on these conversations and the guideline recommendations in the previous section, this section outlines the commercial linkage fee schedule that has been proposed by the jurisdictions. It also provides further analysis on the fee proposal in order to meet state requirements for implementation. For four of the seven jurisdictions, this will be a new fee program. For the other three jurisdictions, the fees will represent an update to an existing commercial linkage fee program in that jurisdiction.
In 2021, the California legislature imposed new requirements (Assembly Bill 602 [2021-2022]) on impact fee nexus studies adopted by local governments after July 1, 2022. The legislation applies to this study in relation to any new commercial linkage fees to be implemented in the seven jurisdictions.
Among other provisions, AB 602 requires the adopted nexus study to provide a justification for new impact fees for affordable housing should they seek a higher “level of service” for the community. The legislation also asks for a review of any current fee programs.
Considering the proposal put forth by the jurisdictions, this report section first includes an overview of the fees in comparison to the linkage fees currently in place in some of the jurisdictions. Based on the unified fee proposal, Strategic Economics estimated the potential affordable housing revenues that could be raised over a five year period. (Although the fee proposal is designed to apply the same fee levels across all seven jurisdictions, the adopted fees in any specific jurisdiction may ultimately deviate from the unified schedule, which would affect the generated revenues.) As required by AB 602, Strategic Economics also summarized the revenues collected from each of the three existing fee programs and provided a justification for the new level of service advanced by the new fee program.
Finally, the section concludes with a discussion of the purpose of these fees and the role of new commercial development to contribute to funding affordable housing in Marin County.
Current and Proposed Commercial Linkage Fees
AB 602 includes the provision: “[i]f a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.” (Government Code § 66016.5). Below is a summary of the fee programs in place (in the jurisdictions that have them) and a discussion of the changes that would occur if the unified fee proposal were adopted.
The current and proposed commercial linkage fee programs are summarized in Figure 27. Three of the jurisdictions (Corte Madera, San Rafael, and the Unincorporated County) currently charge linkage fees on various types of nonresidential development. The fee programs each were proposed and adopted independently in the early 2000’s and tend to have disparate definitions for grouping Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
622
nonresidential development into categories for the application of a fee. Currently Marin County charges a hotel impact fee based on the number of rooms, rather than on a square foot basis;15 in Figure 27, Strategic Economics converted this number to a typical fee per square foot using a gross average room size assumption.
Strategic Economics and the jurisdictions made every best effort to collect data on fee revenues since each program’s inception. In Marin County and Corte Madera, where the full history of fee revenues was not available, revenues collections are reported for those jurisdictions from the earliest dates data could be obtained. As shown in Figures 27 and 28:
• Corte Madera has collected $381,516 since April 2018 (an average of $84,781 annually); • San Rafael has collected $2,556,106 since 2005 ($144,006 annually); and • Unincorporated County has collected $38,680 since 2019 ($10,315 annually) The higher rates of revenue generation in San Rafael and Corte Madera reflect their higher levels of commercial development as retail and office job centers, as compared with Unincorporated Marin County, which is largely suburban and rural.
The unified fee proposal is also shown in Figure 27. The proposed fee levels are $10.00 per square foot for office, medical office, and R&D uses; $8.00 or $10.000 per square foot retail development, depending on the size of the development; and $5.00 per square foot for hotel development. The jurisdictions are proposing a smaller fee level on retail developments up to 2,500 square feet to help lessen the burden of the fee on smaller, locally owned businesses.
In the other three jurisdictions that currently have fee programs, the proposed fees generally represent an increase from current levels. (For example, the fee for office development in Corte Madera would increase from $4.79 per square foot to $10.00 per square foot; while the fee for R&D development would increase from $3.20 per square foot to $10.00 per square foot.) The single exception to the fee increases is office and R&D development in San Rafael, which would experience a slight decrease from $10.32 per square foot to $10.00 per square foot.
15 A provision in AB 602 discourages jurisdictions from assessing impact fees on any basis other than square feet of floor area. All fees proposed in the unified fee schedule are based on this standard.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
623
FIGURE 27: SUMMARY OF CURRENT COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES AND THE UNIFIED PROPOSED FEE LEVELS FOR ALL
SEVEN JURISDICTIONS
Jurisdiction
Program
Effective
Since
Current Fee Levels (per
equivalent square foot)[a]
Revenues
Collected
Unified Fee Proposal
(per square foot)
Corte Madera 2001
Office: $4.79
R&D: $3.20
Retail: $8.38
Restaurant: $4.39
Hotel: $1.20
$381,516 since
April 2018
Office/Medical Office/
R&D: $10.00
Retail/Restaurants/
Services:
- $8.00 (up to
2,500 square feet)
- $10.00 (more
than 2,500 square
feet)
Hotel: $5.00
Fairfax no current policy
Larkspur no current policy
San Anselmo no current policy
San Rafael 2005
Office/R&D: $10.32
Retail/Restaurant/
Services: $7.74
Hotel: $2.58
See Note [b], below.
$2,556,106
since inception
Sausalito no current policy
Unincorporated
Marin County 2003
Office/R&D: $7.19
Retail/Restaurant/
Services: $5.40
Hotel: $2.84 [c]
$38,680 since
2019
[a] In some jurisdictions, linkage fees may exist for other land uses outside the scope of this study. Only the relevant fees are shown. [b] San Rafael’s fees are defined as a percentage of the inclusionary in-lieu fee. [c] Marin County’s fee $1,745 per room. This figure was converted to a value per square foot assuming a hotel development will average 615 square feet of gross building area per room.
Sources: Town of Corte Madera, 2022; City of San Rafael, 2022; County of Marin, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
624
FIGURE 28: AVERAGE ANNUAL COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE REVENUES BY JURISDICTION HAVING A FEE PROGRAM
CURRENTLY IN PLACE
Sources: Town of Corte Madera, 2022; City of San Rafael, 2022; County of Marin, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022.
Potential Fee Revenues under the Unified Fee Program
Figure 29 shows the potential fees that could be generated, along with the potential affordable housing funding that could be leveraged, over a five year period if the fee levels recommended above were adopted. Based on the past pace of new development and the development pipeline, the Consultant Team established very approximate numbers for the volume of development that could take place over a five year period once commercial real estate markets recover from the pandemic.16 Potential fee revenues are on the order of $2.6 million across all jurisdictions. If every dollar in local contributions to affordable housing were able to attract three dollars from other funding sources, approximately $10 million in affordable housing funds could be generated or leveraged through the recommended commercial linkage fees. This three to one leveraging assumption is based on a recent study that found that local contributions for affordable housing projects in the Bay Area accounted for 23 percent of total project costs on average.17 Note that in Marin County, the leveraging ratio may be higher because local jurisdictions tend to have more limited funding for affordable housing. 16 The development estimates in Figure 29 are illustrative of past trends and the development pipeline and do not represent a formal demand estimate.
17 This leveraging ratio will be updated as new information is available. See SPUR, “Housing as Infrastructure,” April 2021, https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/SPUR_Housing_as_Infrastructure_0.pdf. $84,781
$144,006
$10,315
Corte Madera San Rafael Unincorporated Marin County
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
625
FIGURE 29: POTENTIAL FEE REVENUES AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS LEVERAGED OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD Land Use
Unified Fee
Proposal
Potential Development
Areawide over Five Years
[a]
Potential
Commercial
Linkage Fee
Revenues
Office / Medical Office / R&D $10 /sf 100,000 sf $1,000,000 Retail /Restaurants /Services
$8 /sf
(up to 2,500
square feet)
$10 /sf
(more than 2,500
square feet)
35,000 sf $315,000 [b]
Hotel $5 /sf 250,000 sf
(400 rooms) $1,250,000
Subtotal Commercial Linkage Fee Local Revenues $2,565,000 Potential New Affordable Housing Funds Leveraged from Other Sources (3:1 ratio) [c] $7,695,000 Total Potential New Affordable Housing Funds $10,260,000 Notes:
(a) For office/medical office/R&D and retail/restaurants/services, the development estimates are drawn from the pace of new development between 2011 and 2020. For hotel, the Consultant Team reviewed planned and proposed projects and estimated 400 rooms at approximately 615 square feet of gross building area per room. (b) Assumes half of new retail/restaurants/services developments are 2,500 square feet or less and half of new developments are more than 2,500 square feet.
(c) Assumes that every dollar in local revenues leverages another three dollars in other subsidies, including tax credit equity, federal sources, state sources, and other funds. Actual leveraging will vary by project.
Sources: Costar, 2011-2020; Participating Jurisdictions, 2020; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Justification for New Fee Levels
AB 602 requires the nexus study for a new fee to “identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate” (Government Code § 66016.5).
In this study, Strategic Economics defined level of service as the ratio of deed-restricted, “family” affordable units within a jurisdiction to the number of worker households associated with employment in that jurisdiction (see below).
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
626
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑆𝑆 𝑒𝑒 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 =
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓 𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢
𝑤𝑤 𝑤𝑤 ℎ𝑜𝑜 ℎ𝑜𝑜 = 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓 𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢
� 𝑤𝑤 𝑤𝑤
𝑎𝑎. 𝑤𝑤 𝑤𝑤 𝑝𝑝 ℎ𝑜𝑜 ℎ𝑜𝑜 𝑀𝑀 𝐶𝐶 .
�
Only family affordable units were counted because the workers associated with new commercial development are most likely to be family households, rather than, for example, seniors or disabled people applying for subsidized housing. This number was then compared to worker households because households is the standard unit of demand for housing. The number of worker households is estimated as the total employment in the jurisdiction divided by the average number of workers per household in Marin County. As mentioned in the first section of this report, the average workers per household in Marin County is 1.60.
Strategic Economics calculated the current level of service for family affordable housing for the seven jurisdictions as shown in Figure 30. The level of service over all jurisdictions is 0.035, ranging from
0.011 in Sausalito and San Anselmo, to 0.057 in the Unincorporated County. Larger communities such as San Rafael, Corte Madera, and Larkspur, which have had a more comprehensive set of affordable housing tools, generally have a higher proportion of family affordable housing than the smaller communities that are exploring inclusionary and commercial linkage fee programs for the first time.
FIGURE 30: FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, EMPLOYMENT, EMPLOYEE HOUSEHOLDS, AND CURRENT LEVEL OF
SERVICE FOR THE SEVEN JURISDICTIONS
Jurisdiction
Deed-restricted
Family
Affordable
Housing [a]
Total
Employment [b]
Total Worker
Households
[c] = [b] /
1.60 Level of
Service =
[a] / [c]
Corte Madera
130
6,482
4,051
0.032
Fairfax
29 1,806
1,129
0.026
Larkspur
150
6,730
4,206
0.036
San Anselmo
21 3,113
1,946
0.011
San Rafael
780
39,218
24,511
0.032
Sausalito
38 5,627
3,517
0.011
Unincorporated County
561
15,695
9,809
0.057
Total All Seven Jurisdictions 1,709 78,671 49,169 0.035 Sources: [a] Family affordable housing developments supplied by the County of Marin, 2022; Inclusionary affordable units from Marin Housing Authority, 2022; [b] Employment data from U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, 2019; Strategic Economics, 2022.
Next, Strategic Economics calculated the level of service associated with the current and proposed commercial linkage fees, or the number of family affordable units that could be funded per worker household created by new development. This calculation accounts for the employment created by new development for each use, the fee revenues that would be generated, and the affordability gap for Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
627
each use that would need to be filled with the fee revenues. Figure 31 shows a comparison of the level of service metrics for each jurisdiction and for the current and proposed fee programs.
As mentioned earlier, the fees would increase above their current level in nearly all cases and, therefore, would represent an increase in the level of service above any current fee program (or, in the case of four jurisdictions, no current fee program). This increase in level of service is justified for the following reasons:
• Areawide, the level of service associated with the proposed fee program is commensurate with and, in some cases, even below the level of service already supplied by each jurisdiction’s current inventory of family affordable housing. Figure 32 shows a comparison of the current level of service aggregated across all seven jurisdictions with the level of service that would accompany each of the proposed fees. The areawide level of service is 0.035 while the fees have a level of service ranging from 0.013 to 0.030. Further, the proposed fee levels are not placing an undue burden on nonresidential development because they represent only a small fraction of the development’s full impact on housing demand. • The cost of housing development, including affordable housing, has increased significantly since the inception of the current fee programs. Higher fees are needed to cover these escalating costs. For example, while the unincorporated County is considering raising its fees by between 39 percent (for office, medical office, and R&D uses) and 76 percent (hotel), the affordability gap has increased significantly more since the nexus study was performed for the current fee program in 2002. As shown in Figure 33, the affordability gap has increased by 283 percent for Very Low Income households, 371 percent for Low Income households, and 936 percent for Moderate Income households.
• State mandates will require a rapid acceleration in the production of family affordable housing in Marin County. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for Moderate, Low, and Very Low Income households will increase significantly for the upcoming RHNA cycle. Area-wide, the allocations add up to a more than six-fold increase over the last cycle (see Figure 34), while the allocations by jurisdiction have been tied more directly to projected job growth than in past RHNA cycles. A substantial contribution from nonresidential developers is needed to help meet these goals.
In summary, the fee program as proposed by the jurisdictions will accomplish two objectives. First, the unified fee proposal will level the playing field for developers, ensuring they are charged the same fee across all jurisdictions. Secondly, the fee levels are set such that the revenue is sufficient to support new affordable housing development in cities that are expected to experience continued job growth over the next RHNA cycle. Most commercial development and accompanying job growth is expected to occur in San Rafael, and to a lesser extent in Larkspur and Corte Madera.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
628
FIGURE 31: LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISON JURISDICTION-WIDE AND FOR THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES Level of Service - Office Fees Level of Service - Retail Fees Level of Service - Hotel Fees
Jurisdiction
Total Current
Level of Service
Jurisdictionwide Current Proposed Current Proposed <
2,500 sf)
Proposed >
2,500 sf Current Proposed
Corte Madera
0.032
0.012
0.030
0.011
0.013
0.017
0.004
0.019
Fairfax
0.026
-
0.030
-
0.013
0.017
-
0.019
Larkspur
0.036
-
0.030
-
0.013
0.017
-
0.019
San Anselmo
0.011
-
0.030
-
0.013
0.017
-
0.019
San Rafael
0.032
0.031
0.030
0.013
0.013
0.017
0.010
0.019
Sausalito
0.011
-
0.030
-
0.013
0.017
-
0.019
Unincorporated
County
0.057
0.022
0.030
0.009
0.013
0.017
0.011
0.019
Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
629
FIGURE 32: CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE ACROSS ALL JURISDICTIONS AND LEVEL OF SERVICE OF PROPOSED FEES Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.
FIGURE 33: AFFORDABILITY GAP IN MARIN COUNTY FOR VERY LOW, LOW, AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, 2002 AND 2020
Source: David Paul Rosen and Associates, 2002; Strategic Economics, 2020.
0.035
0.030
0.013
0.017
0.019
Current Level of
Service Areawide
Proposed Fee Level
of Service (Office)
Proposed Fee Level
of Service (Retail <
8000 sf)
Proposed Fee Level
of Service (Retail >
8000 sf)
Proposed Fee Level
of Service (Hotel)
$127,700
$82,600
$19,200
$489,529
$389,320
$198,925
Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income
2002 2020
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
630
FIGURE 34: REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATIONS FOR VERY LOW, LOW, AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS,
FIFTH AND SIXTH CYCLES
Source: Department of Housing and Community Development, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022. 0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
5th Cycle (2015-2023) 6th Cycle (2023-2031)
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
631
Data Tables: Occupational Wage by Land Use Prototype
Figures 35-37 provide the full detail of the occupations associated with each land use, and their respective average wages. As a part of Step 4, this data is used to calculate the weighted average wage for each land use prototype (Figure 7).
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
632
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
11-0000 Management Occupations
11-1021 General and Operations Managers $155,850 2.404% 11-3021 Computer and Information Systems Managers $201,960 1.131% 11-3031 Financial Managers $182,190 1.016%
11-9198
Personal Service Managers, All Other; Entertainment
and Recreation Managers, Except Gambling; and
Managers, All Other $168,900 0.594%
11-2021 Marketing Managers $181,720 0.585%
11-9111 Medical and Health Services Managers $142,760 0.507% 11-2022 Sales Managers $159,720 0.504%
11-3010 Administrative Services and Facilities Managers $132,020 0.365% 11-3121 Human Resources Managers $163,810 0.295%
11-1011 Chief Executives $236,060 0.288%
11-9041 Architectural and Engineering Managers $186,500 0.270% 11-3061 Purchasing Managers $154,870 0.117%
11-2030 Public Relations and Fundraising Managers $142,950 0.104% 11-3071 Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers $123,910 0.098% 11-9151 Social and Community Service Managers $73,210 0.087% 11-9021 Construction Managers $134,880 0.082%
11-3051 Industrial Production Managers $140,910 0.082%
11-9051 Food Service Managers $63,460 0.074%
11-3131 Training and Development Managers $152,380 0.072% 11-9121 Natural Sciences Managers $208,910 0.067%
11-9141
Property, Real Estate, and Community Association
Managers $92,930 0.061%
11-3111 Compensation and Benefits Managers $170,770 0.041% 11-2011 Advertising and Promotions Managers $175,210 0.040% 11-9039 Education Administrators, All Other $92,160 0.010% 11-9031
Education and Childcare Administrators, Preschool
and Daycare $70,080 0.008%
11-9081 Lodging Managers $104,250 0.006%
11-9032
Education Administrators, Kindergarten through
Secondary $129,070 0.004%
11-9033 Education Administrators, Postsecondary $130,980 0.003% 11-9161 Emergency Management Directors $132,440 0.003%
11-9013 Farmers, Ranchers, and Other Agricultural Managers n/a 0.002% 11-9071 Gambling Managers $125,300 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $166,968 8.921%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
633
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
13-0000 Business and Financial Operations Occupations
13-2011 Accountants and Auditors $93,590 2.418%
13-1111 Management Analysts $113,750 1.667%
13-1198
Project Management Specialists and Business
Operations Specialists, All Other $93,010 1.648%
13-1161
Market Research Analysts and Marketing
Specialists $91,350 1.294%
13-1071 Human Resources Specialists $89,820 1.023%
13-2098
Financial and Investment Analysts, Financial Risk
Specialists, and Financial Specialists, All Other $119,100 0.681% 13-1020 Buyers and Purchasing Agents $79,040 0.459%
13-1151 Training and Development Specialists $83,550 0.410% 13-1041 Compliance Officers $92,960 0.299%
13-1081 Logisticians $82,010 0.269%
13-1031 Claims Adjusters, Examiners, and Investigators $88,480 0.221% 13-2082 Tax Preparers $72,280 0.210%
13-2072 Loan Officers $84,940 0.184%
13-1141
Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis
Specialists $83,230 0.174%
13-1121 Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners $67,530 0.102% 13-2053 Insurance Underwriters $97,260 0.090%
13-2041 Credit Analysts $109,330 0.087%
13-1051 Cost Estimators $98,960 0.082%
13-2052 Personal Financial Advisors $157,720 0.062%
13-1131 Fundraisers $77,450 0.060%
13-2061 Financial Examiners $124,720 0.057%
13-1075 Labor Relations Specialists $86,370 0.057%
13-2031 Budget Analysts $93,800 0.051%
13-2071 Credit Counselors $53,010 0.028%
13-2020 Property Appraisers and Assessors $98,450 0.013% 13-1032 Insurance Appraisers, Auto Damage $72,630 0.009% 13-1011
Agents and Business Managers of Artists,
Performers, and Athletes $83,260 0.003%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $95,541 11.657%
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
15-1256
Software Developers and Software Quality
Assurance Analysts and Testers $145,250 4.036%
15-1211 Computer Systems Analysts $121,300 1.649%
15-1232 Computer User Support Specialists $75,640 1.418% 15-1299 Computer Occupations, All Other $120,370 0.860% 15-1244 Network and Computer Systems Administrators $104,370 0.745% 15-1251 Computer Programmers $116,400 0.597%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
634
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
15-1241 Computer Network Architects $137,720 0.405%
15-1231 Computer Network Support Specialists $85,990 0.367% 15-1212 Information Security Analysts $122,570 0.353%
15-1257 Web Developers and Digital Interface Designers $110,790 0.338% 15-1245 Database Administrators and Architects $107,930 0.266% 15-2031 Operations Research Analysts $116,910 0.199%
15-2098
Data Scientists and Mathematical Science
Occupations, All Other $140,080 0.079%
15-2041 Statisticians $125,970 0.062%
15-1221 Computer and Information Research Scientists $142,150 0.060% 15-2011 Actuaries $116,500 0.036%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $121,679 11.473%
17-0000 Architecture and Engineering Occupations
17-2051 Civil Engineers $120,110 0.466%
17-2141 Mechanical Engineers $123,270 0.313%
17-2071 Electrical Engineers $120,990 0.234%
17-1011 Architects, Except Landscape and Naval $103,530 0.228% 17-2112 Industrial Engineers $113,920 0.210%
17-3011 Architectural and Civil Drafters $67,050 0.190% 17-2199 Engineers, All Other $113,050 0.181%
17-2061 Computer Hardware Engineers $134,000 0.137%
17-2072 Electronics Engineers, Except Computer $112,800 0.110% 17-3023
Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Technologists and Technicians $67,200 0.108%
17-2081 Environmental Engineers $112,830 0.100%
17-3031 Surveying and Mapping Technicians $76,380 0.092% 17-3022 Civil Engineering Technologists and Technicians $75,160 0.086% 17-3098
Calibration Technologists and Technicians and
Engineering Technologists and Technicians,
Except Drafters, All Other $75,070 0.086%
17-1022 Surveyors $88,860 0.085%
17-1012 Landscape Architects $94,750 0.064%
17-2011 Aerospace Engineers $135,230 0.054%
17-3013 Mechanical Drafters $71,180 0.047%
17-3027
Mechanical Engineering Technologists and
Technicians $61,100 0.046%
17-3025
Environmental Engineering Technologists and
Technicians $60,630 0.033%
17-3026
Industrial Engineering Technologists and
Technicians $61,050 0.028%
17-3012 Electrical and Electronics Drafters $65,810 0.028% 17-2041 Chemical Engineers $106,430 0.024%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
635
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
17-2111
Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining
Safety Engineers and Inspectors $114,800 0.024%
17-2131 Materials Engineers $104,560 0.021%
17-1021 Cartographers and Photogrammetrists $105,970 0.014% 17-3019 Drafters, All Other $73,450 0.014%
17-2031 Bioengineers and Biomedical Engineers $119,000 0.013% 17-2121 Marine Engineers and Naval Architects $136,480 0.010% 17-3024
Electro-Mechanical and Mechatronics
Technologists and Technicians $61,190 0.008%
17-2151
Mining and Geological Engineers, Including
Mining Safety Engineers $132,720 0.008%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $101,626 3.146%
19-0000 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations
19-2041
Environmental Scientists and Specialists,
Including Health $109,180 0.149%
19-1042 Medical Scientists, Except Epidemiologists $120,470 0.095% 19-3031 Clinical, Counseling, and School Psychologists $110,070 0.091% 19-5011 Occupational Health and Safety Specialists $108,230 0.072% 19-4042
Environmental Science and Protection
Technicians, Including Health $58,010 0.060%
19-4099
Life, Physical, and Social Science Technicians, All
Other $61,390 0.055%
19-4031 Chemical Technicians $55,980 0.054%
19-4021 Biological Technicians $60,040 0.042%
19-1021 Biochemists and Biophysicists $124,400 0.033%
19-1029 Biological Scientists, All Other $108,200 0.030% 19-4061 Social Science Research Assistants $54,210 0.024% 19-3011 Economists $133,180 0.024%
19-5012 Occupational Health and Safety Technicians $62,820 0.017% 19-1013 Soil and Plant Scientists $77,070 0.017%
19-3051 Urban and Regional Planners $105,370 0.016%
19-4010 Agricultural and Food Science Technicians $46,060 0.015% 19-1012 Food Scientists and Technologists $90,860 0.015% 19-2012 Physicists $134,500 0.014%
19-3091 Anthropologists and Archeologists $69,480 0.013% 19-3022 Survey Researchers $89,020 0.013%
19-1022 Microbiologists $104,580 0.013%
19-3099 Social Scientists and Related Workers, All Other $90,120 0.012% 19-1023 Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists $75,320 0.012% 19-2099 Physical Scientists, All Other $127,650 0.010%
19-2043 Hydrologists $108,850 0.010%
19-2021 Atmospheric and Space Scientists $114,370 0.009% Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
636
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
19-1031 Conservation Scientists $83,700 0.009%
19-2032 Materials Scientists $119,470 0.008%
19-3039 Psychologists, All Other $106,870 0.007%
19-1032 Foresters $93,760 0.004%
19-4071 Forest and Conservation Technicians $47,410 0.003% 19-1041 Epidemiologists $107,760 0.002%
19-3041 Sociologists $101,420 0.001%
19-4092 Forensic Science Technicians $103,940 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $81,448 1.104%
21-0000 Community and Social Service Occupations
21-1018
Substance Abuse, Behavioral Disorder, and
Mental Health Counselors $60,290 0.449%
21-1093 Social and Human Service Assistants $48,800 0.222% 21-1023
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Social
Workers $77,630 0.181%
21-1022 Healthcare Social Workers $86,560 0.128%
21-1021 Child, Family, and School Social Workers $61,900 0.085% 21-1013 Marriage and Family Therapists $63,470 0.075%
21-1094 Community Health Workers $55,350 0.064%
21-1091 Health Education Specialists $72,560 0.059%
21-1099
Community and Social Service Specialists, All
Other $59,510 0.038%
21-1015 Rehabilitation Counselors $50,320 0.038%
21-1012
Educational, Guidance, and Career Counselors
and Advisors $78,220 0.027%
21-1019 Counselors, All Other $66,150 0.013%
21-1029 Social Workers, All Other $80,980 0.011%
21-2011 Clergy $72,730 0.007%
21-2021 Directors, Religious Activities and Education $67,180 0.003% 21-2099 Religious Workers, All Other $48,670 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $64,024 1.403%
23-0000 Legal Occupations
23-1011 Lawyers $188,910 1.158%
23-2011 Paralegals and Legal Assistants $71,360 0.662%
23-2093 Title Examiners, Abstractors, and Searchers $59,890 0.064% 23-2099 Legal Support Workers, All Other $61,510 0.035% 23-1022 Arbitrators, Mediators, and Conciliators $114,800 0.004% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $141,697 1.923%
25-0000 Educational Instruction and Library Occupations Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
637
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
25-3031 Substitute Teachers, Short-Term $42,940 0.079%
25-9045 Teaching Assistants, Except Postsecondary $39,730 0.046% 25-9031 Instructional Coordinators $77,090 0.041%
25-3021 Self-Enrichment Teachers $53,730 0.038%
25-3097 Tutors and Teachers and Instructors, All Other $50,800 0.030% 25-2011 Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education $45,050 0.024% 25-2059 Special Education Teachers, All Other $66,210 0.011% 25-4022 Librarians and Media Collections Specialists $89,390 0.010% 25-9099
Educational Instruction and Library Workers, All
Other $61,100 0.009%
25-1194
Career/Technical Education Teachers,
Postsecondary $87,990 0.007%
25-4031 Library Technicians $58,980 0.005%
25-3011
Adult Basic Education, Adult Secondary
Education, and English as a Second Language
Instructors $94,920 0.002%
25-2051 Special Education Teachers, Preschool $62,550 0.002% 25-1071 Health Specialties Teachers, Postsecondary $115,900 0.002% 25-4011 Archivists $81,730 0.001%
25-2058 Special Education Teachers, Secondary School $93,110 0.001% 25-2031
Secondary School Teachers, Except Special and
Career/Technical Education $93,350 0.001%
25-2052
Special Education Teachers, Kindergarten and
Elementary School $73,540 0.001%
25-9044 Teaching Assistants, Postsecondary $33,880 0.001% 25-2021
Elementary School Teachers, Except Special
Education $84,040 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $54,651 0.318%
27-0000
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Occupations
27-3031 Public Relations Specialists $84,520 0.274%
27-1024 Graphic Designers $77,110 0.257%
27-3042 Technical Writers $102,500 0.109%
27-1026 Merchandise Displayers and Window Trimmers $38,480 0.102% 27-3041 Editors $86,530 0.091%
27-1025 Interior Designers $72,240 0.068%
27-1011 Art Directors $135,970 0.063%
27-3043 Writers and Authors $93,060 0.062%
27-4021 Photographers $61,530 0.056%
27-3091 Interpreters and Translators $78,250 0.055%
27-1014 Special Effects Artists and Animators $97,570 0.047% 27-2012 Producers and Directors $104,520 0.045%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
638
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
27-1021 Commercial and Industrial Designers $87,530 0.039% 27-1022 Fashion Designers $89,400 0.029%
27-4011 Audio and Video Technicians $64,140 0.026%
27-3023 News Analysts, Reporters, and Journalists $81,080 0.017% 27-1029 Designers, All Other $91,810 0.014%
27-2022 Coaches and Scouts $48,900 0.013%
27-3099 Media and Communication Workers, All Other $63,270 0.009% 27-4032 Film and Video Editors $83,100 0.007%
27-4031 Camera Operators, Television, Video, and Film $59,160 0.005% 27-1023 Floral Designers $39,920 0.005%
27-1013
Fine Artists, Including Painters, Sculptors, and
Illustrators $85,980 0.004%
27-4098
Lighting Technicians and Media and
Communication Equipment Workers, All Other $60,610 0.003% 27-2023 Umpires, Referees, and Other Sports Officials $38,360 0.003% 27-4014 Sound Engineering Technicians $70,470 0.002%
27-1027 Set and Exhibit Designers $60,530 0.002%
27-1019 Artists and Related Workers, All Other $93,840 0.001% 27-1012 Craft Artists $59,460 0.001%
27-4012 Broadcast Technicians $57,390 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $81,665 1.421%
29-0000
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical
Occupations
29-1141 Registered Nurses $138,000 1.900%
29-1228
Physicians, All Other; and Ophthalmologists,
Except Pediatric $173,990 0.831%
29-1292 Dental Hygienists $113,940 0.701%
29-2098
Medical Dosimetrists, Medical Records
Specialists, and Health Technologists and
Technicians, All Other $58,370 0.682%
29-2061
Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational
Nurses $69,490 0.592%
29-1171 Nurse Practitioners $157,150 0.510%
29-1021 Dentists, General $169,730 0.349%
29-1215 Family Medicine Physicians $213,960 0.343%
29-1071 Physician Assistants $126,810 0.330%
29-2034 Radiologic Technologists and Technicians $103,670 0.253% 29-2010 Clinical Laboratory Technologists and Technicians $65,210 0.216% 29-1123 Physical Therapists $102,470 0.211%
29-2057 Ophthalmic Medical Technicians $52,660 0.173%
29-2056 Veterinary Technologists and Technicians $46,670 0.155% 29-2055 Surgical Technologists $72,790 0.119%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
639
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
29-1216 General Internal Medicine Physicians $227,810 0.116% 29-1248 Surgeons, Except Ophthalmologists $256,870 0.108% 29-1151 Nurse Anesthetists $254,860 0.105%
29-1131 Veterinarians $113,930 0.104%
29-1221 Pediatricians, General $213,530 0.093%
29-1051 Pharmacists $148,390 0.093%
29-2052 Pharmacy Technicians $51,090 0.092%
29-1122 Occupational Therapists $103,740 0.086%
29-2081 Opticians, Dispensing $50,840 0.082%
29-2032 Diagnostic Medical Sonographers $115,280 0.081% 29-1127 Speech-Language Pathologists $97,500 0.073%
29-1041 Optometrists $125,680 0.068%
29-1031 Dietitians and Nutritionists $87,890 0.065%
29-9098
Health Information Technologists, Medical
Registrars, Surgical Assistants, and Healthcare
Practitioners and Technical Workers, All Other $81,080 0.064% 29-1218 Obstetricians and Gynecologists $223,430 0.059% 29-1223 Psychiatrists $257,150 0.055%
29-1011 Chiropractors $79,240 0.052%
29-2053 Psychiatric Technicians $54,930 0.044%
29-2031 Cardiovascular Technologists and Technicians $75,720 0.037% 29-2035 Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologists $104,870 0.029% 29-2040 Emergency Medical Technicians and Paramedics $54,180 0.028% 29-1298
Acupuncturists and Healthcare Diagnosing or
Treating Practitioners, All Other $76,670 0.028%
29-1126 Respiratory Therapists $97,950 0.027%
29-1124 Radiation Therapists $142,300 0.025%
29-1181 Audiologists $102,560 0.023%
29-9091 Athletic Trainers $60,150 0.022%
29-1161 Nurse Midwives $156,450 0.018%
29-1081 Podiatrists $132,380 0.016%
29-2033 Nuclear Medicine Technologists $124,660 0.014%
29-1129 Therapists, All Other $62,790 0.011%
29-2091 Orthotists and Prosthetists $81,090 0.007%
29-1125 Recreational Therapists $74,200 0.005%
29-2051 Dietetic Technicians $39,770 0.004%
29-2092 Hearing Aid Specialists $66,050 0.004%
29-9092 Genetic Counselors $108,000 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $124,379 9.259%
31-0000 Healthcare Support Occupations
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
640
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
31-9092 Medical Assistants $48,920 2.108%
31-9091 Dental Assistants $51,510 1.095%
31-1120 Home Health and Personal Care Aides $30,320 0.255% 31-1131 Nursing Assistants $45,100 0.239%
31-9096
Veterinary Assistants and Laboratory Animal
Caretakers $36,590 0.134%
31-2021 Physical Therapist Assistants $63,110 0.095%
31-9094 Medical Transcriptionists $50,060 0.086%
31-9097 Phlebotomists $54,040 0.059%
31-2022 Physical Therapist Aides $35,520 0.059%
31-9011 Massage Therapists $50,560 0.052%
31-9093 Medical Equipment Preparers $60,670 0.047%
31-9099 Healthcare Support Workers, All Other $50,950 0.043% 31-2011 Occupational Therapy Assistants $73,400 0.037%
31-1133 Psychiatric Aides $30,930 0.015%
31-1132 Orderlies $44,730 0.011%
31-9095 Pharmacy Aides $46,430 0.010%
31-2012 Occupational Therapy Aides $47,740 0.007%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $48,408 4.353%
33-0000 Protective Service Occupations
33-9032 Security Guards $38,580 1.039%
33-1090
Miscellaneous First-Line Supervisors, Protective
Service Workers $61,530 0.064%
33-9021 Private Detectives and Investigators $78,150 0.045% 33-9092
Lifeguards, Ski Patrol, and Other Recreational
Protective Service Workers $31,600 0.031%
33-9091 Crossing Guards and Flaggers $52,400 0.031%
33-2011 Firefighters $98,680 0.016%
33-9098
School Bus Monitors and Protective Service
Workers, All Other $49,650 0.016%
33-9011 Animal Control Workers $51,070 0.002%
33-1021
First-Line Supervisors of Firefighting and
Prevention Workers $166,930 0.002%
33-2021 Fire Inspectors and Investigators $119,380 0.001% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $42,511 1.246%
35-0000
Food Preparation and Serving Related
Occupations
35-3011 Bartenders $37,310 0.068%
35-3031 Waiters and Waitresses $37,810 0.062%
35-3023 Fast Food and Counter Workers $31,610 0.057%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
641
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
35-1012
First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and
Serving Workers $44,560 0.052%
35-2021 Food Preparation Workers $31,820 0.030%
35-2014 Cooks, Restaurant $38,430 0.024%
35-2012 Cooks, Institution and Cafeteria $40,710 0.022% 35-9021 Dishwashers $31,680 0.017%
35-9011
Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and
Bartender Helpers $35,040 0.015%
35-1011 Chefs and Head Cooks $63,740 0.012%
35-3041 Food Servers, Nonrestaurant $35,200 0.009%
35-2015 Cooks, Short Order $34,460 0.003%
35-9031
Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and
Coffee Shop $34,520 0.002%
35-2011 Cooks, Fast Food $27,060 0.001%
35-9099
Food Preparation and Serving Related Workers,
All Other $31,250 0.001%
35-2019 Cooks, All Other $40,740 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $37,675 0.377%
37-0000
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance
Occupations
37-2011
Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and
Housekeeping Cleaners $38,870 7.030%
37-3011 Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers $43,940 4.364% 37-2012 Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners $41,430 0.880%
37-2021 Pest Control Workers $47,050 0.584%
37-1012
First-Line Supervisors of Landscaping, Lawn
Service, and Groundskeeping Workers $68,600 0.529%
37-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and
Janitorial Workers $53,550 0.431%
37-3013 Tree Trimmers and Pruners $49,440 0.316%
37-2019 Building Cleaning Workers, All Other $32,430 0.107% 37-3012
Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators,
Vegetation $79,020 0.097%
37-3019 Grounds Maintenance Workers, All Other $54,060 0.020% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $42,914 14.358%
39-0000 Personal Care and Service Occupations
39-2021 Animal Caretakers $34,130 0.074%
39-9031 Exercise Trainers and Group Fitness Instructors $59,340 0.073% 39-9011 Childcare Workers $35,590 0.069%
39-9032 Recreation Workers $36,490 0.067%
39-1098
First-Line Supervisors of Personal Service and
Entertainment and Recreation Workers, Except
Gambling Services $54,240 0.031%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
642
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
39-5094 Skincare Specialists $37,640 0.028%
39-9041 Residential Advisors $42,720 0.018%
39-3091 Amusement and Recreation Attendants $29,650 0.015% 39-9098
Crematory Operators and Personal Care and
Service Workers, All Other $35,060 0.011%
39-7010 Tour and Travel Guides $42,380 0.009%
39-6011 Baggage Porters and Bellhops $33,390 0.008%
39-3031 Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers $33,520 0.008% 39-6012 Concierges $44,060 0.006%
39-5012 Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists $35,410 0.003% 39-3012 Gambling and Sports Book Writers and Runners $32,190 0.002% 39-3093
Locker Room, Coatroom, and Dressing Room
Attendants $41,030 0.001%
39-3019 Gambling Service Workers, All Other $35,260 0.001% 39-2011 Animal Trainers $42,320 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $41,279 0.426%
41-0000 Sales and Related Occupations
41-3091
Sales Representatives of Services, Except
Advertising, Insurance, Financial Services, and
Travel $81,320 1.469%
41-3021 Insurance Sales Agents $109,960 0.419%
41-4012
Sales Representatives, Wholesale and
Manufacturing, Except Technical and Scientific
Products $81,830 0.379%
41-4011
Sales Representatives, Wholesale and
Manufacturing, Technical and Scientific Products $104,680 0.285% 41-2031 Retail Salespersons $34,810 0.171%
41-1012
First-Line Supervisors of Non-Retail Sales
Workers $77,590 0.162%
41-3031
Securities, Commodities, and Financial Services
Sales Agents $101,770 0.139%
41-3011 Advertising Sales Agents $92,720 0.122%
41-9031 Sales Engineers $125,730 0.099%
41-9011 Demonstrators and Product Promoters $36,560 0.078% 41-9041 Telemarketers $33,420 0.072%
41-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers $46,980 0.059% 41-2011 Cashiers $32,150 0.051%
41-3041 Travel Agents $53,520 0.046%
41-9022 Real Estate Sales Agents $71,070 0.037%
41-2021 Counter and Rental Clerks $40,320 0.022%
41-2022 Parts Salespersons $45,260 0.007%
41-2012 Gambling Change Persons and Booth Cashiers $32,010 0.000% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $81,059 3.685%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
643
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
43-0000 Office and Administrative Support Occupations
43-4051 Customer Service Representatives $49,200 2.549% 43-9061 Office Clerks, General $46,920 2.493%
43-4171 Receptionists and Information Clerks $39,990 1.818% 43-3031 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks $54,980 1.729% 43-6014
Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except
Legal, Medical, and Executive $51,170 1.697%
43-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Office and
Administrative Support Workers $71,190 1.447%
43-6013
Medical Secretaries and Administrative
Assistants $49,140 1.382%
43-3021 Billing and Posting Clerks $50,120 0.988%
43-6011
Executive Secretaries and Executive
Administrative Assistants $82,480 0.628%
43-6012 Legal Secretaries and Administrative Assistants $69,990 0.332% 43-9041 Insurance Claims and Policy Processing Clerks $53,480 0.268% 43-5061 Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks $63,180 0.262% 43-3011 Bill and Account Collectors $55,830 0.244%
43-3051 Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks $63,280 0.214%
43-4111 Interviewers, Except Eligibility and Loan $55,180 0.207% 43-9021 Data Entry Keyers $41,790 0.194%
43-5071 Shipping, Receiving, and Inventory Clerks $42,910 0.189% 43-4131 Loan Interviewers and Clerks $49,770 0.176%
43-4161
Human Resources Assistants, Except Payroll and
Timekeeping $53,370 0.148%
43-9199
Office and Administrative Support Workers, All
Other $45,160 0.146%
43-4071 File Clerks $41,240 0.135%
43-5032 Dispatchers, Except Police, Fire, and Ambulance $54,040 0.074% 43-4199 Information and Record Clerks, All Other $57,150 0.067% 43-9051
Mail Clerks and Mail Machine Operators, Except
Postal Service $39,020 0.061%
43-2011
Switchboard Operators, Including Answering
Service $49,560 0.056%
43-3071 Tellers $36,170 0.052%
43-3061 Procurement Clerks $50,680 0.049%
43-5021 Couriers and Messengers $42,320 0.047%
43-4151 Order Clerks $45,220 0.045%
43-9071 Office Machine Operators, Except Computer $35,990 0.038% 43-3099 Financial Clerks, All Other $47,510 0.032%
43-5011 Cargo and Freight Agents $50,610 0.030%
43-4041 Credit Authorizers, Checkers, and Clerks $47,330 0.026% Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
644
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
43-5111
Weighers, Measurers, Checkers, and Samplers,
Recordkeeping $41,640 0.024%
43-4141 New Accounts Clerks $44,890 0.019%
43-9022 Word Processors and Typists $63,600 0.016%
43-4011 Brokerage Clerks $61,580 0.014%
43-4061 Eligibility Interviewers, Government Programs $68,450 0.010% 43-9111 Statistical Assistants $54,820 0.010%
43-9031 Desktop Publishers $64,290 0.008%
43-5041 Meter Readers, Utilities $76,620 0.008%
43-9081 Proofreaders and Copy Markers $51,200 0.007%
43-4081 Hotel, Motel, and Resort Desk Clerks $39,440 0.004% 43-2099 Communications Equipment Operators, All Other $65,500 0.004% 43-4031 Court, Municipal, and License Clerks $68,870 0.003% 43-2021 Telephone Operators $48,480 0.003%
43-4121 Library Assistants, Clerical $43,600 0.003%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $52,314 17.996%
45-0000 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
45-2092
Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop, Nursery, and
Greenhouse $37,430 0.023%
45-2093
Farmworkers, Farm, Ranch, and Aquacultural
Animals $35,610 0.006%
45-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Farming, Fishing, and
Forestry Workers $54,120 0.004%
45-2011 Agricultural Inspectors $71,880 0.002%
45-2091 Agricultural Equipment Operators $35,950 0.002% 45-2099 Agricultural Workers, All Other $40,440 0.002%
45-4011 Forest and Conservation Workers $28,010 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $39,878 0.039%
47-0000 Construction and Extraction Occupations
47-2061 Construction Laborers $55,970 0.208%
47-4011 Construction and Building Inspectors $101,820 0.110% 47-2111 Electricians $100,400 0.068%
47-2031 Carpenters $71,490 0.051%
47-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades and
Extraction Workers $99,580 0.048%
47-2152 Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters $87,230 0.034% 47-2073
Operating Engineers and Other Construction
Equipment Operators $86,240 0.020%
47-2051 Cement Masons and Concrete Finishers $65,350 0.011% 47-2141 Painters, Construction and Maintenance $67,770 0.011% 47-2211 Sheet Metal Workers $68,510 0.008%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
645
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
47-4090 Miscellaneous Construction and Related Workers $63,360 0.007% 47-4041 Hazardous Materials Removal Workers $48,770 0.007% 47-5097
Earth Drillers, Except Oil and Gas; and Explosives
Workers, Ordnance Handling Experts, and
Blasters $64,130 0.006%
47-3019 Helpers, Construction Trades, All Other $36,580 0.003% 47-5022
Excavating and Loading Machine and Dragline
Operators, Surface Mining $91,850 0.003%
47-2181 Roofers $55,100 0.003%
47-2011 Boilermakers $86,630 0.002%
47-2071
Paving, Surfacing, and Tamping Equipment
Operators $63,960 0.001%
47-5081 Helpers--Extraction Workers $48,630 0.001%
47-5012 Rotary Drill Operators, Oil and Gas $112,770 0.001% 47-2221 Structural Iron and Steel Workers $75,630 0.001% 47-3012 Helpers--Carpenters $41,650 0.001%
47-2121 Glaziers $72,550 0.001%
47-2041 Carpet Installers $64,200 0.001%
47-2151 Pipelayers $68,280 0.001%
47-4051 Highway Maintenance Workers $63,210 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $76,185 0.620%
49-0000
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
Occupations
49-9071 Maintenance and Repair Workers, General $56,230 0.473% 49-9099
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Workers,
All Other $55,210 0.152%
49-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers,
and Repairers $89,740 0.113%
49-2098 Security and Fire Alarm Systems Installers $50,410 0.063% 49-2011
Computer, Automated Teller, and Office Machine
Repairers $45,100 0.052%
49-2022
Telecommunications Equipment Installers and
Repairers, Except Line Installers $69,090 0.051%
49-9041 Industrial Machinery Mechanics $78,010 0.036%
49-3053
Outdoor Power Equipment and Other Small
Engine Mechanics $45,750 0.034%
49-3023 Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics $58,630 0.031% 49-3031
Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine
Specialists $68,840 0.027%
49-9052
Telecommunications Line Installers and
Repairers $64,390 0.024%
49-9062 Medical Equipment Repairers $69,330 0.022%
49-3042
Mobile Heavy Equipment Mechanics, Except
Engines $75,510 0.019%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
646
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
49-2094
Electrical and Electronics Repairers, Commercial
and Industrial Equipment $79,500 0.017%
49-9094 Locksmiths and Safe Repairers $63,770 0.016%
49-9098
Helpers--Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
Workers $37,740 0.015%
49-9021
Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration
Mechanics and Installers $76,480 0.013%
49-9043 Maintenance Workers, Machinery $63,090 0.011%
49-9051 Electrical Power-Line Installers and Repairers $111,740 0.007% 49-9044 Millwrights $82,700 0.007%
49-9012
Control and Valve Installers and Repairers,
Except Mechanical Door $63,770 0.006%
49-2097 Audiovisual Equipment Installers and Repairers $59,500 0.005% 49-3041
Farm Equipment Mechanics and Service
Technicians $42,060 0.005%
49-2091 Avionics Technicians $91,240 0.004%
49-9069
Precision Instrument and Equipment Repairers,
All Other $77,950 0.003%
49-3021 Automotive Body and Related Repairers $57,580 0.003% 49-9091
Coin, Vending, and Amusement Machine
Servicers and Repairers $43,550 0.002%
49-2093
Electrical and Electronics Installers and
Repairers, Transportation Equipment $75,530 0.001%
49-2021
Radio, Cellular, and Tower Equipment Installers
and Repairers $85,700 0.001%
49-9031 Home Appliance Repairers $53,820 0.001%
49-9096 Riggers $73,610 0.001%
49-3093 Tire Repairers and Changers $36,640 0.001%
49-9081 Wind Turbine Service Technicians $62,910 0.001% 49-2092 Electric Motor, Power Tool, and Related Repairers $55,250 0.001% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $60,320 1.246%
51-0000 Production Occupations
51-2090 Miscellaneous Assemblers and Fabricators $43,160 0.454% 51-9061
Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and
Weighers $49,860 0.261%
51-9199 Production Workers, All Other $37,130 0.160%
51-9198 Helpers--Production Workers $34,400 0.146%
51-9111
Packaging and Filling Machine Operators and
Tenders $34,740 0.096%
51-2028
Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical
Assemblers, Except Coil Winders, Tapers, and
Finishers $43,800 0.086%
51-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Production and
Operating Workers $76,700 0.084%
51-6011 Laundry and Dry-Cleaning Workers $34,880 0.066% Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
647
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
51-4041 Machinists $59,690 0.059%
51-4121 Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers $58,600 0.046% 51-5112 Printing Press Operators $43,690 0.039%
51-4081
Multiple Machine Tool Setters, Operators, and
Tenders, Metal and Plastic $39,080 0.033%
51-6099
Textile, Apparel, and Furnishings Workers, All
Other $37,420 0.030%
51-4072
Molding, Coremaking, and Casting Machine
Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and
Plastic $44,990 0.023%
51-3092 Food Batchmakers $35,300 0.018%
51-9081 Dental Laboratory Technicians $43,620 0.018%
51-4031
Cutting, Punching, and Press Machine Setters,
Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic $41,700 0.017% 51-9083 Ophthalmic Laboratory Technicians $43,010 0.016% 51-4199 Metal Workers and Plastic Workers, All Other $49,010 0.014% 51-9161 Computer Numerically Controlled Tool Operators $50,790 0.012% 51-6031 Sewing Machine Operators $32,880 0.010%
51-3022 Meat, Poultry, and Fish Cutters and Trimmers $35,910 0.009% 51-9124
Coating, Painting, and Spraying Machine Setters,
Operators, and Tenders $50,520 0.009%
51-5111 Prepress Technicians and Workers $53,090 0.008% 51-3099 Food Processing Workers, All Other $32,410 0.008% 51-8031
Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant and
System Operators $93,680 0.007%
51-9151
Photographic Process Workers and Processing
Machine Operators $51,650 0.007%
51-3011 Bakers $36,960 0.006%
51-9082 Medical Appliance Technicians $56,910 0.006%
51-4111 Tool and Die Makers $72,410 0.006%
51-9195
Molders, Shapers, and Casters, Except Metal and
Plastic $44,460 0.005%
51-9041
Extruding, Forming, Pressing, and Compacting
Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders $38,720 0.005%
51-9023
Mixing and Blending Machine Setters, Operators,
and Tenders $48,700 0.004%
51-8013 Power Plant Operators $105,500 0.004%
51-2041 Structural Metal Fabricators and Fitters $44,090 0.004% 51-8093
Petroleum Pump System Operators, Refinery
Operators, and Gaugers $90,580 0.004%
51-6092 Fabric and Apparel Patternmakers $44,530 0.004% 51-7011 Cabinetmakers and Bench Carpenters $46,910 0.004% 51-5113 Print Binding and Finishing Workers $39,120 0.004% 51-8021 Stationary Engineers and Boiler Operators $103,370 0.004% 51-9032
Cutting and Slicing Machine Setters, Operators,
and Tenders $44,320 0.003%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
648
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
51-9011 Chemical Equipment Operators and Tenders $56,050 0.003% 51-4122
Welding, Soldering, and Brazing Machine Setters,
Operators, and Tenders $45,170 0.003%
51-9162
Computer Numerically Controlled Tool
Programmers $81,250 0.003%
51-8099 Plant and System Operators, All Other $79,160 0.002% 51-9071 Jewelers and Precious Stone and Metal Workers $39,560 0.002% 51-7042
Woodworking Machine Setters, Operators, and
Tenders, Except Sawing $35,680 0.002%
51-7041
Sawing Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders,
Wood $31,740 0.002%
51-6093 Upholsterers $46,490 0.002%
51-4035
Milling and Planing Machine Setters, Operators,
and Tenders, Metal and Plastic $51,190 0.002%
51-3093 Food Cooking Machine Operators and Tenders $29,560 0.002% 51-4023
Rolling Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders,
Metal and Plastic $40,960 0.001%
51-9021
Crushing, Grinding, and Polishing Machine
Setters, Operators, and Tenders $37,690 0.001%
51-4022
Forging Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders,
Metal and Plastic $46,780 0.001%
51-7021 Furniture Finishers $35,980 0.001%
51-4032
Drilling and Boring Machine Tool Setters,
Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic $48,700 0.001% 51-9123 Painting, Coating, and Decorating Workers $49,290 0.001% 51-9012
Separating, Filtering, Clarifying, Precipitating, and
Still Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders $57,140 0.001% 51-3091
Food and Tobacco Roasting, Baking, and Drying
Machine Operators and Tenders $39,920 0.001%
51-3021 Butchers and Meat Cutters $39,080 0.001%
51-6063
Textile Knitting and Weaving Machine Setters,
Operators, and Tenders $27,820 0.001%
51-4033
Grinding, Lapping, Polishing, and Buffing Machine
Tool Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and
Plastic $45,420 0.001%
51-6052 Tailors, Dressmakers, and Custom Sewers $52,870 0.001% 51-4034
Lathe and Turning Machine Tool Setters,
Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic $53,800 0.001% 51-8092 Gas Plant Operators $98,340 0.001%
51-4071 Foundry Mold and Coremakers $43,730 0.001%
51-6021 Pressers, Textile, Garment, and Related Materials $30,100 0.001% 51-2051 Fiberglass Laminators and Fabricators $45,970 0.001% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $44,646 1.867%
53-0000 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
53-7062
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material
Movers, Hand $39,930 1.364%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
649
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
53-3031 Driver/Sales Workers $34,920 0.383%
53-7065 Stockers and Order Fillers $36,170 0.279%
53-7064 Packers and Packagers, Hand $32,950 0.277%
53-3032 Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers $51,440 0.193% 53-7051 Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators $43,940 0.168% 53-3033 Light Truck Drivers $48,790 0.121%
53-7061 Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment $33,470 0.119% 53-1047
First-Line Supervisors of Transportation and
Material Moving Workers, Except Aircraft Cargo
Handling Supervisors $66,690 0.080%
53-3058
Passenger Vehicle Drivers, Except Bus Drivers,
Transit and Intercity $40,610 0.056%
53-3099 Motor Vehicle Operators, All Other $55,930 0.031% 53-6021 Parking Attendants $34,320 0.022%
53-2012 Commercial Pilots $113,260 0.014%
53-3052 Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity $58,860 0.006% 53-7063 Machine Feeders and Offbearers $43,880 0.006%
53-7199 Material Moving Workers, All Other $34,200 0.005% 53-2022 Airfield Operations Specialists $56,410 0.005%
53-6051 Transportation Inspectors $94,170 0.004%
53-6031 Automotive and Watercraft Service Attendants $31,340 0.003% 53-6098
Aircraft Service Attendants and Transportation
Workers, All Other $52,040 0.003%
53-2011 Airline Pilots, Copilots, and Flight Engineers $243,550 0.002% 53-6041 Traffic Technicians $86,560 0.002%
53-2031 Flight Attendants $51,230 0.001%
53-6061 Passenger Attendants $34,080 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $40,712 3.162%
Total, Land Use $85,440.54 100.000%
Notes:
(a) Occupational mix by industry was obtained from US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, 2019. (b) Wage data for the San Francisco Metropolitan Statistical Area was obtained from California Economic Development Department, OES Employment and Wages by Occupation, 2019.
(c) Distribution of workers is calculated based on the existing distribution of employment by industry in Marin County, provided by Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
650
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Retail Workers (c)
11-0000 Management Occupations
11-9051 Food Service Managers $63,460 1.525%
11-1021 General and Operations Managers $155,850 0.800% 11-2022 Sales Managers $159,720 0.046%
11-3031 Financial Managers $182,190 0.016%
11-3010
Administrative Services and Facilities
Managers $132,020 0.008%
11-2021 Marketing Managers $181,720 0.007%
11-9198
Personal Service Managers, All Other;
Entertainment and Recreation Managers,
Except Gambling; and Managers, All Other $168,900 0.005% 11-3121 Human Resources Managers $163,810 0.004%
11-1011 Chief Executives $236,060 0.003%
11-3071
Transportation, Storage, and Distribution
Managers $123,910 0.002%
11-3021 Computer and Information Systems Managers $201,960 0.002% 11-3131 Training and Development Managers $152,380 0.002% 11-9111 Medical and Health Services Managers $142,760 0.001% 11-3061 Purchasing Managers $154,870 0.001%
11-3051 Industrial Production Managers $140,910 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $98,093 2.423%
13-0000
Business and Financial Operations
Occupations
13-1151 Training and Development Specialists $83,550 0.079% 13-1161
Market Research Analysts and Marketing
Specialists $91,350 0.041%
13-2011 Accountants and Auditors $93,590 0.035%
13-1071 Human Resources Specialists $89,820 0.029%
13-1121 Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners $67,530 0.029% 13-1020 Buyers and Purchasing Agents $79,040 0.019%
13-2072 Loan Officers $84,940 0.012%
13-1198
Project Management Specialists and Business
Operations Specialists, All Other $93,010 0.009%
13-1051 Cost Estimators $98,960 0.007%
13-2098
Financial and Investment Analysts, Financial
Risk Specialists, and Financial Specialists, All
Other $119,100 0.003%
13-1111 Management Analysts $113,750 0.001%
13-1081 Logisticians $82,010 0.001%
13-2041 Credit Analysts $109,330 0.001%
13-1041 Compliance Officers $92,960 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $86,096 0.269%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
651
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
15-1232 Computer User Support Specialists $75,640 0.004% 15-1256
Software Developers and Software Quality
Assurance Analysts and Testers $145,250 0.003%
15-1244 Network and Computer Systems Administrators $104,370 0.003% 15-1257 Web Developers and Digital Interface Designers $110,790 0.003% 15-1299 Computer Occupations, All Other $120,370 0.003% 15-1211 Computer Systems Analysts $121,300 0.001%
15-1231 Computer Network Support Specialists $85,990 0.001% 15-1251 Computer Programmers $116,400 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $109,230 0.019%
21-0000 Community and Social Service Occupations
21-1019 Counselors, All Other $66,150 0.001%
21-1022 Healthcare Social Workers $86,560 0.0005%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $73,047 0.001%
23-0000 Legal Occupations
23-2093 Title Examiners, Abstractors, and Searchers $59,890 0.002% 23-2099 Legal Support Workers, All Other $61,510 0.0003% 23-1011 Lawyers $188,910 0.0003%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $73,546 0.002%
25-0000 Educational Instruction and Library Occupations 25-3021 Self-Enrichment Teachers $53,730 0.005%
25-3097 Tutors and Teachers and Instructors, All Other $50,800 0.0001% 25-9031 Instructional Coordinators $77,090 0.0001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $54,313 0.005%
27-0000
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Occupations
27-2012 Producers and Directors $104,520 0.017%
27-3031 Public Relations Specialists $84,520 0.011%
27-1026 Merchandise Displayers and Window Trimmers $38,480 0.011% 27-4032 Film and Video Editors $83,100 0.007%
27-4011 Audio and Video Technicians $64,140 0.005%
27-1024 Graphic Designers $77,110 0.005%
27-1025 Interior Designers $72,240 0.004%
27-1014 Special Effects Artists and Animators $97,570 0.004% 27-4031 Camera Operators, Television, Video, and Film $59,160 0.003% Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
652
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
27-4098
Lighting Technicians and Media and
Communication Equipment Workers, All Other $60,610 0.003% 27-3099 Media and Communication Workers, All Other $63,270 0.002% 27-4021 Photographers $61,530 0.002%
27-1027 Set and Exhibit Designers $60,530 0.002%
27-1011 Art Directors $135,970 0.002%
27-1023 Floral Designers $39,920 0.002%
27-3041 Editors $86,530 0.002%
27-1022 Fashion Designers $89,400 0.001%
27-4014 Sound Engineering Technicians $70,470 0.001%
27-1019 Artists and Related Workers, All Other $93,840 0.001% 27-3043 Writers and Authors $93,060 0.001%
27-1013
Fine Artists, Including Painters, Sculptors, and
Illustrators $85,980 0.001%
27-4012 Broadcast Technicians $57,390 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $66,961 0.102%
29-0000
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical
Occupations
29-2052 Pharmacy Technicians $51,090 0.143%
29-1051 Pharmacists $148,390 0.089%
29-2081 Opticians, Dispensing $50,840 0.014%
29-1041 Optometrists $125,680 0.004%
29-1031 Dietitians and Nutritionists $87,890 0.003%
29-2092 Hearing Aid Specialists $66,050 0.003%
29-1141 Registered Nurses $138,000 0.002%
29-2091 Orthotists and Prosthetists $81,090 0.001%
29-2057 Ophthalmic Medical Technicians $52,660 0.001%
29-1126 Respiratory Therapists $97,950 0.001%
29-1181 Audiologists $102,560 0.001%
29-1171 Nurse Practitioners $157,150 0.001%
29-2098
Medical Dosimetrists, Medical Records
Specialists, and Health Technologists and
Technicians, All Other $58,370 0.001%
29-1298
Acupuncturists and Healthcare Diagnosing or
Treating Practitioners, All Other $76,670 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $86,954 0.266%
31-0000 Healthcare Support Occupations
31-9011 Massage Therapists $50,560 0.041%
31-9095 Pharmacy Aides $46,430 0.017%
31-9099 Healthcare Support Workers, All Other $50,950 0.002% Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
653
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
31-1120 Home Health and Personal Care Aides $30,320 0.001% 31-9092 Medical Assistants $48,920 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $48,986 0.063%
33-0000 Protective Service Occupations
33-9032 Security Guards $38,580 0.106%
33-1090
Miscellaneous First-Line Supervisors, Protective
Service Workers $61,530 0.001%
33-9098
School Bus Monitors and Protective Service
Workers, All Other $49,650 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $38,981 0.108%
35-0000
Food Preparation and Serving Related
Occupations
35-3023 Fast Food and Counter Workers $31,610 28.085%
35-3031 Waiters and Waitresses $37,810 18.684%
35-2014 Cooks, Restaurant $38,430 10.548%
35-1012
First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and
Serving Workers $44,560 6.745%
35-2011 Cooks, Fast Food $27,060 4.527%
35-2021 Food Preparation Workers $31,820 3.926%
35-9021 Dishwashers $31,680 3.412%
35-9031
Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and
Coffee Shop $34,520 3.306%
35-9011
Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and
Bartender Helpers $35,040 2.686%
35-3011 Bartenders $37,310 2.682%
35-2015 Cooks, Short Order $34,460 0.857%
35-1011 Chefs and Head Cooks $63,740 0.599%
35-9099
Food Preparation and Serving Related Workers,
All Other $31,250 0.368%
35-3041 Food Servers, Nonrestaurant $35,200 0.177%
35-2012 Cooks, Institution and Cafeteria $40,710 0.082% 35-2019 Cooks, All Other $40,740 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $35,217 86.687%
37-0000
Building and Grounds Cleaning and
Maintenance Occupations
37-2011
Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and
Housekeeping Cleaners $38,870 0.287%
37-2012 Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners $41,430 0.022%
37-3011 Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers $43,940 0.011% 37-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and
Janitorial Workers $53,550 0.002%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
654
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $39,305 0.321%
39-0000 Personal Care and Service Occupations
39-5012 Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists $35,410 0.243% 39-5092 Manicurists and Pedicurists $29,490 0.079%
39-2021 Animal Caretakers $34,130 0.045%
39-5094 Skincare Specialists $37,640 0.031%
39-1098
First-Line Supervisors of Personal Service and
Entertainment and Recreation Workers, Except
Gambling Services $54,240 0.027%
39-3091 Amusement and Recreation Attendants $29,650 0.025% 39-3031 Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers $33,520 0.020% 39-5011 Barbers $52,940 0.014%
39-5093 Shampooers - 0.009%
39-9098
Crematory Operators and Personal Care and
Service Workers, All Other $35,060 0.007%
39-3093
Locker Room, Coatroom, and Dressing Room
Attendants $41,030 0.005%
39-9031 Exercise Trainers and Group Fitness Instructors $59,340 0.004% 39-2011 Animal Trainers $42,320 0.003%
39-6012 Concierges $44,060 0.002%
39-3021 Motion Picture Projectionists $34,350 0.001%
39-5091 Makeup Artists, Theatrical and Performance - 0.001% 39-4021 Funeral Attendants $39,180 0.001%
39-4031 Morticians, Undertakers, and Funeral Arrangers $60,050 0.001% 39-3092 Costume Attendants $42,930 0.001%
39-6011 Baggage Porters and Bellhops $33,390 0.001%
39-7010 Tour and Travel Guides $42,380 0.001%
39-9011 Childcare Workers $35,590 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $35,291 0.523%
41-0000 Sales and Related Occupations
41-2011 Cashiers $32,150 3.652%
41-2031 Retail Salespersons $34,810 1.668%
41-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers $46,980 0.367% 41-2022 Parts Salespersons $45,260 0.083%
41-3091
Sales Representatives of Services, Except
Advertising, Insurance, Financial Services, and
Travel $81,320 0.080%
41-2021 Counter and Rental Clerks $40,320 0.072%
41-4012
Sales Representatives, Wholesale and
Manufacturing, Except Technical and Scientific
Products $81,830 0.035%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
655
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
41-1012
First-Line Supervisors of Non-Retail Sales
Workers $77,590 0.013%
41-9099 Sales and Related Workers, All Other - 0.010%
41-3031
Securities, Commodities, and Financial Services
Sales Agents $101,770 0.004%
41-4011
Sales Representatives, Wholesale and
Manufacturing, Technical and Scientific
Products $104,680 0.003%
41-9041 Telemarketers $33,420 0.003%
41-9011 Demonstrators and Product Promoters $36,560 0.002% 41-3011 Advertising Sales Agents $92,720 0.001%
41-3021 Insurance Sales Agents $109,960 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $35,176 5.992%
43-0000 Office and Administrative Support Occupations
43-9061 Office Clerks, General $46,920 0.285%
43-4051 Customer Service Representatives $49,200 0.214% 43-3031 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks $54,980 0.202% 43-6014
Secretaries and Administrative Assistants,
Except Legal, Medical, and Executive $51,170 0.094%
43-4171 Receptionists and Information Clerks $39,990 0.093% 43-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Office and
Administrative Support Workers $71,190 0.068%
43-5071 Shipping, Receiving, and Inventory Clerks $42,910 0.045% 43-4151 Order Clerks $45,220 0.016%
43-3051 Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks $63,280 0.015%
43-3021 Billing and Posting Clerks $50,120 0.011%
43-6011
Executive Secretaries and Executive
Administrative Assistants $82,480 0.008%
43-5061 Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks $63,180 0.007% 43-4161
Human Resources Assistants, Except Payroll
and Timekeeping $53,370 0.006%
43-2011
Switchboard Operators, Including Answering
Service $49,560 0.006%
43-9199
Office and Administrative Support Workers, All
Other $45,160 0.005%
43-3011 Bill and Account Collectors $55,830 0.004%
43-5032 Dispatchers, Except Police, Fire, and Ambulance $54,040 0.003% 43-4071 File Clerks $41,240 0.003%
43-3061 Procurement Clerks $50,680 0.003%
43-5021 Couriers and Messengers $42,320 0.003%
43-9021 Data Entry Keyers $41,790 0.002%
43-4199 Information and Record Clerks, All Other $57,150 0.002% 43-4041 Credit Authorizers, Checkers, and Clerks $47,330 0.002% Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
656
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
43-4131 Loan Interviewers and Clerks $49,770 0.002%
43-6013
Medical Secretaries and Administrative
Assistants $49,140 0.001%
43-9041 Insurance Claims and Policy Processing Clerks $53,480 0.001% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $50,617 1.104%
45-0000 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
45-2092
Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop, Nursery, and
Greenhouse $37,430 0.002%
45-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Farming, Fishing, and
Forestry Workers $54,120 0.0001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $38,161 0.002%
47-0000 Construction and Extraction Occupations
47-2031 Carpenters $71,490 0.007%
47-2121 Glaziers $72,550 0.005%
47-2041 Carpet Installers $64,200 0.005%
47-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades
and Extraction Workers $99,580 0.002%
47-2111 Electricians $100,400 0.001%
47-2042
Floor Layers, Except Carpet, Wood, and Hard
Tiles $66,540 0.001%
47-2061 Construction Laborers $55,970 0.001%
47-4031 Fence Erectors $44,820 0.001%
47-2044 Tile and Stone Setters $59,410 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $70,399 0.027%
49-0000
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
Occupations
49-3023 Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics $58,630 0.273% 49-9071 Maintenance and Repair Workers, General $56,230 0.166% 49-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers,
and Repairers $89,740 0.038%
49-3021 Automotive Body and Related Repairers $57,580 0.028% 49-3093 Tire Repairers and Changers $36,640 0.018%
49-9091
Coin, Vending, and Amusement Machine
Servicers and Repairers $43,550 0.010%
49-9099
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Workers,
All Other $55,210 0.009%
49-2011
Computer, Automated Teller, and Office Machine
Repairers $45,100 0.008%
49-9098
Helpers--Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
Workers $37,740 0.007%
49-3031
Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine
Specialists $68,840 0.006%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
657
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
49-3091 Bicycle Repairers $32,090 0.006%
49-9031 Home Appliance Repairers $53,820 0.004%
49-9011 Mechanical Door Repairers $52,210 0.003%
49-9063 Musical Instrument Repairers and Tuners - 0.003% 49-2097 Audiovisual Equipment Installers and Repairers $59,500 0.003% 49-3053
Outdoor Power Equipment and Other Small
Engine Mechanics $45,750 0.003%
49-9062 Medical Equipment Repairers $69,330 0.002%
49-2096
Electronic Equipment Installers and Repairers,
Motor Vehicles $47,500 0.002%
49-9021
Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration
Mechanics and Installers $76,480 0.001%
49-3052 Motorcycle Mechanics $57,800 0.001%
49-3051 Motorboat Mechanics and Service Technicians $59,490 0.001% 49-3092 Recreational Vehicle Service Technicians $42,360 0.001% 49-9096 Riggers $73,610 0.001%
49-9095
Manufactured Building and Mobile Home
Installers - 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $57,919 0.594%
51-0000 Production Occupations
51-3011 Bakers $36,960 0.349%
51-6011 Laundry and Dry-Cleaning Workers $34,880 0.032% 51-3092 Food Batchmakers $35,300 0.032%
51-3021 Butchers and Meat Cutters $39,080 0.018%
51-9012
Separating, Filtering, Clarifying, Precipitating,
and Still Machine Setters, Operators, and
Tenders $57,140 0.014%
51-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Production and
Operating Workers $76,700 0.013%
51-2090 Miscellaneous Assemblers and Fabricators $43,160 0.010% 51-3091
Food and Tobacco Roasting, Baking, and Drying
Machine Operators and Tenders $39,920 0.009%
51-6021
Pressers, Textile, Garment, and Related
Materials $30,100 0.009%
51-6052 Tailors, Dressmakers, and Custom Sewers $52,870 0.007% 51-9083 Ophthalmic Laboratory Technicians $43,010 0.006% 51-9061
Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and
Weighers $49,860 0.005%
51-3022 Meat, Poultry, and Fish Cutters and Trimmers $35,910 0.005% 51-3099 Food Processing Workers, All Other $32,410 0.005% 51-6031 Sewing Machine Operators $32,880 0.004%
51-9124
Coating, Painting, and Spraying Machine
Setters, Operators, and Tenders $50,520 0.003%
51-9198 Helpers--Production Workers $34,400 0.003%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
658
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
51-9151
Photographic Process Workers and Processing
Machine Operators $51,650 0.002%
51-9199 Production Workers, All Other $37,130 0.001%
51-7011 Cabinetmakers and Bench Carpenters $46,910 0.001% 51-9082 Medical Appliance Technicians $56,910 0.001%
51-9194 Etchers and Engravers - 0.001%
51-9195
Molders, Shapers, and Casters, Except Metal
and Plastic $44,460 0.001%
51-5112 Printing Press Operators $43,690 0.001%
51-9023
Mixing and Blending Machine Setters,
Operators, and Tenders $48,700 0.001%
51-9071 Jewelers and Precious Stone and Metal Workers $39,560 0.001% 51-4121 Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers $58,600 0.001% 51-9111
Packaging and Filling Machine Operators and
Tenders $34,740 0.001%
51-7041
Sawing Machine Setters, Operators, and
Tenders, Wood $31,740 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $38,854 0.536%
53-0000
Transportation and Material Moving
Occupations
53-3033 Light Truck Drivers $48,790 0.377%
53-7065 Stockers and Order Fillers $36,170 0.189%
53-7061 Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment $33,470 0.096% 53-7062
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material
Movers, Hand $39,930 0.093%
53-6021 Parking Attendants $34,320 0.063%
53-6031 Automotive and Watercraft Service Attendants $31,340 0.028% 53-1047
First-Line Supervisors of Transportation and
Material Moving Workers, Except Aircraft Cargo
Handling Supervisors $66,690 0.026%
53-3058
Passenger Vehicle Drivers, Except Bus Drivers,
Transit and Intercity $40,610 0.023%
53-3032 Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers $51,440 0.016% 53-7064 Packers and Packagers, Hand $32,950 0.013%
53-3099 Motor Vehicle Operators, All Other $55,930 0.011% 53-7051 Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators $43,940 0.009% 53-7199 Material Moving Workers, All Other $34,200 0.006% 53-3031 Driver/Sales Workers $34,920 0.005%
53-6098
Aircraft Service Attendants and Transportation
Workers, All Other $52,040 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $42,424 0.958%
Total, Land Use $37,493 100.000%
Notes:
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
659
(a) Occupational mix by industry was obtained from US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, 2019. (b) Wage data for the San Francisco Metropolitan Statistical Area was obtained from California Economic Development Department, OES Employment and Wages by Occupation, 2019.
(c) Distribution of workers is calculated based on the existing distribution of employment by industry in Marin County, provided by Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
660
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Hotel Workers (c)
11-0000 Management Occupations
11-9081 Lodging Managers $104,250 1.622%
11-1021 General and Operations Managers $155,850 0.810% 11-9051 Food Service Managers $63,460 0.422%
11-2022 Sales Managers $159,720 0.308%
11-9198
Personal Service Managers, All Other; Entertainment
and Recreation Managers, Except Gambling; and
Managers, All Other $168,900 0.214%
11-3031 Financial Managers $182,190 0.206%
11-3010 Administrative Services and Facilities Managers $132,020 0.192% 11-3121 Human Resources Managers $163,810 0.100%
11-9071 Gambling Managers $125,300 0.094%
11-2021 Marketing Managers $181,720 0.080%
11-3021 Computer and Information Systems Managers $201,960 0.035% 11-1011 Chief Executives $236,060 0.021%
11-3061 Purchasing Managers $154,870 0.021%
11-9141
Property, Real Estate, and Community Association
Managers $92,930 0.019%
11-2030 Public Relations and Fundraising Managers $142,950 0.012% 11-9041 Architectural and Engineering Managers $186,500 0.011% 11-2011 Advertising and Promotions Managers $175,210 0.008% 11-9021 Construction Managers $134,880 0.007%
11-3131 Training and Development Managers $152,380 0.005% 11-3071 Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers $123,910 0.005% 11-3111 Compensation and Benefits Managers $170,770 0.003% 11-3051 Industrial Production Managers $140,910 0.003%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $128,280 4.198%
13-0000 Business and Financial Operations Occupations
13-1121 Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners $67,530 0.441% 13-2011 Accountants and Auditors $93,590 0.438%
13-1071 Human Resources Specialists $89,820 0.225%
13-1161 Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists $91,350 0.182% 13-1198
Project Management Specialists and Business
Operations Specialists, All Other $93,010 0.145%
13-1020 Buyers and Purchasing Agents $79,040 0.087%
13-1151 Training and Development Specialists $83,550 0.040% 13-1041 Compliance Officers $92,960 0.029%
13-2098
Financial and Investment Analysts, Financial Risk
Specialists, and Financial Specialists, All Other $119,100 0.028% 13-1111 Management Analysts $113,750 0.020%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
661
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Hotel
Workers (c)
13-1141
Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis
Specialists $83,230 0.013%
13-1075 Labor Relations Specialists $86,370 0.006%
13-2041 Credit Analysts $109,330 0.003%
13-2031 Budget Analysts $93,800 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $85,441 1.660%
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
15-1232 Computer User Support Specialists $75,640 0.071% 15-1244 Network and Computer Systems Administrators $104,370 0.041% 15-1299 Computer Occupations, All Other $120,370 0.022% 15-1211 Computer Systems Analysts $121,300 0.015%
15-1231 Computer Network Support Specialists $85,990 0.011% 15-1245 Database Administrators and Architects $107,930 0.008% 15-1256
Software Developers and Software Quality
Assurance Analysts and Testers $145,250 0.008%
15-1241 Computer Network Architects $137,720 0.006%
15-1212 Information Security Analysts $122,570 0.005%
15-1257 Web Developers and Digital Interface Designers $110,790 0.005% 15-1251 Computer Programmers $116,400 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $99,597 0.195%
17-0000 Architecture and Engineering Occupations
17-3023
Electrical and Electronic Engineering Technologists
and Technicians $67,200 0.012%
17-2141 Mechanical Engineers $123,270 0.008%
17-2199 Engineers, All Other $113,050 0.004%
17-2051 Civil Engineers $120,110 0.003%
17-3027
Mechanical Engineering Technologists and
Technicians $61,100 0.003%
17-2071 Electrical Engineers $120,990 0.000%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $93,450 0.031%
19-0000 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations
19-5011 Occupational Health and Safety Specialists $108,230 0.005% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $108,230 0.005%
23-0000 Legal Occupations
23-1011 Lawyers $188,910 0.005%
23-2011 Paralegals and Legal Assistants $71,360 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $152,176 0.008%
Item #3B- Attachment 3
Item #3B- Attachment 3
662
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Hotel
Workers (c)
27-0000
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Occupations
27-4011 Audio and Video Technicians $64,140 0.139%
27-2022 Coaches and Scouts $48,900 0.065%
27-3031 Public Relations Specialists $84,520 0.039%
27-3099 Media and Communication Workers, All Other $63,270 0.027% 27-1024 Graphic Designers $77,110 0.019%
27-4098
Lighting Technicians and Media and Communication
Equipment Workers, All Other $60,610 0.010%
27-1023 Floral Designers $39,920 0.009%
27-2090
Miscellaneous Entertainers and Performers, Sports
and Related Workers * 0.006%
27-1026 Merchandise Displayers and Window Trimmers $38,480 0.005% 27-2021 Athletes and Sports Competitors - 0.003%
27-2042 Musicians and Singers * 0.002%
27-2011 Actors * 0.000%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $62,212 0.340%