Agenda packet — San Anselmo City Council, April 25, 2023 (part 1 of 3)

Tuesday, April 25, 2023 6:50 PM
I. Interviews for Climate Action Committee - 6:50 PM
In the Council Chambers at 525 San Anselmo Avenue, San Anselmo, CA 94960 Town Council
Agenda
Meeting held In-Person and via Zoom:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84939946405
Or Telephone: +1 669 900 6833 | Webinar ID: 849 3994 6405 How to Submit Comments Before the Meeting: Members of the public are encouraged to submit email correspondence to [email protected] before the meeting begins.

How to Participate During the Meeting: Members of the public will have the option to speak during the meeting through the Zoom application by using their phone or an electronic device.

For PC, Mac, or smart phone, Use ?Raise hand? function when public comment for an item is requested. It is a button that is located at the top or bottom of your screen, based on your computer For landline phones, raise hand to be recognized with *9 6:50 PM- Kathleen Gundry- Climate Action Committee
Kathleen Gundry - Application no Resume
Call to Order. Optional Pledge of Allegiance: The Mayor or a designated Council member will recite the Pledge of Allegiance for members of the Council and the public who wish to join in the recitation.

Open time for public expression.

The public is welcome to address the Council at this time on matters not on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Council. Please be advised that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, Council is not permitted to discuss or take action on any matter not on the agenda unless it determines that an emergency exists, or that there is a need to take immediate action which arose following posting of the agenda. Comments may be no longer than three minutes and should be respectful to the community.

Town Council Agenda April 25, 2023
1 1. Consent Agenda:

1.1 Approval of the Draft Minutes of the Town Council Meeting of April 11, 2023.

1.2 Approve the Revenue and Expenditure Reports, March 2023.

1.3 Approve the Financial Report on Recreation Fund- March 2023.

1.4 Approve the Quarterly Treasurer’s Investment Report, March 31, 2023

1.5 Consideration of Special Event Application – Cedars of Marin Farm stand 2023.

1.6 Consider extension for refreshing the The Cedars’ Art Installation on Magnolia Ave.

1.7 Adopt a Resolution in Recognition of National Small Business Week and San Anselmo’s Small Council requests for future agenda items.

Council committee liaison reports, questions and comments to staff; staff miscellaneous items.

Special Presentation.

Mayor's Proclamation Recognizing Nancy Altman for her hard work on the San Anselmo Beautification Committee.

The opportunity for public comment on consent agenda items will occur prior to Council discussion of the consent agenda. The Council may approve the entire consent agenda with one action. In the alternative, items on the consent agenda may be removed by any Council or staff member, for separate discussion and vote.

Staff Report
Attachment 1- Draft Minutes
Approve the monthly year-to-date Revenue and Expenditure Reports and corresponding activity for the period ending through March 31, 2023.

Staff Report
Attachment 1- General Fund Revenue and Expense Report by Subcategory - March 2023 Attachment 2- General Fund Expense Report by Department - March 2023 Approve the Financial Report.

Staff Report
That the Town Council approve the Treasurer’s Investment Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2023.

Staff Report
Attachment 1- Quarterly Investment Report, March 31, 2023 Consider the Approval of the Special Event Application.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Event Application
Consider the approval of the extension for refreshing the Cedar's Art Installation.

Staff Report
Town Council Agenda April 25, 2023
2 Businesses and Proclaiming the Month of May as Small Business Month. The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under the “common sense” exemption, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15061).

1.8 Approve the Purchase of a New Electric Riding Lawnmower.

1.9 Adopt Ordinance Amending Amendments to the San Anselmo Municipal Code Section 10-

3.607, Nonconforming uses and improvements, Section 10-4.206, Nonconforming Structures and Exceptions to standards, and add a Section 10-3.405, Minor Intrusions into Required Development Standards for Residential Properties Table 4B to allow the repair and/or replacement of foundations for legal nonconforming residential structures and find Adoption of the Ordinance and Policy Application memo is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under the “common sense” exemption CEQA Guideline section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that it will have a significant environmental effect. The project is also exempt from CEQA Guideline Section 15301 for minor alterations of existing residences involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that already in existence.

2. Council Business Items:
2A Update on Preparation of Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS). The item is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines because it does not constitute a “project”.

Staff Report
Attachment 1- Draft Resolution
That the Town Council authorize the Public Works Director to purchase a new Gravely ProTurn EV electric riding lawnmower in the amount of $28,790.00.

Staff Report
Staff Report
Attachment 1- Draft Ordinance
In general, the following procedural order applies to items of business:
•Presentation
•Town Council questions
•PUBLIC COMMENT – limited to 3 minutes/person
•Town Council discussion/action
Staff Report
Attachment 1 - State Law Summary
Attachment 2 - Marin County Survey Summary Report
Attachment 3 - Draft ODDS
Attachment 4 - Draft ODDS Zones Map
Town Council Agenda April 25, 2023
3 3. Public Hearing:
3A
Approve resolution Amending the Town’s Master Fee Schedule and finding the action statutorily and categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(8) and CEQA Guidelines section 15273, because it involves approval of charges by the Town which the Town finds are for the purpose of meeting operating expenses.
3B 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. 3C
Introduction and first reading of an Amendment to the San Anselmo Municipal Code adding Chapter 9 “Gate Safeguards” to Title 9 “Building Regulations”. The proposed Ordinance Amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) because it is not a “project’ under CEQA; CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), the “common sense exemption”, because the proposed Ordinance Amendment will not have a significant environmental effect; and CEQA Guidelines section 15307 and 15308 as an action taken by a regulatory agency to protect the environment.

2. Council Business Items Continuation
In general, the following procedural order applies to Public Hearing Items:
•Presentation
•Town Council questions
•PUBLIC COMMENT – limited to 3 minutes/person
•Town Council discussion/action
That the Town Council conduct a public hearing and adopt the attached Resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule effective July 1, 2023.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 -Resolution Amend Fee Schedule 2023
Exhibit A - San Anselmo Fee Schedule, July 1 2023
Attachment 2 -Town of Ross Fee Schedule - Police
Attachment 3 - City of San Rafael Parking Fees
Staff Report
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 Febraury 18, 2023
Staff Report
Attachment 1- Ordinance
Town Council Agenda April 25, 2023
4 2B Discussion re: Murals on Private Property in Town Commercial districts. The Council’s discussion of the Town's murals is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act, because it does not involve an activity which has the potential to cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (Cal.

Pub. Res. Code § 21065).
2C
Proposed 2023-25 Work Plan Priorities. Receiving the presentation on the Town’s Work Plan is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act, because it does not involve an activity which has the potential to cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065). 2D Consider to reappoint (1) one incumbent to the Climate Action Commission. The proposed decision is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under the “common sense” exemption, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant negative effect on the environment. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15061).

Discussion re: Murals on Private Property in Town Commercial districts.

Staff Report
Attachment 1- February 28, 2023 Staff Report
Provide input on Proposed 2023-25 Work Plan Priorities.

Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Work Plan Priorities 2023-25 Dept.

Attachment 2 - Work Plan Priorities 2023-25 Category
Attachment 3 - Councilmember Work Plan Submissions
Consider to reappoint incumbent.

Staff Report
Attachment 1- Kathleen Gundry- Application no Resume
Adjourn
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Town Staff at email [email protected]. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable accommodation to help insure accessibility to this meeting.

Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Town Council regarding any item on this agenda after the distribution of the original packet will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at Town Hall located at 525 San Anselmo Avenue.

Notice is hereby given that Council may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on this agenda.

If any of these matters above are challenged in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at any public hearing described on this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered at, or prior to, this Council meeting. Judicial review of an administrative decision of the Town Council must be filed with the Court not later than the 90th day following the date of the Council’s decision (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6) Any item not under discussion before 10:00 p.m. may be continued to the next regular meeting. Next regular meeting is May 9, 2023.

Town Council Agenda April 25, 2023
5 Administration Department
Town Hall, main floor
525 San Anselmo Avenue
San Anselmo, CA 94960
(415) 258-4691
Town Council
Steve Burdo, Mayor
Eileen Burke, Vice Mayor
Brian Colbert, Councilmember
Alexis Fineman, Councilmember
Tarrell Kullaway, Councilmember
Staff
David Donery, Town Manager
Linda Kenton, Assistant Town Manager / Town Librarian
Megan Holt Acevedo, Town Attorney
Serge Avila, Town Clerk
Heidi Scoble, Planning Director
Sean Condry, Public Works Director
Dannielle Mauk, Community Services Director
Mike Norton, Chief of Police
Jason Weber, Fire Chief
Declaration of Posting
This Notice is posted in accordance with Government Code §54954.2(a) or §54956. Members of the public can view electronic agendas and staff reports by accessing the Town of San Anselmo website.

Under penalty of perjury, this Agenda was posted to the public at least 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Town Council Agenda April 25, 2023
6 3/22/23, 10:36 AM https://www.townofsananselmo.org/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/1824 https://www.townofsananselmo.org/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/1824 1/3 Print

TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO

APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO A SAN ANSELMO BOARD/COMMISSION/COMMITTEE To: San Anselmo Town Council
Date*
03/23/2023
I wish to apply for an
appointment to a term/balance*
Name*
Kathleen Gundry
Home Address*
70 Barber Avenue
Occupation*
retired
Employer's Address
Home Phone*
7037853471
Work Phone
Boards, Committees and Commissions Application - Submission #1824 Date Submitted: 3/21/2023
Climate Action Commission
7 3/22/23, 10:36 AM https://www.townofsananselmo.org/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/1824 https://www.townofsananselmo.org/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/1824 2/3 Cell Phone
7037853471
E-Mail*
[email protected]
Number of years as resident of San Anselmo*
7 Number of years as a resident in Marin*
23 Education Level Achieved*
Name and phone numbers of three San Anselmo residents who can be contacted for referral information about me:

1.) Name*
Michael Kamerick

1.) Phone*
415-218-7553

2.) Name*
Sue Saunders

2.) Phone*
415-686-0448

3.) Name*
Karen Mendelow

3.) Phone*
609-313-6515
YES
NO
I would be able to regularly attend the meetings of this Board/Commission/Committee.* YES
NO
I would be available to attend additional meetings when they are necessary.* Graduate Degree (Major)
8 3/22/23, 10:36 AM https://www.townofsananselmo.org/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/1824 https://www.townofsananselmo.org/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/Print/1824 3/3 YES
NO
I am familiar with the responsibilities and functions of this Board/Commission/Committee.* YES
NO
I have attended meetings of the Board/Commission/Committee as a member of the public.* List briefly, previous experience serving the public office, and/or civic commissions,boards, or committees.* Served on the San Anselmo Climate Action Commission (formerly the Sustainability Commission) since 2020.

Have served as Chair of the Commission since 2021.

Reasons for this appointment.*
Would like to continue to support the programs of the CAC to implement the Climate Action Plan, and mentor new Commission members to take over leadership roles.

What are your qualifications for this appointment.*
Education in natural resources field, career in environmental and health data, certification as a project manager, experience as Chair of this Commission for the past 2 years.

Briefly, what do you consider to be the most important, one or two current issues facing this Board/Commission/Committee?* Advising the Town Council on how to fully implement the actions in the Climate Action Plan to meet the Town's Greenhouse Gas emission reduction goals, given the limitations of the Town budget and staff.

YES
NO
I understand that I and all other applicants will be personally interviewed by the Town Council as part of the selection process for this appointment. I also understand that my application material will be a public document and available on the Town's website. Sensitive materials that you don't wish to be posted on the website should not be included with the application.*
Other Boards/Commissions/Committees on which you would be interested in serving if not appointed to this seat?* You may attach personal resumes or other information which you believe would be helpful to the Council in its selection process.

Choose File No file chosen
Thank you for your interest in serving the Town of San
Anselmo and its citizens. For further information, please contact the Town Clerk, at
[email protected] or 415-258-4660.

None
9 Item #: 1.4

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #: 1.1
MEETING DATE: April 23, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Approval of the Draft Minutes of the Town Council Meeting of April 11, 2023
FROM: Serge Avila, Chief Town Clerk
RECOMMENDATION: For Council to consider the approval of the Draft Minutes of the Town Council meeting of April 11, 2023.

ATTACHMENT:

Attachment 1- April 11, 2023 Draft Minutes
10 1
1 2
3 4 San Anselmo Council Minutes
5 Regular Meeting
6 Town Council Chambers and via teleconference
7 Tuesday, April 11, 2023
8 9 Mayor Burdo called the Closed Session to order at 6:20 p.m. at the Town Hall 10 Council Chambers.
11 12 Closed Session held pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1):
13 Conference with Legal Counsel- Existing Litigation
14 Name of Case: In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, Northern District of Ohio, 15 Case No. 1:17-MD-2804 (National Opioid litigation involving Teva, Allergan, CAS, 16 Walmart, and Walgreens)
17 18 Mayor Burdo opened the meeting to public comments regarding the Closed Session. 19 20 There were no comments.
21 22 Mayor Burdo closed the meeting to public comments regarding the Closed Session. 23 24 The Council adjourned to closed session and left the Council Chambers. 25 26 Council reconvened in the Council Chambers to conduct Interviews. 27 28 Council conducted Interviews for the Infrastructure and Fiscal Monitoring Committee:
29 Stanley Radtke, Marie Henrio, Erik Selvig
30 31 Mayor Burdo opened the meeting to Open Session.
32 33 Call to Order, Optional Pledge of Allegiance
34 35 COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Burdo, Mayor
36 Eileen Burke, Vice Mayor
37 Alexis Fineman
38 Tarrell Kullaway
39 40 COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Brian Colbert
41 42 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dave Donery, Town Manager
43 Megan Acevedo, Town Attorney
44 Heidi Scoble, Planning Director
45 Sean Condry, Public Works Director
46 Serge Avila, Town Clerk
47 Linda Kenton, Assistant Town Manager
48 Dannielle Mauk, Recreation Director
49 Maddy O’Grady, Recreation Coordinator
50 51 Mayor Burdo announced that in Closed Session the Council voted unanimously to 52 opt into the National Opioid Settlements with Teva, Allergan, CAS, Walmart, and 53 Walgreens and direct any settlement proceeds to the County for its Opioid 54 Abatement Programs and to authorize the Town Attorney to take all necessary steps 55 to carry out this action.
11 2
1 Open Time for Public Expression
2 3 Ms. Diana Davis, San Anselmo, stated Supervisor Katie Rice was at the last Council meeting to 4 listen to the County presentation of its Flood Control Plan. Supervisor Rice left when the public 5 comments started- not a good look for any elected representative. Flooding in downtown San 6 Anselmo is inevitable.
7 8 Mr. Walter Zerby, San Anselmo, stated he was recently given a citation for riding his ebike in 9 Memorial Park. He opposed the prohibition of riding bikes in the park. 10 11 Mr. Robert Reed agreed with Mr. Zerby.
12 13 Mr. Guy Meyer, San Anselmo, referred to the Reimagine Creek Park Project and opposed 14 Redwood decking under Redwood trees, widening the concrete paths, and the concrete walls. 15 He opposed the ministerial review of housing developments. 16 17 Council requests for future agenda items; Committee liaison reports; questions and comments 18 to staff; miscellaneous items
19 20 Councilmember Kullaway reported she would like to revisit the motorized vehicle language in 21 parks and thought the 30-day trial period was putting people in danger; she would like to revisit 22 the Parking Study and subsequent recommendations.
23 24 Vice Mayor Burke reported she attended the Priority Committee meeting; received a lot of 25 feedback about the ebike citations issued in Memorial Park and hoped the rules would be 26 amended soon; the Friday Night Flashlight Egg Hunt was very cool and the Saturday Egg Hunt 27 was a great community event; reported a petition was submitted to place on the ballot the 28 decision on whether to leave Flood Zone 9.
29 30 Councilmember Fineman reported she attended the Racial Equity Ad Hoc Committee meeting; 31 the Infrastructure and Fiscal Monitoring Committee (IFMC) meeting; supported a re-examination 32 of the ebike policy; asked staff to present options for well monitoring and information regarding 33 water tables.
34 35 Mayor Burdo reported he attended the Friday and Saturday Egg Hunt Events; the Racial Equity 36 Ad Hoc Committee meeting; the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) meeting; announced the Community Meeting would be held on April 22nd 37 at 11:00 a.m. at the Isabel Cook 38 Center’s Vista Room.
39 40 Town Manager Donery stated staff is working on presenting an update on the Parking Study in 41 May. Re-examination of the ebike rules will be presented to the Parks and Recreation 42 Commission and then the Council.
43 44 1. Consent Agenda
45 46 1.1 Approve the Draft Minutes of the Town Council Meeting- March 28, 2023 47 48 1.2 Reports of Warrants Issued, March 2023
49 50 1.3 Adopted Resolution No. 4480 to Proclaim April 2023 as Fair Housing Month 51 52 1.4 Consider cancelling the Regular Town Council meetings scheduled for July 11, August 8, 53 November 21, and December 19, 2023
54 12
3 1 1.5 Adopted Resolution No. 4481 Designating the Town Council to Make a Determination of 2 Public Convenience or Necessity for the Issuance of Alcohol Licenses 3 4 1.6 Adopted Ordinance No. 1175 Amending the Town’s Single-Use Foodware Regulations and 5 Find the adoption of this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of CEQA 6 7 1.7 Consider to Approve Proclamation for 2023 National Library Week 8 9 1.8 Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter in opposition to Senate Bill 423 (Weiner) Streamlined 10 housing approvals: multifamily housing developments: SB35 11 12 Mayor Burdo opened the meeting to public comments. 13 14 There were no comments.
15 16 Mayor Burdo closed the meeting to public comments. 17 18 Councilmember Kullaway wanted to pull item #1.8 for discussion. 19 20 M/s, Burke/Fineman, Motion to approve Consent Calendar items #1.1 through #1.7. 21 AYES: Fineman, Kullaway, Vice Mayor Burke, Mayor Burdo 22 ABSENT: Colbert
23 24 1.8 Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter in opposition to Senate Bill 423 (Weiner) Streamlined 25 housing approvals: multifamily housing developments: SB35 26 27 Councilmember Kullaway stated a letter from San Anselmo will not sway things in the long run. 28 The letter was contrary to item #1.3. She supported the creation of fair, affordable housing. 29 30 Councilmember Fineman thought these letters were counterproductive. 31 32 Mayor Burdo agreed with Councilmembers Kullaway and Fineman. 33 34 Vice Mayor Burke stated one letter does not have much impact but a lot of letters could have an 35 impact. Signing this letter does not mean they are against affordable housing- it is about local 36 control over how affordable housing is implemented. She approved signing the letter. 37 38 Councilmember Fineman agreed- she is happy to sign or not sign the letter. 39 40 M/s, Burke/Fineman, Motion to approve Consent Calendar item #1.8. 41 AYES: Fineman, Vice Mayor Burke, Mayor Burdo
42 NOES: Kullaway
43 ABSENT: Colbert
44 45 Council Items
46 47 2A. Introduction and First Reading of Amendments to the San Anselmo Municipal Code 48 to Section 10-3.607, Nonconforming uses and improvements, Section 10-4.206, 49 Non-conforming Structures and Exceptions to standards, and add a Section 50 10-3.405, Minor Intrusions into Required Development Standards for Residential 51 Properties Table 4B to allow the repair and/or replacement of foundations for 52 legal non-conforming residential structures.
53 This item is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to CEQA 54 Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and 15301
13 4
1 2 Planning Director Scoble presented the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation. Staff 3 answered questions from the Council regarding if foundation replacement or repair triggers a 4 “substantial remodel”; how this interfaces with height limits; if this applies to new homes; how 5 staff plans to get the word out.
6 7 Mayor Burdo opened the meeting to public comments.
8 9 There were no comments.
10 11 Mayor Burdo closed the meeting to public comments. 12 13 Councilmember Fineman stated this is a good example of a win-win situation. People should be 14 able to adapt property in a way that makes sense. She has a slight concern with the impact to 15 views. She is ready to move forward.
16 17 Vice Mayor Burke stated this is a good idea and the view and sight line issue is important. The 18 need to raise a house four feet would probably be the exception and properties subject to these 19 amendments would be in the flat areas of Town. She supports these amendments. 20 21 Councilmember Kullaway supported the amendments.
22 23 Mayor Burdo stated notification to residents is very important. 24 25 M/s, Burke/Kullaway, Motion to Introduce and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance of the 26 Town Council of the Town of San Anselmo Amending Title 10 to Amend Chapter 3, 27 Section 10-3.405 Minor Intrusions into Required Development Standards for Residential 28 properties Table 4B to allow the repair and/or replacement of foundations for legal non29 conforming residential structures. 30 AYES: Fineman, Kullaway, Vice Mayor Burke, Mayor Burdo 31 ABSENT: Colbert
32 33 3A. Amendment of Town Master Fee Schedule to Include Fees for Private Parklets in the 34 Public Right-of-Way
35 This item is exempt from CEQA review per CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) and 36 15301(c)
37 38 Public Works Director Condry presented the staff report and a PowerPoint. Staff answered 39 questions from the Council regarding if there have been discussion about where the fees will go 40 (General Fund, etc.); if there has been thought to the additional taxes collected in these areas; if 41 thought had been given to lowering the administrative cost after one year; how the installation of 42 chairs on the sidewalks interface with the parklets; if there are any current applicants; how they 43 should deal with the other types of use of outdoor spaces (Taco Janes, etc.); if there could be a 44 pro-rated fee for a parklet that cuts a parking space in half; how to deal with two businesses 45 sharing a parklet and any change in that relationship; how the Town would deal with non46 compliance with the take-out/the plastics ordinance in a parklet; if fees would be pro-rated in the 47 event of the abatement of use; if the start of this provision would be on a calendar or fiscal year. 48 49 Mayor Burdo opened the meeting to public comments. 50 51 There were no comments.
52 53 Mayor Burdo closed the meeting to public comments. 54 14
5 1 Vice Mayor Burke would like to look at the use of chairs on sidewalks and perhaps bring that in 2 line with what is being proposed for parklets. This fee schedule strikes the right balance. She 3 has concerns about getting too many parklets and the impact to the streets. 4 5 Councilmember Fineman supports this proposal and would like to move from two spaces to 6 one. She brought up the concept of an annual escalator (3%, 5% etc.) and recirculating the 7 funds into revitalizing the downtown.
8 9 Mayor Burdo supported the proposal and suggested considering a “hardship waiver”. He 10 wanted a percentage to go to the revitalization of the downtown. 11 12 Councilmember Kullaway suggested they discuss the use of the funds in conjunction with the 13 future discussion of parking.
14 15 M/s, Burke/Kullaway, Motion to Amend the Resolution- 2A shall read as follows: “The 16 Annual Parklet Encroachment fee shall be $2,500 per space”. 17 AYES: Fineman, Kullaway, Vice Mayor Burke, Mayor Burdo 18 ABSENT: Colbert
19 20 3B. Review and provide feedback on staff’s preliminary Fiscal Year 2023/24 Measure J 21 Allocation Plan.
22 23 Finance Director Zuba presented the staff report and a PowerPoint presentation. Staff 24 answered questions from the Council regarding the survey results; the allocation for Building 25 Bridge 2; how staff came up with the categories with list of items; next steps; when the 26 projections of the IFMC would be introduced to the Council; when the 5-Year Capital 27 Improvement Budget would be presented to the Council; a separate road maintenance fund and 28 the percentage breakdowns; the current Pavement Condition Index (PCI); percentage allocated 29 for bike/pedestrian improvements; the process for getting projects from the Bicycle/Pedestrian 30 Advisory Committee to the Council.
31 32 Mayor Burdo opened the meeting to public comments. 33 34 Pastor Miles spoke in favor of a crosswalk at Sais Avenue. 35 36 Mr. Michael Cameron, Climate Action Commission, had a couple of questions and stated the 37 Commission would be submitting its priority list.
38 39 Mayor Burdo closed the meeting to public comments. 40 41 Vice Mayor Burke stated she is not comfortable assigning percentages without balancing them 42 with the survey results. She would like to see what other revenue sources are available for 43 these projects, the costs, timeframes, and how much has been allocated in the past. This will 44 help the Council to prioritize. She is not sure they should reserve Building Bridge 2 funds- they 45 do not know what is going to happen.
46 47 Councilmember Fineman stated the survey results showed the top three issues as follows:
48 roads, drought, and fire. She supported pulling Station 19 repairs out and having that as a 49 separate category. Water storage and green infrastructure are also important. She agreed with 50 Vice Mayor Burke’s desire for a “bigger picture”. She would like to have a specific percentage 51 go towards active transportation.
52 53 Councilmember Kullaway supported the request for a crosswalk at Sais Avenue. She agreed 54 with the comments made by Councilmember Fineman.
15 6
1 2 Mayor Burdo stated this is a great list to start the discussion. He supported a crosswalk at Sais 3 Avenue, the Solar Resiliency Hub, pulling out the Station 19 repairs, tennis court (and 4 Pickleball) improvement, additional EV charging where appropriate, and the ADA bathroom at 5 Robson.
6 7 3C. 2023-2025 Work Plan Priorities
8 This is not considered a “project” under CEQA per California Public Resources Code 9 Section 21065
10 11 Town Manager Donery and Assistant Town Manager Linda Kenton presented a staff report and 12 a PowerPoint presentation. Staff answered questions from the Council regarding the process 13 and timeframe; if the Measure J discussion incorporates the Work Plan adequately; if the intent 14 is to come up with doable goals; how staff came up with the categories of service; things that go 15 into the Work Plan vs. other projects in the “pipeline”; the appropriate way for the Council to 16 contribute to this document.
17 18 Mayor Burdo opened the meeting to public comments. 19 20 There were no comments.
21 22 Mayor Burdo closed the meeting to public comments. 23 24 Vice Mayor Burke noted the items were department specific and she looked forward to the 25 Council working together. She will send comments to staff. 26 27 Mayor Burdo wanted to add the following: Looking through the lens of equity and an 28 exanimation of Building Department fees by comparing them to other jurisdictions. 29 30 Town Manager Donery thanked the Council for the feedback and looked forward to their emails. 31 32 3D. Consider to reappoint three (3) incumbents to the Infrastructure and Fiscal Monitoring 33 Committee
34 This is exempt from environmental review under CEQA per California Public Resources 35 Code 15061.
36 37 Mayor Burdo opened the meeting to public comments. 38 39 There were no comments.
40 41 Mayor Burdo closed the meeting to public comments. 42 43 M/s, Burke/Fineman, Motion to appoint Stanley Radtke, Marie Henrio, Erik Selvig to the 44 Infrastructure and Fiscal Monitoring Committee.
45 AYES: Fineman, Kullaway, Vice Mayor Burke, Mayor Burdo 46 ABSENT: Colbert
47 48 M/s, Burke/Fineman, Motion to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 p.m. 49 50 Respectfully submitted,
51 52 Toni DeFrancis,
53 Recording Secretary
16 Item #: 1.2

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #:1.2
MEETING DATE: April 25, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Revenue and Expenditure Reports, March 2023 FROM: Jeff Zuba, Finance & Admin Services Director
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the monthly year-to-date Revenue and Expenditure Reports and corresponding activity for the period ending through March 31, 2023.

SUMMARY
Every reporting period end, the Town of San Anselmo presents to the Town Council its operations as shown on the Revenue and Expenditure reports for discussion and approval.

BACKGROUND
The Revenue and Expenditure reports are year-to-date summaries of revenues and expenditures from the Town’s financial system (‘Tyler Incode’) for both the current as well as the prior corresponding fiscal year. These reports include the General Fund’s operations given most of the Town-level operational activities are processed through the General Fund either directly or indirectly. This approval is to be obtained once a month within the fiscal year.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The revenue and expenditure data through March 31, 2023, is a compilation of all operating activity that is year-to-date for the current and prior fiscal year. These reports are sourced directly from the Town’s financial system, of which a corresponding analysis has been performed identifying the key trends the Town Council should take note of.

Revenues
Overall, through the March 2023 reporting period end, the Town’s General Fund revenue has increased its base relative to the prior year by $0.814M. This is primarily from the increase in property tax and license & permits offset by property transfer tax 17 Item #: 1.2
and transfers in. All other activity is either flat year-over-year or nets correspondingly to an immaterial change—all of which are within management’s expectations.

As shown above, the Town’s overall revenue base increased by $0.814M, driven by Property Tax and Licenses & Permits.
 Property Taxes revenues through March have increased $0.522M compared to the prior period due to increased values on properties from the active real estate market during the Covid-19 pandemic. The Town receives disbursements from the County of Marin for property taxes in December, April, and June.  Sales Tax increased by $0.078M due to continued consumer spending activity.  Property Transfer Tax decreased by $0.069M due to the slowing housing market from rising rates and low inventory. The Town expects to be under budget in this area at the end of the year.
 Franchise Taxes increased by $86,208 due to the timing of payments received in the current fiscal year. For example, the PG&E Franchise payment was received in March 2022-23 however received in April 2021-2022.
 License & Permits increased by $0.111M compared to the prior period due to continuing construction activity around the Town and the timing of collection for Business License Taxes.
 Transfers In decreased by $0.035M compared to the prior period due to the Town issuing Pension Obligation Bonds in September 2021 to eliminate its unfunded liability with CalPERS. The previous year’s transfer in the amount included $0.081M from the Recreation Fund to pay its portion of the unfunded payment. In the current year, the transfer from the Recreation Fund was $0.026M. This amount represents the Recreation portion of savings that will be paid to the Pension Trust.

As far as the other revenue streams, these changes either decreased or remained relatively flat year-over-year resulting in an immaterial change.

Expenditures
Overall, through the March 2023 reporting period end, the Town’s General Fund expenditures have increased by $1.2M compared to the prior year. This is primarily from increases in compensation, outside services, debt service, and other expenditures. All other activity is either flat year-over-year or nets correspondingly to an immaterial change—all of which are within management’s expectations.

Category MAR YTD FY23 MAR YTD FY22 $ Change % Change
Property Tax 8,632,108.71 8,109,711.97 522,396.74 6.44% Sales Tax 1,027,677.09 949,338.53 78,338.56 8.25%
Property Transfer Tax 61,162.00 130,982.00 (69,820.00) -53.31% Franchise Taxes 555,834.40 469,625.63 86,208.77 18.36%
Licenses & Permits 980,788.86 869,281.83 111,507.03 12.83% Fines 54,721.20 56,391.06 (1,669.86) -2.96%
Cash & Investment Interest 41,214.22 7,065.61 34,148.61 483.31% Intergovernmental 205,911.55 119,829.50 86,082.05 71.84% Other Fees 233,493.69 231,161.07 2,332.62 1.01%
Transfers In 256,039.25 291,401.83 (35,362.58) -12.14%
Total 12,048,950.97 11,234,789.03 814,161.94 7.25%
18 Item #: 1.2
As shown above, the Town’s expenditures base overall increased by $1.2M of which is driven by compensation, outside services, debt service, and other expenditures:
 Compensation (Salaries & Wages and Benefits) increased by $0.230M compared to the prior fiscal year primarily due to the 4.5% cost of living adjustment effective July 1, 2022, and one-time lump sum payment to employees in recognition of contributions during the Covid-19 pandemic.  Expenditures relating to CalPERS retirement decreased by $0.650M due to the Town’s required unfunded pension liability payment. The Town issued Pension Obligation Bonds in September 2021 to eliminate its unfunded liability with CalPERS at that point in time. The previous year’s liability payment was $0.665M. The offset for this decrease will be observed in the debt service category for the bond repayment.
 Outside Services increased by $0.905M compared to the previous fiscal year due to the changes in payments for Public Safety JPA’s, housing element, traffic circulation element, and construction project activity.  Debt Service increased by $0.377M compared to the previous fiscal year due to the repayment of the 2021 Pension Obligation Bonds noted above. The bond payments are due in August and February.
 Other Expenditures, Utilities, and Transfers Out increased by $0.396M compared to the previous fiscal year. Due to the change in accounting, utilities, other expenditures, and transfers must be together. In previous years funding for internal service funds was transferred out of the general fund. In fiscal year 22/23, the charge is recognized as an expense in the general fund and revenue in the internal service fund. The increase is due to the cost of insurance (property, liability, and workers’ compensation), and increased transfer amounts to road maintenance and climate action fund.

As far as the other expenditure streams, these changes either slightly changed or remained flat year-over-year resulting in an immaterial change. All other changes are taken together overall immaterial for further discussion and are expected given the Town’s operations.

FISCAL IMPACT
None
Category MAR YTD FY23 MAR YTD FY22 $ Change % Change
Compensation 2,633,328.11 2,402,550.41 230,777.70 9.61% Retirement 177,777.76 827,880.85 (650,103.09) -78.53%
Training 33,745.74 19,543.64 14,202.10 72.67%
Outside Services 9,188,205.27 8,282,680.32 905,524.95 10.93% Maintenance 26,803.31 100,447.44 (73,644.13) -73.32%
Utilities 21,313.45 140,486.95 (119,173.50) -84.83%
Supplies 93,748.46 84,437.46 9,311.00 11.03%
Debt Service 494,248.63 117,132.54 377,116.09 321.96%
Other Expenditure 1,072,148.07 106,608.67 965,539.40 905.69% Transfers Out 813,517.00 1,263,517.00 (450,000.00) -35.61% Total 14,554,835.80 13,345,285.28 1,209,550.52 9.06%
19 Item #: 1.2

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Not applicable

CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Council’s discussion and approval of this report is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act, because it does not involve an activity which has the potential to cause a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065).

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment #1: General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Report by subcategory, March 2023
Attachment #2: Expenditure Report by department, March 2023 20 ITEM 1.2 - ATTACHMENT 1
Town of San Anselmo
2022-2023 Rev & Exp Report
as of 03/31/2023
2021-2022
Revised
Budget
2021-2022
Audited
Actuals
2021-2022
YTD Actuals
% of
Audited
Actuals
2022-2023
Adopted
Budget
2022-2023
Revised
Budget
2022-2023
YTD Actuals
% of
Actual /
Budget
Fund: 01 - GENERAL FUND
Revenue
400 - PROPERTY TAX GENERAL 8,376,892.00 8,646,036.63 4,863,391.68 56.25 % 9,030,734.00 9,030,734.00 5,222,611.75 57.83 % 401 - PENSION 2,291,981.00 2,696,259.46 1,486,993.35 55.15 % 2,592,646.00 2,592,646.00 1,577,329.14 60.84 % 402 - PROPERTY TAX OTHER 3,385,116.00 3,777,460.04 1,890,308.94 50.04 % 3,760,449.00 3,760,449.00 1,893,329.82 50.35 % 410 - OTHER TAXES 1,320,000.00 1,641,557.71 949,338.53 57.83 % 1,400,000.00 1,610,000.00 1,027,677.09 63.83 % 411 - FRANCHISE TAXES 750,630.00 876,162.40 469,625.63 53.60 % 775,000.00 775,000.00 555,834.40 71.72 % 420 - BUSINESS LICENSE 240,000.00 297,930.14 176,958.83 59.40 % 260,000.00 260,000.00 223,977.39 86.15 % 421 - PARKING 24,500.00 0.00 6,512.67 0.00 % 24,500.00 24,500.00 881.50 3.60 % 422 - CONSTRUCTION 980,000.00 899,501.36 685,810.33 76.24 % 950,000.00 1,075,000.00 755,929.97 70.32 % 430 - VEHICLE CODE 17,500.00 24,450.16 15,996.97 65.43 % 10,000.00 10,000.00 4,807.91 48.08 % 431 - LIBRARY 0.00 2,484.09 766.83 30.87 % 0.00 0.00 1,257.61 0.00 % 432 - PARKING 65,000.00 56,953.74 39,627.26 69.58 % 50,000.00 50,000.00 48,655.68 97.31 % 440 - USE OF MONEY AND PROPERTY 15,000.00 -48,149.73 7,065.61 -14.67 % 20,000.00 70,000.00 41,214.22 58.88 % 450 - STATE REVENUE 107,500.00 165,076.60 119,829.50 72.59 % 127,500.00 127,500.00 139,911.55 109.73 % 460 - FEDERAL REVENUE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % 470 - LOCAL AGENCY REVENUE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % 0.00 0.00 66,000.00 0.00 % 480 - FEES FOR SERVICES 171,000.00 183,700.83 145,028.75 78.95 % 171,000.00 171,000.00 117,717.40 68.84 % 490 - MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 97,500.00 115,226.33 86,132.32 74.75 % 100,070.00 100,070.00 115,776.29 115.70 % 519 - TRANSFERS IN 418,464.00 389,520.53 291,401.83 74.81 % 384,447.00 384,447.00 256,039.25 66.60 % 520 - SOURCE OF PROCEEDS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % Total Revenue: 18,261,083.00 19,724,170.29 11,234,789.03 56.96 % 19,656,346.00 20,041,346.00 12,048,950.97 60.12 % Expense
600 - SALARIES AND WAGES 2,887,665.00 2,517,183.96 1,879,030.63 74.65 % 3,072,145.00 3,072,145.00 2,067,225.26 67.29 % 601 - RETIREMENT 960,932.00 880,691.32 827,880.85 94.00 % 535,751.00 535,751.00 177,777.76 33.18 % 602 - EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 782,423.50 581,620.55 464,339.60 79.84 % 884,105.50 884,105.50 497,565.09 56.28 % 604 - RETIREE BENEFITS 144,322.00 136,855.69 59,180.18 43.24 % 156,390.00 156,390.00 68,537.76 43.82 % 610 - TRAINING 40,200.00 28,663.45 19,543.64 68.18 % 43,200.00 43,200.00 33,745.74 78.12 % 611 - OUTSIDE SERVICES 11,269,241.00 11,471,062.03 8,282,680.32 72.20 % 12,161,732.37 12,461,732.37 9,188,205.27 73.73 % 613 - PUBLICATION / DUES 15,550.00 19,742.41 19,356.58 98.05 % 15,845.50 15,845.50 16,713.84 105.48 % 614 - MAINTENANCE 21,600.00 18,046.31 11,490.70 63.67 % 21,792.50 21,792.50 14,204.68 65.18 % 615 - BUILDING MAINTENANCE 189,950.00 146,724.98 88,814.83 60.53 % 98,643.00 98,643.00 7,230.42 7.33 % 616 - VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 6,500.00 2,373.37 141.91 5.98 % 6,515.00 6,515.00 5,368.21 82.40 % 617 - UTILITIES 210,740.00 193,886.75 140,486.95 72.46 % 0.00 0.00 21,313.45 0.00 % 618 - HIRING 1,000.00 50,185.71 14,750.23 29.39 % 1,000.00 1,000.00 3,916.82 391.68 % 619 - MISCELLANEOUS 18,500.00 11,170.00 11,170.00 100.00 % 19,000.00 19,000.00 8,305.95 43.72 % 620 - OFFICE SUPPLIES 36,200.00 22,750.51 14,317.67 62.93 % 36,665.00 36,665.00 14,389.12 39.24 % 622 - DEPARTMENT SUPPLIES 45,700.00 80,811.37 58,719.58 72.66 % 46,355.00 46,355.00 63,279.29 136.51 % 623 - BOOKS / MAGAZINES / VIDEOS 23,373.00 22,047.14 11,400.21 51.71 % 24,074.00 24,074.00 16,080.05 66.79 % 629 - MISCELLANEOUS 76,500.00 80,907.53 61,331.86 75.80 % 1,185,641.00 1,185,641.00 1,043,079.16 87.98 % 630 - EQUIPMENT 500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % 0.00 0.00 132.30 0.00 % 631 - CAPITAL OUTLAY - CONSTRUCTION 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 % 640 - PRINCIPAL 227,000.00 227,000.00 113,000.00 49.78 % 285,000.00 285,000.00 285,000.00 100.00 % 641 - INTEREST 11,208.00 6,207.91 4,132.54 66.57 % 248,976.00 248,976.00 209,248.63 84.04 % 670 - TRANSFERS OUT 1,863,517.00 1,863,517.00 1,263,517.00 67.80 % 813,517.00 863,517.00 813,517.00 94.21 % Total Expense: 18,832,621.50 18,361,447.99 13,345,285.28 72.68 % 19,656,347.87 20,006,347.87 14,554,835.80 72.75 % Total Fund: 01 - GENERAL FUND: -571,538.50 1,362,722.30 -2,110,496.25 -1.87 34,998.13 -2,505,884.83 Report Total: -571,538.50 1,362,722.30 -2,110,496.25 -1.87 34,998.13 -2,505,884.83 ITEM 1.2 - ATTACHMENT 1
21 ITEM 1.2 - ATTACHMENT 2
Town of San Anselmo
2022-2023 Rev & Exp Report
as of 03/31/2023
2021-2022
Revised
Budget
2021-2022
Audited
Actuals
2021-2022
YTD Actuals
% of
Audited
Actuals
2022-2023
Adopted
Budget
2022-2023
Revised
Budget
2022-2023
YTD Actuals
% of
Actual /
Budget
Fund: 01 - GENERAL FUND
Expense
00 - UNDESIGNATED 1,863,517.00 1,863,517.00 1,263,517.00 67.80 % 813,517.00 863,517.00 813,517.00 94.21 % 11 - TOWN COUNCIL 95,323.00 30,254.44 24,713.70 81.69 % 101,030.00 101,030.00 62,201.15 61.57 % 12 - ADMINISTRATION 1,423,741.50 1,227,667.51 876,446.37 71.39 % 1,450,835.00 1,450,835.00 991,977.41 68.37 % 16 - LEGAL SERVICES 300,000.00 367,034.06 217,128.01 59.16 % 385,000.00 385,000.00 196,500.30 51.04 % 18 - PLANNING 638,270.00 370,827.42 256,119.51 69.07 % 958,759.00 958,759.00 531,069.23 55.39 % 21 - NON-DEPARTMENTAL 1,159,369.00 1,036,578.31 954,332.48 92.07 % 1,414,224.50 1,414,224.50 980,089.36 69.30 % 30 - POLICE 4,685,857.00 4,690,030.16 3,522,998.23 75.12 % 4,938,129.00 4,938,129.00 3,703,596.75 75.00 % 32 - ROSS VALLEY FIRE SERVICE 4,611,448.00 4,559,101.21 3,394,004.22 74.44 % 4,869,951.00 4,869,951.00 3,593,055.22 73.78 % 40 - DEBT SERVICE 234,708.00 234,607.91 118,532.54 50.52 % 530,476.00 530,476.00 495,548.63 93.42 % 41 - ENGINEERING AND INSPECTION 1,406,648.00 1,480,518.43 1,060,276.02 71.62 % 1,635,519.00 1,760,519.00 1,090,644.13 61.95 % 42 - STREETS 920,957.50 1,085,314.46 681,369.29 62.78 % 978,724.00 1,078,724.00 853,278.19 79.10 % 71 - LIBRARY 729,255.50 630,298.30 456,533.60 72.43 % 781,632.87 781,632.87 563,059.19 72.04 % 81 - PARKS 482,079.50 532,278.33 331,631.24 62.30 % 504,146.00 579,146.00 460,294.17 79.48 % 82 - RECREATION/GENERAL FUND 281,447.50 253,420.45 187,683.07 74.06 % 294,404.50 294,404.50 220,005.07 74.73 % Total Expense: 18,832,621.50 18,361,447.99 13,345,285.28 72.68 % 19,656,347.87 20,006,347.87 14,554,835.80 72.75 % Total Fund: 01 - GENERAL FUND: 18,832,621.50 18,361,447.99 13,345,285.28 72.68 % 19,656,347.87 20,006,347.87 14,554,835.80 72.75 % Report Total: 18,832,621.50 18,361,447.99 13,345,285.28 72.68 % 19,656,347.87 20,006,347.87 14,554,835.80 72.75 % ITEM 1.2 - ATTACHMENT 2
22 TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO
Staff Report
April 13, 2023
For the Meeting of April 25, 2023
TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

Town Council
Dannielle Mauk, Community Services Director
Financial Report on Recreation Fund

RECOMMENDATION
That Council approve the Recreation Fund Revenue and Expenditure Report for the period ending February 28, 2023.

BACKGROUND
The Recreation Department offers a wide variety of fee-based programs throughout the fiscal year, including sports programs and leagues, youth and adult classes, childcare and camps. Additional revenue is generated through facility rentals and administrative fees.

DISCUSSION
As of March 31, 2023, 66% of the fiscal year has elapsed and the Recreation Fund is listed at 102% of projected revenues and 71% of projected expenditures.

Enrollment for recreation programs has increased. We had strong enrollment for our summer educational and sports programs. Families are enjoying our programs, and we are working on adding additional programs. The increase in program enrollment will be reflected in both the increased revenues and expenditures each month. A portion of the summer enrollment revenues will be deferred to FY 23/24.

For historical comparison purposes, staff has developed the following table:

FY Revenue Expenditures Rev Over/(Under) Exp
Budget Actual % Budget Actual % $$ %
2022-23 1,875,414 1,906,138 102% 1,848,926 1,309,682 71% 596,457 32% 2021-22 1,348,625 1,908,595 142% 1,507,369 1,211,017 80% 697,578 52% 2020-21 1,408,125 957,660 68% 1,550,947 857,385 55% 100,274 7% 2019-20 1,627,269 1,603,491 99% 1,676,763 1,270,916 76% 332,575 20% 2018-19 1,510,604 1,586,775 105% 1,591,144 1,047,174 66% 539,601 36% 2017-18 1,514,000 1,402,029 93% 1,644,385 1,037,903 63% 364,126 24% 2016-17 1,384,325 1,401,167 101% 1,500,570 1,023,908 68% 377,259 27.3% 2015-16 1,246,689 1,250,450 100% 1,356,689 1,068,959 79% 181,492 14.6% Dannielle Mauk
Community Services Director
Attachment 1: Revenue & Expenditure Report FY 2022-23: Recreation Fund as of 03/31/2023 Item # 1.3 Item # 1.3
23 Item # 1.3 Item # 1.3
24 Item # 1.3 Item # 1.3
25 Item #: 1.4

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #:1.4
MEETING DATE: April 25, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Quarterly Treasurer’s Investment Report, March 31, 2023
FROM: Jeff Zuba, Finance & Admin Services Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Town Council approve the Treasurer’s Investment Report for the quarter ending March 31, 2023.

SUMMARY
The Treasurer’s Investment Report is a quarterly itemization of the market value of Town investments. The purpose of this report is to present financial information for review and discussion.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The attached report itemizes the Town’s investments and states the market value of each investment as of March 31, 2023. The Wells Fargo bank account is the Town’s primary checking account used for the deposit and expenditure of operating funds. The Bank of America checking account is a controlled account used for payroll processing only.

The Town holds two investment accounts; one with Moreton Capital with funds held at U.S. Bank and one with Wells Fargo Securities with funds held at Wells Fargo. The investments held are allowable by the Town’s investment policy.

The Town maintains two Local Agency Investment Fund accounts (LAIF) for the purpose of maximizing interest income on funds not needed for immediate expenditure.

One LAIF account is for the investment of general operating funds. The other is for the remaining series 2003 Measure G bond proceeds, required by law to be maintained in a segregated account.
26 Item #: 1.4
The Town’s cash balances as of March 31, 2023, are $13,549,504 which is $2,479,042 more than the balances at this time last year. This increase is driven by the timing of cash flow between money received versus money to be paid out the following period.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not applicable

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Not applicable

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment #1: Quarterly Treasurer’s Investment Report, March 31, 2023 27 ITEM 1.4 - ATTACHMENT 1
28 TEM 1.4 - ATTACHMENT 1
Item #: 1.5

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #:1.5
MEETING DATE: 4/25/23
AGENDA TITLE: Consideration of Special Event Application – Cedars of Marin Farmstead 2023
FROM: Mattie O’Grady – Recreation Supervisor
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve Cedars’ special event application to host Hands and Earth Co-op Farmstead from May through September.

BACKGROUND
Cedars of Marin is requesting to bring back their Hands and Earth Co-op Farmstead to downtown San Anselmo. It would take place in Imagination Park on Wednesdays from 11:00 am – 1:00 pm from May 31st through September 13th.

Cedars, which opened as a school in 1919, runs programs for individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities in Ross, San Anselmo and San Rafael. Within the Cedars Textile Art Center, a participant-run co-op manages a large garden producing flowers, fruit and vegetables which are sold to the public. The center is also home to weaving and craft programs producing hand-woven textiles and crafts which are made available for sale.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
Cedars of Marin hosted the same farmstead on Town Hall Plaza back in 2016 and also participated with a farmstand at the 2021 Art + Music on the Avenue. There will only be one tent and a few tables selling produce from their garden as well as arts and craft items. The town will provide a designated parking space for the applicant.

The following conditions have been communicated to the applicant:
• Event must be ADA compliant (i.e. no blocking of sidewalks) The attached application provides details of the event with comments and conditions from Town staff.
29 Item #: 1.5

FISCAL IMPACT
There would be no direct fiscal impact to the Town to approve this item.

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
None

CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
The proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), under the “common sense” exemption, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 15061).
30 13th (Wednesdays Only)
Item # 1.5- Attachment 1
Item # 1.5- Attachment 1
31 Item # 1.5- Attachment 1
Item # 1.5- Attachment 1
32 Item # 1.5- Attachment 1
Item # 1.5- Attachment 1
33 Event must be ADA compliant.

Item # 1.5- Attachment 1
Item # 1.5- Attachment 1
34 Item #: 1.6

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #:1.6
MEETING DATE: 4/25/23
AGENDA TITLE: Consider extension for refreshing Cedars’ Temporary Art Installation on Magnolia Ave
FROM: Mattie O’Grady – Recreation Supervisor
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve Cedars’ request to refresh the temporary art installation on Magnolia Avenue.

BACKGROUND
In 2018, the Town of San Anselmo partnered with Cedars of Marin at the annual Country Fair Day and Parade. Cedars created an interactive mini town called “Cedarsville”, where they created a place for the community to paint rocks, paint peace flags, and to purchase jewelry and textiles. Cedars also hosted a community art project that became a temporary art installation at the corner of Magnolia Avenue and San Anselmo Avenue (601 San Anselmo Ave). The theme of the 2018 art installation was “Mt. Tam”. In 2019, Cedars updated the installation with a “Sugarfoot” theme.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The art installation has not had an update or refresh since 2019. Cedars is requesting to update the installation. Specifically, Cedars is requesting to collaborate with the San Anselmo Arts Commission to install a new art piece. The theme of the new art piece will be “Choose Kindness”, which is the theme of Cedars’ Client Advisory Council.

The art piece is proposed to consist of panels of approximately 18”x12” that will be painted by artists with developmental disabilities at Cedars and pieced together. The words “Choose Kindness” will be at the top and the mural will include words such as “love”, “gratitude” or “art” and images such as people holding hands. Both the San Anselmo Arts Commission and the Cedars Professional Curatorial Team will oversee the project to be sure it is every bit as beautiful as the last two iterations. 35 Item #: 1.6
The panel creation will go on during this summer and may include a participatory community painting event at one or more Live on the Avenue evenings, with the goal of having an unveiling during Live on the Avenue in August.

Staff acknowledges that there is a separate mural discussion occurring simultaneously and recommends the Council consider this as a community art project and not a mural since the project would be in partnership with the San Anselmo Arts Commission and is a temporary installation.

FISCAL IMPACT
The public art installation will be fully funded by Cedars. There would be no direct fiscal impact on the Town to approve this item.

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
None

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO ITEM No. 1.7
MEETING DATE: April 25, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Adopt a Resolution in Recognition of National Small Business Week and San Anselmo’s Small Businesses
and Proclaiming the Month of May as Small Business
Month
FROM: Heidi Scoble, Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Resolution to recognition of National Small Business Week and San Anselmo’s Small Businesses and to proclaim the month of May as Small Business Month.

BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
Every year since 1963, the President of the United States has issued a proclamation announcing National Small Business Week, which recognizes the critical contributions of America’s entrepreneurs and small business owners. National Small Business Week will take place from April 30 to May 6 of this year. The focus of the week is to honor the Countries entrepreneurs who have played a vital part to the quality of life and our growing economy.

As San Anselmo’s small businesses are critical drivers to the Town’s economic growth and enlivening our commercial neighborhoods, staff is recommending the Council acknowledge and recognize the importance of the Town’s small businesses and proclaim the Month of May as Small Business Month.

FISCAL IMPACT
N/A

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The attached Resolution is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Goal C.1, preserving San Anselmo’s small town character and pace of life and Land Use Goal C.2, supporting the economic viability of San Anselmo’s commercial core.

This item also is consistent with the Town’s Climate Action Plan relative to the economy by supporting small businesses, which facilitates small business financial sustainability and retention.

ATTACHMENT
Attachment 1 – Resolution
38 Item # 1.7
Item # 1.7
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

RESOLUTION OF THE SAN ANSELMO TOWN COUNCIL

IN RECOGNITION OF NATIONAL SMALL BUSINESS WEEK AND SAN
ANSELMO’S SMALL BUSINESSES AND PROCLAIMING THE MONTH OF MAY AS

SMALL BUSINESS MONTH
WHEREAS, the U.S. Small Business Administration has designated the week of April 30 through May 6, 2023, as National Small Business Week, in recognition of the critical contributions of America’s entrepreneurs and small business owners, and WHEREAS, the Town of San Anselmo has taken this step further recognizing and celebrating the Town’s entrepreneurs and small business owners by designating the entire month of May as San Anselmo Small Business Month; and
WHEREAS, Local small businesses support our community in the way of wages, taxes, donations to local schools and charities and are the backbone of California’s and San Anselmo’s economy; and
WHEREAS, Throughout the years, the Town has seen the issuance of business licenses from home occupations, brick and mortar store fronts, restaurants and services increase annually; and
WHEREAS, Studies have consistently shown that supporting the growth of existing small businesses provide the majority of economic growth in the community and that entrepreneurs and small businesses stimulate job creation, develop crucial innovation and promote the diversification of local economies; and
WHEREAS, Small business are critical drivers of economic growth and mobilitycreating jobs, building wealth, innovation, and enlivening main streets across our neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, The Town of San Anselmo supports our local businesses that create jobs, boost our local economy and preserve our community; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED that the Town Council of the Town of San Anselmo hereby recognize San Anselmo’s small businesses and proclaim May 2023 as “Small Business Month”.

RESOLUTION PASSED AND ADOPTED, at the regular meeting of the San Anselmo Town Council on the 25TH day of a April 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember:

NOES: Councilmember:

ABSENT: Councilmember:

ABSTAIN: Councilmember:
39 Item # 1.7
Item # 1.7

____________________________

STEVE BURDO
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________

SERGE AVILA

TOWN CLERK
40 Item #: 1.8

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #:1.8
MEETING DATE: April 25, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Purchase of a New Electric Riding Lawnmower FROM: Tom Bautista, E.I.T., Project Coordinator
Sean Condry, P.E., Public Works Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Town Council authorize the Public Works Director to purchase a new Gravely Pro-Turn EV electric riding lawnmower in the amount of $28,790.00.

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
The Town uses a riding lawnmower for maintenance of the fields at Memorial Park. The current riding lawnmower is diesel powered and must be replaced by a non-gaspowered alternative before June 1, 2023, to comply with Town Ordinance #1173. Town Staff considered several alternatives before deciding on the Gravely Pro-Turn EV model. This model of electric riding lawnmower has been recently purchased by both Sausalito and Fairfax. Purchase of the electric riding lawnmower will also qualify the Town for PG&E EV Fleet Program funding that can be used for behind the meter improvements to install EV charging infrastructure at various locations in Town as well as funding up to $4,000 per vehicle if charged by infrastructure that PG&E help fund through this program.

FISCAL IMPACT
If approved by the Council, funding for the new electric riding lawnmower would come from the Equipment Replacement Fund reserves in the amount of $28,790.00. This amount may be reduced by $4,000 if PG&E funding is obtained, which staff is currently working on.

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Not applicable
41 Item #: 1.8

CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
CEQA does not apply to the purchase of an electric lawnmower since it is not a project.

The purchase of an electric lawnmower will address the Town’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2030, specifically under CAP measure T-10, Electric Landscape equipment. 42 Item #: 1.9

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #: 1.9
MEETING DATE: April 25, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Adopt Ordinance Amending Amendments to the San Anselmo Municipal Code Section 10-3.607,
Nonconforming uses and improvements, Section 10-

4.206, Nonconforming Structures and Exceptions to
standards, and add a Section 10-3.405, Minor
Intrusions into Required Development Standards for
Residential Properties Table 4B to allow the repair
and/or replacement of foundations for legal
nonconforming residential structures
FROM: Heidi Scoble, Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Ordinance entitled, “Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of San Anselmo Amending TITLE 10 to amend Chapter 3 Section 10-3.607, Nonconforming Structures and improvements, Section 10-4.206, Nonconforming Structures and Exceptions to standards, and add a Section 10-3.405, Minor Intrusions into Required Development Standards for Residential Properties Table 4B to allow the repair and/or replacement of foundations for legal nonconforming residential structures”.

BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
On April 11, 2023, the Town Council conducted a public hearing for consideration of proposed zoning amendments to allow for the repair and/or replacement of foundations related to legal nonconforming structures. Following the hearing, the four members of the Council who were present voted unanimously to conduct the first reading of the proposed Ordinance (see Attachment 1). The purpose of this agenda item is to adopt the subject Ordinance.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no significant financial impact associated with the proposed Ordinance.

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Ordinance is consistent with the Town’s General Plan including the conservation goals in the Conservation Element.
43 Item #: 1.9

CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
Adoption of the Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines section 15301 involving the minor alteration of existing residences involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that already in existence; and CEQA Guideline section 15601(b)(3) because it can been seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of the Ordinance Amendment may have a significant effect on the environment.

The Ordinance Amendment is also consistent with the following San Anselmo Climate Action Plan 2030 adopted in 2019:

1. Adaptation and Resilience (A): A-1: Preparation and Response a. Continue to incorporate the increased risk of wildfire, extreme heat, storm events and other extremes [such as Flood Events] in the Town’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

2. E-5: Streamline Permit Process and Provide Technical Assistance Analyze current green building permit and inspection process to eliminate barriers and provide technical assistance to ensure successful implementation of green building requirements. Participate in countywide efforts to make it easier for contractors and building counter staff to simplify applications and identify incentives.

3. W-3: Construction & Demolition Debris and Self-Haul Waste Continue to enforce Town construction & demolition debris material recycling ordinance (San Anselmo Municipal Code Section 9-20.01 et. seq.).

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Ordinance
44 Item # 1.9- Attachment 1
Item #: 1.9- Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO AMENDING TITLE 10 TO AMEND CHAPTER 3 SECTION 10-3.607, NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS, SECTION 10-4.206, NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND EXCEPTIONS TO STANDARDS, AND SECTION 10-3.405, MINOR

INTRUSIONS INTO REQUIRED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TABLE 4B TO ALLOW THE REPAIR AND/OR REPLACEMENT OF

FOUNDATIONS FOR LEGAL NONCONFOMRING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to help facilitate, encourage, and provide an efficient ministerial streamlined review process for property owners to improve their residential structures to address any public health, safety, and/or welfare deficiencies related to the repair and/or replacement of foundations for properties with legal nonconforming setbacks; and
WHEREAS, Section 10-3.607 of the San Anselmo Municipal Code provides regulations and procedures for addressing existing uses and existing buildings and improvements which are not in conformance with provisions of this chapter as of the date of its adoption or amendment and allows a nonconforming structure to be improved or reconstructed “in-kind” provided there are no changes to the dimension, design, or location; and WHEREAS, the “in-kind” repair or replacement of foundations necessary to comply with the Town’s current Building and Fire Codes is difficult, or sometimes not possible, without changing the dimension, design, and materials of a foundation and related structural improvements and therefore would require a discretionary Variance; and WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance Amendment will ministerially allow the repair or replacement of the foundations for nonconforming residential properties without the need for a discretionary Variance, specifically allowing:

1. Properties with legal nonconforming setbacks located within a Special Flood Hazard Area to repair or replace the foundation of a residential structure as necessary to meet current Building/Fire Code, and allow the overall height of the structure to be correspondingly increased to the extent necessary to comply with the Town’s Flood Management Ordinance and FEMA requirements; and

2. Properties with legal nonconforming setbacks to repair or replace the foundation of a residential structure necessary to meet current Building/Fire Code, and allow the overall height of the structure to be correspondingly increased to the extent necessary to accommodate the repaired or new foundation; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of the proposed Ordinance Amendment in the public interest and is consistent with the Town’s General Plan Objective No. 16 “to protect the community from danger to life and property caused by flooding” and General Plan Policy 16.2, which requires the Town “To only allow development within the 100-year floodplain which is consistent with the Town’s adopted Protection of Flood Hazard Areas and Water Course Ordinance”; and 45 Item # 1.9- Attachment 1
Item #: 1.9- Attachment 1
WHEREAS, the Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the San Anselmo Climate Action Plan 2030 policies A-1 (Preparation and Response to Local Hazards), E-5 (Streamlined Permit Process), and W-3 (Waste Reduction); and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the Marin County MultiJurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan policies MLT-3 (Adopt, amend as needed, and enforce updated versions of state and federal regulations for Building and Fire Codes so that optimal standards are used in construction and renovation projects of public and private buildings and infrastructure), FLD-1 (Maintain participation in the National Flood Insurance Program and manage beyond minimum requirements as appropriate for local conditions.

Consider improving Community Rating System (CRS) score if benefit exceeds cost for a given jurisdiction), and FLD-2 (Incorporate flood Planning and planning into local permitting and planning); and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance Amendment will allow and encourage property owners who own property in Special Flood Hazard Areas as defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency to be able to comply with the Town’s Community Rating System; a voluntary program that encourages and rewards communities for going beyond the minimum requirements of the FEMA’s National Flood Insurance Program; and
WHEREAS, Section 10-3.607 of the San Anselmo Municipal Code provides regulations and procedures for addressing existing uses and existing buildings and improvements which are not in conformance with provisions of this chapter as of the date of its adoption or amendment and allows a nonconforming structure to be improved or reconstructed “in-kind” provided there are no changes to the dimension, design, or location; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing for the Ordinance Amendment and voted to recommend Town Council approval; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the Town Council hearing to consider the Ordinance Amendment was published in the Marin Independent Journal on March 31, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Town Council held a public hearing on April 11, 2023, to consider the Planning Commission recommendation and introduce the draft Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1: California Environmental Quality Act. The Town Council finds and determines that the adoption of this Ordinance Amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15301 involving 46 Item # 1.9- Attachment 1
Item #: 1.9- Attachment 1
the minor alteration of existing residences involving negligible or no expansion of use beyond that already in existence; and CEQA Guideline section 15601(b)(3) because it can been seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of the Ordinance Amendment may have a significant effect on the environment.

SECTION 2: The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated as findings herein.

SECTION 3: Section 10-3.607(f)(1), Nonconforming uses and improvements, is hereby amended to read as follows:
(1) Any nonconforming building or improvement may be maintained, repaired, enlarged, extended, or structurally altered provided the enlargement or alteration complies with the use, setback, height, lot coverage and other site development requirements of the zone in which the structure is located, as well as other development regulations applicable to the area in which the structure is located and/or a permitted exemption listed in Section 10-3.405 Table 4B.

SECTION 4: Section 10-4.206, Nonconforming Structures and Exceptions to standards, is hereby amended to add subsection (c ) to read as follows:
(c) The Town may permit exceptions as permitted in Section 10-3.405 Table 4B.

SECTION 5: Section 10-3.405, Minor Intrusions into Required Development Standards for Residential Properties Table, Table 4B, is hereby amended to add a new provision to address Foundation Repair and Replacement and read as follows:

Foundation Repair and Replacement
Front Rear Interior
Side
Street
Side
Review
Required

1. Properties with legal nonconforming
setbacks and located within a Special Flood
Hazard Area as designated by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are
permitted to repair or replace the foundation
of a residential structure as necessary to meet
current Building and/or Fire Codes. The
property may be raised, and the overall height
may be increased to the extent necessary to
comply with Title 7, Chapter 11, Protection of
Flood Hazard Areas of the San Anselmo
Municipal Code and FEMA regulations, as
amended from time to time.

No
Change
to
Existing
Setback
No
Change
to
Existing
Setback
No
Change
to
Existing
Setback
No
Change
to
Existing
Setback
E
47 Item # 1.9- Attachment 1
Item #: 1.9- Attachment 1

2. Properties with legal nonconforming
setbacks are permitted to repair or replace
the foundation of a residential structure as
necessary to meet current Building and/or
Fire Codes. The property may be raised, and
the overall height may be increased to the
extent necessary to accommodate the
repaired or new foundation.

No
Change
to
Existing
Setback
No
Change
to
Existing
Setback
No
Change
to
Existing
Setback
No
Change
to
Existing
Setback
E
SECTION 6: Severability: To the extent allowed under State law, the Town Council hereby declares every section, paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase is severable. To the extent allowed under State law, if any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity, or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases.

SECTION 7: Inclusion in the San Anselmo Municipal Code. It is the intention of the San Anselmo Town Council that the text in this Ordinance be made a part of the San Anselmo Municipal Code and that the text may be renumbered or re-lettered and the word "Ordinance" may be changed to "Section", "Chapter", or such other appropriate word or phrase to accomplish this intention.

SECTION 8: Effective Date. This Ordinance Amendment shall go into effect thirty (30) days from its adoption. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days of adoption, this Ordinance Amendment or a summary thereof pursuant to Government Code section 36933, shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, along with the names of the members of the Town Council voting for and against its adoption.

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced at a regular meeting of the San Anselmo Town Council on April 11, 2023, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the San Anselmo Town Council on April 25, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSE
NT:

ABST
AIN:

Mayor Steve Burdo
Attest
48 Item # 1.9- Attachment 1
Item #: 1.9- Attachment 1
Town Clerk, Serge Avila
49 Item #: 2A

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #: 2A
MEETING DATE: April 25, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Update on Preparation of Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS)
FROM: Heidi Scoble, Planning Director
Lindsey Klein, Senior Planner
Bob Brown, Consultant
RECOMMENDATION: That the Town Council receive and file an update on the ODDS project.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Why should the Town Adopt Objective Design and Development Standards (ODDS)?
Changes in State housing laws over the past few years have sought to increase housing production by limiting the review authority and process timeframe for approval of new development applications by local jurisdictions. Determinations regarding the completeness of an application submittal and decisions related to project approval or conditions of approval are required to be based on objective design and development standards (ODDS) identified by the jurisdiction.

Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) requires a ministerial approval process based only on compliance with adopted ODDS for projects adding two or more new housing units (i.e., a new single-family home and second unit, apartments or condos, or mixed-use projects where at least two-thirds of the floor area is residential, supportive or transitional housing and emergency shelters) and which provide at least 10% lowincome units and pay prevailing construction labor wages.

The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) also applies to projects adding two or more housing units on sites zoned for residential or mixed use. The HAA is more widely applicable since it has few prerequisites such as providing affordable housing. The HAA precludes a jurisdiction from denying or reducing density for projects which comply with all adopted ODDS. Discretionary design review is still allowed for HAA-qualifying 50 Item #: 2A
projects, but conditions requiring design changes cannot result in the project being infeasible or increasing the cost of any deed-restricted affordable units proposed.

Assembly Bill 2011 (AB 2011) will become effective July 1, 2023, and allows housing development (five or more new units) on commercially zoned parcels along commercial thoroughfares meeting minimum width standards. AB 2011 includes numerous qualifications, including provision of affordable housing and payment of prevailing construction labor wages. AB 2011 also establishes minimum allowable densities and building height based on the size of the project site and width of the commercial thoroughfare (up to 60 dwelling units per acre [du/acre] for sites over one acre in size and on a street greater than 100 feet wide). AB 2011 also requires ministerial approval of projects meeting the adopted ODDS but allows design review based only on the ODDS.

Since SB 35 and AB 2011 require ministerial approval of qualifying projects, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is not applicable. Both laws impose time limits on determining compliance with the adopted ODDS (60 days for projects up to 150 units and 90 days for larger projects). A summary of the requirements of these State laws is included as Attachment 1.

ODDS are defined by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as those that “involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official” and being “uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Some of the Town’s existing zoning and subdivision codes are objective, such as those that define required building setbacks, height limits, floor area limits, parking requirements, etc. However, many standards, particularly those that define allowable design attributes of new construction pursuant to the requisite findings for Design Review in Section 10-3.1506 of the San Anselmo Municipal Code, are subjective and rely on the discretion and interpretations of decision-makers in the design review process.

How were the Draft ODDS Prepared?
In 2019, the Town was awarded a $160,000 grant under Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) to work on a collaborative effort with other Marin County jurisdictions to create ODDS for projects which would require objective, ministerial review under new State laws. This countywide effort selected Opticos Design Inc., an architecture/planning firm from Berkeley, to develop a template form-based code specifically oriented towards communities in Marin County (“Marin County ODDS Toolkit”). Form-based zoning codes regulate building form and design quantitatively and to a greater extent than traditional zoning codes and are therefore well suited as objective standards. Opticos has gained notoriety for its codes that promote “missing middle” housing types, which are smaller scale multi-unit buildings that mimic the size and character of large single-family homes, engage the 51 Item #: 2A
street frontage to create more pedestrian-oriented streetscapes and reduce the visibility of parking.1
To develop the Marin County ODDS Toolkit, Opticos performed detailed analyses of the size and character of existing buildings found throughout communities in the County and worked with local stakeholders, including local architects and developers, to identify feasible and desirable development outcomes. The Toolkit includes objective design and development standards for a range of building types and architectural styles at various densities and based on their intended location within neighborhoods, along major corridors, or within local mixed-use centers. During the customization process, each jurisdiction chose to incorporate the specific zones and building types that most closely match the existing development patterns and scale of local neighborhoods, corridors, or downtowns.

The Marin ODDS Toolkit carefully regulates building location, proportion, and form, including standards for allowable street frontages and parking location. The Toolkit also provides objective standards for slope development, privacy of adjacent residences, landscape, lighting, and screening requirements. The different zones, building types, and architectural design standards have been well thought-out and tested through application in other jurisdictions which have implemented very similar form-based codes.

Public outreach on this countywide approach began in 2019 with Planning Department staff hosting a booth at Country Fair Days to introduce the ODDS project to the public.

In-person workshops were intended but were cancelled due to COVID 19. Instead, a countywide survey on design preferences was conducted from April through July, 2020.

Due to staff outreach efforts, San Anselmo residents submitted 291 of the 541 (54 percent) total survey responses (see Attachment 2). The project also has a dedicated Town webpage since its inception (ODDS project webpage). The San Anselmo Planning Commission received updates on the ODDS project on June 15 and November 16, 2020.

Due to the onset of COVID, staff turnover and a shift in priorities to preparing the Statemandated Housing Element update, the work on the ODDS project was suspended.

However, Opticos completed the draft Marin County ODDS Toolkit in February 2021. At that point, each participating jurisdiction was expected to select applicable portions of the Toolkit and edit these to customize the form-based code for that jurisdiction. To date Corte Madera, Belvedere, and the County have adopted localized versions of the ODDS Toolkit, and Sausalito is in the process of customization and adoption.

1 Actions 3.1(b) and 3.2(a) of the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element call for adoption of objective design standards that promote missing middle housing types that are sensitive to the existing design character of San Anselmo.
52 Item #: 2A
In San Anselmo, the ODDS project was reinitiated in October 2022. At its meeting of October 17, 2022, the Planning Commission appointed Commissioners Asselstine and Strauss, both local architects, to serve as an Ad-Hoc ODDS Subcommittee to assist the consultants in customizing appropriate portions of the ODDS Toolkit for San Anselmo’s unique development character. Staff and the consultant team have had three formal meetings with the Planning Commission ODDS Subcommittee to discuss appropriate Toolkit zones and development standards to apply to properties currently zoned for multifamily or mixed-use development. Staff have held two additional informal meetings with the Subcommittee to fine-tune development regulations. The recommendations of the Subcommittee are noted in the following description of the Draft. The Town Attorney, Public Works Director, and Fire Department have also participated in preparation of the Draft ODDS (see Attachment 3).

Description of the Draft ODDS
Applicability
As currently conceived, the new ODDS would only be applicable to projects qualifying under SB 35 or the HAA, and to subsequent renovations to those projects. New or remodeled single-family homes, renovations or additions to existing multi-family developments that do not add two or more units, or commercial projects would continue to be reviewed and regulated by the Town’s existing codes.

The Draft ODDS would also only being applied to properties currently or proposed to be zoned multi-family (R-2 or R-3) and commercial (C-1, C-2, C-L and C-3) under the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element, so they would not be applicable to creation of two or more units on a single-family residential (R-1) zoned property, including Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) projects, where the standards of the current Zoning Code would continue to apply.

The ODDS would therefore function as a parallel Zoning Code for these specific project types. If a proposed project cannot meet the objective standards established by the ODDS, then the project would be subject to the traditional, discretionary review process established by the Town’s adopted Zoning Code.

Finally, the Draft ODDS references the General Plan and Zoning Code for allowable land uses, maximum densities, and floor area ratio restrictions. In other words, the Draft ODDS are not proposing to supersede or augment the limits or maximums established under those existing regulations.

Design Objectives
The form-based code attempts to accomplish the following design objectives:
 Reducing the apparent scale of multi-unit buildings by restricting their maximum sizes and dimensions, resulting in multiple smaller buildings for larger development sites,
53 Item #: 2A
 Reducing the apparent height of multi-unit buildings by allowing a third floor within the roof structure with dormer windows,
 Carefully regulating the design of defined building types to assure appropriately scaled, well-articulated building forms with sufficient and usable open space,  Creating pedestrian-oriented street frontages with defined street improvements and residential and mixed-use buildings that address the street frontage with entry treatments (e.g., porches) or carefully designed storefronts, and  Reducing the appearance of parking by requiring most parking behind or under buildings, limiting the size of individual parking lots and requiring substantial landscape screening.

Overview of the Draft ODDS
The Draft ODDS would apply one of three zones to properties currently designated for multi-family or commercial mixed-use. The three zones are the Neighborhood.Small (N.S) zone, the Neighborhood.Medium (N.M) zone, and the Main Street.Small (MS.S) zone. These zones would regulate building area, setbacks, and height, like traditional zoning, and the following components of development:
 Building Type: Each zone would also allow specific building types (e.g., stacked duplex, courtyard building, multiplex, etc.) appropriate for the zone from which the developer could choose. Each building type comes with its own specific regulations for maximum building size and dimensions and building form/massing.  Architectural Style: After establishing the allowable building form, applicants would choose from one of four allowed architectural styles (Contemporary, Craftsman, Mediterranean, or Main Street Classical) which include style-specific façade regulations to assure greater authenticity in the design details and also as a means of achieving articulation in the building facades.
 Private Frontage Type: Applicants would also be required to select from several private frontage types (e.g., porch, terrace, shopfront, etc.) which regulate how the building addresses the public street frontage.
 Site Regulations: The Draft ODDS also contain regulations for slope development, landscaping and lighting, privacy between adjacent residential buildings, parking and equipment screening, parking space location and siting, and public right-of-way improvements.
54 Item #: 2A
Concurrent Planning Efforts
In addition to preparation of the ODDS, the Town has simultaneously been preparing amendments to the Zoning Code through concurrent planning efforts, as summarized below.
 Housing Element Update: The ODDS will be influenced by the results of the parallel Housing Element Update process now underway. The Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element submitted on January 26, 2023 for State review identifies housing opportunity sites with allowable residential densities ranging from 12 to 30 units per acre to accommodate the Town’s RHNA allocation. These higher densities are reflected in the customized Draft ODDS to ensure consistency across Town regulations. The Town will have more clarity on the status of the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element and any resulting implications for the ODDS following the State’s review.2
 Economic Development Committee (EDC) Land Use Table Updates: In 2022, the EDC formed a subcommittee to implement Action 2.4 in the 2022 EDC Action Plan, “Consider modifications to the Downtown zoning land uses to attract desired businesses.” The subcommittee assessed the current Land Use Regulations Table (Table 3A) in Section 10-3.302 of the Municipal Code for conformance with State law requirements, recurring or common requests from community members, and modern planning and land use best practices, such as comparison of the Town’s current land uses to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) business classifications.3 Since the land uses for the ODDS will be regulated by the same table in the Zoning Code, Town staff is reconciling the EDC’s work with the Draft ODDS to ensure consistency across Town regulations. EDC’s work will result in a draft updated land use table brought to the Planning Commission for consideration separately.

Next Steps
The Planning Commission will review the Draft ODDS and recommendations from the Planning Commission ODDS Subcommittee on May 1, 2023. Planning Commission feedback will be used to revise the ODDS for a Planning Commission hearing on May 15, 2023, to consider recommending adoption to the Town Council. Adoption of the ODDS would be done concurrently with adoption of Zoning Ordinance amendments to rezone housing opportunity sites identified in the 2023-2031 Housing Element, to implement programs of the new Housing Element, to address State law requirements, and to implement recommendations of the Economic Development Committee. Formal Town Council consideration for the adoption of the ODDS and related Zoning Ordinance amendments is anticipated to be scheduled for June 2023.

2HCD has 90 days to review the first draft submittal within a planning period. Therefore, the Town expects to receive contact from the State on April 26, 2023.
3 The NAICS is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in Canada, Mexico, and the US to classify establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to the U.S. business economy. Classifications are listed by type of economic activity. 55 Item #: 2A

FISCAL IMPACT
The customization of the San Anselmo Draft ODDS is funded from remaining State SB 2 grant funds for work by Opticos. To assist Town staff, the Town Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement on April 26, 2022, with planning consultant Robert Brown in an amount not to exceed $27,000.

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Actions 3.1(b) and 3.2(a) of the Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element call for adoption of objective design standards that promote missing middle housing types that are sensitive to the existing design character of San Anselmo.

CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
Adoption of the ODDS and other Zoning Code amendments to implement the new Housing Element will be assessed as part of the environmental document being prepared for adoption of the Housing Element.

Climate Action Plan 2030 Measure T-9 (Smart Growth Development) calls for adoption of zoning regulations that allow for infill, higher density and mixed-use development near transit and within walking distance to shopping, schools and services.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1- Summary of SB 35, Housing Accountability Act, and AB 2011 Attachment 2- ODDS Survey Summary Report – August 2020
Attachment 3- Draft ODDS
Attachment 4- Draft ODDS Zones Map
56 Summary of HAA, SB 35 and AB 2011*
HAA
(Govt. Code 65589.5)
SB35
(Govt. Code 65913.4)
AB 2011
Applicability All housing developments (2+
units): residential only (incl. SF
home + ADU), mixed use (min.
2/3s sg. ftg. residential),
transitional and supportive
housing, and emergency
shelters.

Jurisdictions included on HCD’s SB
35 Statewide Determination
Summary where there is
insufficient progress to meet
RHNA for a particular income
category.

Housing developments (2+ units)
with:
▪ GP/zoning allows residential or
mixed use
▪ Min. 10% low-income units
▪ Construction workers paid
prevailing wage (on projects >10
units)
100% affordable housing
projects on sites zoned for
commercial development where
office or retail uses are
permitted or with min. 15% lowincome units (rental) or 15% low or 30% moderate (ownership)
on sites along “commercial
corridors” (min. ROW 70’ wide).
▪ Construction workers paid
prevailing wage
▪ More than 5 units
▪ Must complete Phase 1
environmental assessment
Exclusions ▪ Properties including wetlands,
very high fire severity zone,
floodplain, habitat for
protected species or mobile
home site
▪ Demolition of rental units (past
10 years) or units subject to
rent/resale price controls
▪ Demolition of building on local,
state or national historic
register
▪ Not adjacent to industrial site
▪ Not within 500’ of freeway
▪ Min. 50’ frontage along
commercial corridor
▪ Vacant site does not contain
tribal cultural resources
▪ Not within high fire severity
zone
▪ Other SB35 limitations
(wetlands, flood zone, etc.)
Limitations
on Local
Authority
Cannot reduce density or
deny if project complies with
objective design and
development standards
(General Plan, zoning and
subdivision stds.) unless
finding a specific, adverse
impact to public health and
safety and impact can’t be
mitigated any other way.

Conditions cannot lower
residential density or have
effect of lowering overall
number of units.

Conditions for affordable
housing & emergency shelters
cannot have a substantial
adverse impact on viability of
the affordable units.

Ministerial approval if project
complies with objective
standards.

Parking: min. 1 space/unit; no
parking required within 1/2 mile
of transit stop, historic district or
within 1 block of car share station.

Ministerial approval if project
complies with objective
standards. Can do design
review based only on objective
standards.

Allowable density:
100% affordable projects: 30
du/acre
Mixed-income projects:

Sites <1acre: 30 du/ac
Sites >1acre on comm. corridor
<100’ wide: 40du/ac
Sites >1acre on comm. corridor
100’ wide: 60 du/ac
Sites w/in ½ mile of transit
facility: 80 du/ac
Max. building height (mixed
income projects):

Sites on comm. corridor <100’
wide: 35’
Item 2A- Attachment 1 Item 2A- Attachment 1
57 HAA
(Govt. Code 65589.5)
SB35
(Govt. Code 65913.4)
AB 2011
Sites on comm. corridor 100’
wide: 45’
Sites w/in ½ mile of transit
facility: 65’
Plus numerous setback
requirements.

No parking required.

CEQA CEQA applies Exempt from CEQA Exempt from CEQA
Process Consistency review of
objective standards
completed in 30 days
(projects <150 units) or 60
days (projects >150 units)
from submittal
No more than 5 hearings
(unless legislative approval
needed – e.g. GPA, zone
change)
Consistency review of objective
standards completed in 60 days
(projects <150 units) or 90 days
(projects >150 units)
Review cannot exceed 90 days
(projects <150 units) or 180 days
(projects >150 units) from
submittal
Can hold public oversight meeting
by the Planning Commission
(focus on compliance with criteria
including objective standards)
Consistency review of objective
standards completed in 60 days
(projects <150 units) or 90 days
(projects >150 units)
* Note: This information is presented as a summary of complex legislation and does not attempt to detail all provisions of the law.

Item 2A- Attachment 1
Item 2A- Attachment 1
58 County of Marin
Survey Summary Report
Objective Design and Development Standards
DRAFT REPORT | AUGUST 2020
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
59 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 3 Introduction
Project Summary
The Marin County and Cities Objective Design and Development Standards (Project) is a county-wide effort, among 10 jurisdictions with grant funding from the California Building Homes and Job Act (SB 2).

The Project is aimed at creating a toolkit to ensure that new multifamily housing and mixed-use developments are appropriate to their surroundings and meet the communities’ expectations of high quality and attractive development. The participating jurisdictions include: City of Belvedere, Town of Corte Madera, Town of Fairfax, City of Larkspur, City of Mill Valley, City of Novato, Town of Ross, Town of San Anselmo, City of Sausalito, Town of Tiburon, and Unincorporated Marin County. Each jurisdiction can refine and adopt the toolkit to meet the unique needs and preferences of each community while complying with state mandates and remaining eligible for funding.

Along with assuring that multifamily and mixed-use development is contextually appropriate and in keeping with community expectations, the Project is intended to support participating jurisdictions’ compliance with recent State housing legislations, particularly SB35, the Housing Accountability Act, and SB330, the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. These new laws specify that project review is done at a ministerial level with no discretionary approval by a design review board and/or Planning Commission for qualifying projects, and that new developments are evaluated with objective design standards.

Given that new State law limits local discretionary review, Marin County and participating jurisdictions are evaluating their current standards and identifying opportunities to improve and refine them to better assure that communities’ retain control of future development outcomes and the look and feel of their neighborhoods. Objective Design and Developments standards are measurable, easy to quantify, do not require interpretation, and facilitate review and approval process.

Survey Introduction
The online survey is part of a broader community engagement effort which is a priority for project managers at the County and individual jurisdictions. See website for more information. The intent of the survey was to gather feedback from the community on their preferences on the elements of design for multifamily and mixed-use development. The feedback from the surveys is intended to complement and inform the consultant team’s research on existing regulations, standards, and guidelines and to better position each community to attain the type of development that they find attractive, contextually appropriate, and that broadens the availability of housing. The objectives of the survey are to help introduce the Project and guide the community to additional information on objective design and development standards and the recent State housing legislation; gather constructive feedback on preferences and priorities on multi-family development; identify challenges and opportunities; and understand the perspective of the community in addressing housing needs.

Survey Methodology
In order to reach the greatest number and broadest cross section of individuals, the consultant team administered an online survey via SurveyMonkey, a popular online platform. The survey was posted or Project goals are to address
individual preferences
while leveraging
similarities such as physical
conditions, development
patterns, community
character, and common
regulatory contexts among
the jurisdictions.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
60 Marin County Survey Summary Report
4 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards “active” for 111 days, starting in April 2020 through July 24th, 2020. LWC provided links to the survey for the jurisdictions to post on websites, Facebook pages and distribute via flyers, handouts, emails, and other methods. The survey generated 541 responses from residents, property owners, business owners and operators, special interest groups, County and City staff, elected officials, and civic leaders.

The survey (English version) was vetted by the County and each of the jurisdictions and was made up of 41 questions and took approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. The survey was also translated and posted in Spanish and Vietnamese. Participants were assured that their participation would be handled with confidentiality; that survey results would only be reported in aggregate format, with no personally identifiable information included in project reports or communications.

The survey included seven respondent profile questions (Gender, Race, Age, Residence, Tenure, and Position in community), 33 general countywide questions, and one open-ended question to gather additional comments. The general countywide questions were subcategorized into three distinct contexts:

Core, Suburban, and Edge. Four example developments were provided for Core and Suburban contexts and three examples were provided for Edge Context. Each had three corresponding questions.

Participants were asked to provide their perspective on physical characteristics of residential and mixeduse development in three settings: Core, Suburban, and Edge. A photo and brief description (see Page 5) of the three settings was provided in the survey and is illustrated next.

Three jurisdictions (Belvedere, Mill Valley, and San Anselmo) submitted additional questions to supplement the general, Countywide questions. They were added at the end of the survey where respondents who reside or work in those jurisdictions could opt to respond. See Appendices D, E, and F.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
61 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 5

CORE CONTEXT
In Marin County, a Core is a traditional
downtown or main street area. Areas
where the mixing of uses is a primary
characteristic and daily destinations are
within a short, 5 to 10-minute walk of
most dwellings. (For example: Rafael
Town Center and Mill Valley Downtown).

SUBURBAN CONTEXT
The Suburban context describes areas
typically developed after WWII (1950s)
with wider roadways and more surface
parking. In these areas the separation of
uses is a primary characteristic and
driving is usually required to reach daily
destinations. (For example: Strawberry).

EDGE CONTEXT
Edge areas typically have clustered or
lower-intensity development that is
adjacent to elements of the natural
environment, such as local waterways,
agricultural, or open space. (For example:

Point Reyes Station next to Tomales Bay
Ecological Reserve).

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
62 Marin County Survey Summary Report
6 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards Survey Result Summary
Respondent Profile
In the 111 days it was posted, 541 individuals completed the survey. The majority of respondents identified themselves as Residents (511). This question allowed respondents to select more than one response, or all that applied. Respondents also identified themselves as Landlord/Property Manager/Owner (84) and Business Owner/Operator (68),
Developer/Builder/Contractor/Architect/Designer (56), Worker Employed in the County (52) and Member or representative of a government agency or district in Marin County and Worker in Marin County (33), 12 chose Other.

Most of the respondents identified themselves as residents of San Anselmo (291). 90 respondents identified themselves as Mill Valley residents, followed by Unincorporated (35), Corte Madera (24), Fairfax (20), Larkspur (22), Sausalito (16), Tiburon (9), Belvedere (9), and Ross and Novato at 6 each.

Respondents were nearly evenly split (269 to 272) on having lived in more than one Marin County community.

The majority of respondents Own their homes (450) and 66 identified themselves as Renters. 25 respondents Preferred Not to Say or chose Not Applicable.

Most respondents were Female (309), with 210 Male participants. 23 respondents Preferred Not to Say or chose Not Applicable.

The majority of respondents was over 65 (190), followed by 55-64 year olds (149) and 45-54 year olds (124), then 35-44 year olds (51) and the 25-34 year age class (25). Only one person under 18 and two people in the 18-24 age class responded.

The overwhelming majority of respondents identified themselves as White (446) with 12 respondents identifying as Asian/Pacific Islander, 11 Hispanic/Latinx, 3 Black/African Americans and 1 Native American. 69 respondents preferred not to state their race or identified as “Other”. 541 people completed the
survey, the majority
identified themselves as
Resident (511).

More Owners (450)
responded than Renters
(66).

Responses were split on
having lived in more than
one Marin County
community (269 to 272).

More women (309)
participated than men
(210).

Respondents were generally
“older”, in the 65+ age class
(190), followed by 55-64
year olds (149) and 45–54
year olds (124).

Most respondents identified
as White (446).

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
63 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 7 Preferences on Design Characteristics
As described in the Survey Methodology, for each of the photo examples within the Core, Suburban and Edge contexts, respondents were asked their perspective in three questions, 1) the level of appeal and 2) what characteristics make the example appealing and 3) what improvements they would make to improve the design of the example. Responses to each of these multiple-choice questions with accompanying graphs and charts can be found in Appendix B. Respondents were also given the opportunity to provide a written response to each question which generated 1203 individual comments (see Appendix C for the list of comments). There was also an opportunity at the end of the survey to add a general written comment on issues that may not have been covered in the survey. All the multiple choice and written responses are summarized next.

SUMMARY OF DESIGN APPEAL REPONSES
While responses on level of appeal varied among the examples, consistent themes arose in the characteristics that appealed to respondents and the design improvements they would make. These themes offer important insight into the community’s design preferences.

Across the three contexts, the community noted a clear preference for developments that maintain the scale and character of the neighboring development, and use articulation to reduce mass and bulk. Responses consistently cited “Building articulation,” “Building height,” “Building setback,” and “Landscaping/plantings” characteristics when considering if the design of the development was appealing or needed improvement. The “Area between the building and the roadway” and “Screening” were mentioned frequently as valued design characteristics that influence the appeal of the development and need improvement.

CORE (What do you find appealing and what improvements would you make) Generally, there was consensus for more landscaping, trees, plazas, outdoor space, balconies, bike parking and storage, greater setbacks and articulation to reduce building mass/bulk, blending in with nearby buildings (contextually appropriate design), high/higher quality design elements, updated/refreshed exteriors, better choice of colors, and hidden parking.

Items on which there was dissenting comments or lack of consensus included modern versus traditional style, more versus less height, more versus less density, and more versus less parking.

SUBURBAN (What do you find appealing and what improvements would you make)
Generally, respondents agreed that more outdoor space, landscaping, decks, porches and open space was appealing as well as bicycle parking and storage, high/higher quality/attractive materials, perpetuating community character, greater setbacks and articulation to reduce bulk/monotony, solar on rooftops, hidden/underground parking and attention to (context) blending in with the neighborhood.

There were conflicting comments on more versus less density, height, modern versus traditional design, taller versus height limits/reduction.

Consistent themes in the
most appealing design
characteristics:
• Building articulation,
• Building height,
• Building setbacks,
• Landscaping,
• Building height and
• Relationship with
Neighboring structures
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
64 Marin County Survey Summary Report
8 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards EDGE (What do you find appealing and what improvements would you make) Generally, comments were in favor of solar on rooftops, car charging options, more outdoor space, pool, tennis and basketball court and landscaping, community garden, playground, blending with neighboring buildings and environment, hidden/underground parking, unique/individual design, less monolithic, keeping with the character of Marin, better quality, attractive materials, and articulation to break up “boxiness” and bulk.

Items on which there were dissenting comments included support for taller buildings versus limits or reduction of height, higher versus lower density, and to build more housing opposed to limiting or restricting development at the edge.

Additional Comments (summary of comments not included in the write-in responses and multiple choice)
• Prioritize LEED Standards
• Need more affordable housing in Marin
• Just build more housing
• Encourage density in commercial areas and near transit • Impose a building moratorium
• Consider walkability transit, and access to goods and services • Consider fire risk
• Need objective design standards
• Consider people with disabilities
A handful of respondents thought the survey was too long or confusing, while a similar number thanked the City for the opportunity or voiced support.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
65 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 9 APPENDIX A: Respondent Profile Questions
Question 1: I am a: [select all that applies]
“Other” includes:
• Renter
• Landscape Architect
• Homeowner
• Live in Ross on the border with SA
• Renter, lessor, elder
• Member Strawberry Design Review Board
• Planner
• City Planner outside of Marin
• Planning Commisioner
• Intended resident
• Renter- low income
• Active transportation advocate
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
66 Marin County Survey Summary Report
10 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards Question 2: In what Marin county community do you reside? “Unincorporated Marin County” specified below:
• 94973
• 94960
• 94941
• Almonte
• Greenbrae
• Homestead
• Homestead Valley
• Kentfield (2)
• Marin City
• Point Reyes Station
• San Rafael
• Sleepy Hollow (7)
• Tam Valley (6)
• Terra Linda
• Tam Junction
• Woodacre (3)
• Other
Question 3: Have you lived in more than one Marin County community?
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
67 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 11 Question 4: Do you own or rent?
Question 5: What is your gender?
Question 6: What is your age?
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
68 Marin County Survey Summary Report
12 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards Question 7: What is your race or ethnicity?
Other (please specify):
• Other
• Mixed race 4 or more races
• Euraian America
• Eurasian
• Irish
• Human
• Mixed
• Caucasian. “White” is neither a race nor an ethnicity. • Mixed race
• White, Jewish
• Muli-racial
• decline
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
69 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 13 APPENDIX B: General Countywide Questions
Respondents were provided examples for the three placetypes (Core, Suburban, and Edge) and asked to identify if the design of the development is appealing or unappealing and what improvements they would make for the design to be more appealing.

Core Context
Most respondents agreed on the design of the first example to be the most appealing and rated the other three examples as somewhat appealing. Respondents found “Building Articulation” and “Building Height” to be the most appealing characteristics of the design of Example 1 and recognized “Landscaping/plantings” and “Area between the building and roadway” as improvements they would make. Most respondents identified Example 2 as somewhat unappealing, primarily due to:
“Landscaping/plantings,” “Screening,” and “Area between the building & roadway.” Comments also identified colors and materials as unappealing design elements. Core context examples three and four were generally identified as somewhat appealing designs. Most respondents found “Building articulation” as an appealing characteristic for both developments. For Example 3 and Example 4, most respondents recognized “None” of the characteristics as improvements to make, while many identified “Building setbacks” as an improvement to make to the design of both developments.

Core Context Example 1
Most respondents found this example to be “Somewhat Appealing” and “Very Appealing.” Respondents found the characteristics “Building Articulation” and “Building Height” to be the most appealing.

Respondents identified “Screening” as the least appealing characteristics of the development. Participants identified “Landscaping/plantings,” “Building setbacks,” and “Area b/w the building & roadway” as characteristics that needed improvement. “Building access,” “Location and configuration of parking,” and “Screening” are characteristics that participants generally would not improve.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
70 Marin County Survey Summary Report
14 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards How appealing do you consider the design of the development shown in the image? What characteristics make the design of the development appealing to you? (Mark all that apply).

What improvements would you make to the design of the development? (Mark all that apply).

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
71 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 15 Core Context Example 2
Most respondents found this example to be “Somewhat Unappealing” and “Somewhat Appealing.” Respondents found the characteristics “Building Height” to be the most appealing as well as “None” of the characteristics to be appealing. Generally, respondents distinguished “Screening” and “Area between the building & roadway” as unappealing characteristics. Participants identified “Landscaping/plantings” and “Area between the building & roadway” as characteristics that needed the most improvement. “Building articulation,” “Screening,” and “Building setback” are identified as characteristics that need improvement.

How appealing do you consider the design of the development shown in the image? Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
72 Marin County Survey Summary Report
16 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards What characteristics make the design of the development appealing to you? (Mark all that apply).

What improvements would you make to the design of the development? (Mark all that apply).

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
73 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 17 Core Context Example 3
Most respondents found this example to be “Somewhat Appealing.” Respondents found the characteristics “Building articulation,” “Areas between the building & roadway,” and “Building access” to be the most appealing. Respondents identified “Screening” to be the least appealing characteristic of the development. Participants found the characteristics “Building height” and “Landscaping/plantings” to need the most improvement. Many respondents found “None” of the characteristics needed to be improved. Some respondents identified “Building articulation” and “Relationship of the building with neighboring structures” as improvements to make to the design of the development.

How appealing do you consider the design of the development shown in the image? Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
74 Marin County Survey Summary Report
18 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards What characteristics make the design of the development appealing to you? (Mark all that apply).

What improvements would you make to the design of the development? (Mark all that apply).

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
75 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 19 Core Context Example 4
Most respondents found this example to be “Somewhat Appealing.” Many respondents found the design of the development to be “Very Appealing.” Most respondents identified “Building Height,” “Building Articulation,” and “Landscaping/plantings” as characteristics that make the design of the development appealing. Many respondents identified “Building setbacks,” “Building access,” and “Location and configuration of parking” to be appealing. Most respondents found that “None” of the characteristics need improvements. Many respondents found characteristics “Building setbacks” and “Areas between the building and roadway” as improvements to make to the design of the development. Few respondents identified “Screening” and “Building access” as characteristics that need improvement.

How appealing do you consider the design of the development shown in the image? Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
76 Marin County Survey Summary Report
20 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards What characteristics make the design of the development appealing to you? (Mark all that apply).

What improvements would you make to the design of the development? (Mark all that apply).

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
77 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 21 Suburban Context
For Suburban Context, there was consensus for Example 4 to be the most appealing design of the development. On the other hand, Example 1 was identified as somewhat of an unappealing design.

Examples two and three were found to be somewhat appealing. Most respondents agreed on “Building articulation,” “Landscaping/plantings,” “Building height,” and “Building setback” as the most appealing characteristics that make the design of the development very appealing. Overall, “Landscaping/plantings” and “Building articulation” were determining characteristics for respondents to identify appealing or unappealing designs among the examples. Not many respondents ranked “Screening” and “Relationship of the building w/ neighboring structures” as a deciding factor for creating an appealing design. However, respondents identified these as items for improvement. Additionally, most respondents identified “Building articulation” and “Landscaping/plantings” as appealing characteristics and many respondents identified “Building setback” and “Building height” as appealing characteristics for Example 3. For Example 1, most respondents identified “Landscaping/plantings,” and “Building articulation” as an improvement to make to the design of the development.

Suburban Context Example 1
Most respondents identified the design of this development to be “Somewhat Appealing.” Most respondents found the characteristics “Building setback” and “Landscaping/plantings” to be the most appealing design elements of the development. Many respondents determined “Building articulation” and “Building height” to be appealing characteristics. Most respondents identified “None” of the characteristics as improvements to make to the design of the development. Many respondents found “Building articulation” as a characteristic to make improvement to the design of the development. Very few respondents identified “Building setback,” “Building access,” and “Building height” as improvements to make the design.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
78 Marin County Survey Summary Report
22 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards How appealing do you consider the design of the development shown in the image? What characteristics make the design of the development appealing to you? (Mark all that apply).

What improvements would you make to the design of the development? (Mark all that apply).

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
79 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 23 Suburban Context Example 2
Most respondents identified the design of this development to be “Somewhat Appealing.” Most respondents found the characteristics “Building setback” and “Landscaping/plantings” to be the most appealing design elements of the development. Many respondents determined “Building articulation” and “Building height” to be appealing characteristics. Most respondents identified “None” of the characteristics as improvements to make to the design of the development. Many respondents found “Building articulation” as a characteristic to make improvement to the design of the development. Very few respondents identified “Building setback,” “Building access,” and “Building height” as improvements to make the design.

How appealing do you consider the design of the development shown in the image? Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
80 Marin County Survey Summary Report
24 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards What characteristics make the design of the development appealing to you? (Mark all that apply).

What improvements would you make to the design of the development? (Mark all that apply).

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
81 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 25 Suburban Context Example 3
Most respondents found the design of this development to be “Somewhat Appealing.” Most respondents identified “Building articulation” and “Landscaping/plantings” as appealing characteristics. Many respondents identified “Building setback” and “Building height” as appealing characteristics. Very few respondents found “Screening” as an appealing design characteristic of the development. Most respondents also acknowledged “Building articulation” as a design characteristic that needs improvement for this development. Many respondents found “Landscaping/plantings,” “Area between the building and roadway,” “Building height,” and “Relationship of the building w/ neighboring structures” as improvements to make to the design of the development.

How appealing do you consider the design of the development shown in the image? Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
82 Marin County Survey Summary Report
26 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards What characteristics make the design of the development appealing to you? (Mark all that apply).

What improvements would you make to the design of the development? (Mark all that apply).

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
83 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 27 Suburban Context Example 4
Most respondents identified the design of this development to be “Very Appealing.” Most respondents identified “Building articulation,” “Landscaping/plantings,” “Building height,” and “Building setback” as the most appealing characteristics. Many respondents found “Building access” and “Location and configuration of parking” as appealing characteristics. Most respondents identified “None” of the characteristics as improvements to make to the design of the development.

How appealing do you consider the design of the development shown in the image? Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
84 Marin County Survey Summary Report
28 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards What characteristics make the design of the development appealing to you? (Mark all that apply).

What improvements would you make to the design of the development? (Mark all that apply).

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
85 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 29 Edge Context
For the Edge Context examples, there was consensus among the respondents that Example 2 was the least appealing design and Example 3 was the most appealing design. Similar to Suburban Context, “Building setback,” “Building height,” “Building articulation,” and “Landscaping/plantings” were deciding factors for the respondents to identify appealing and unappealing designs. Respondents identified “Building articulation” and “Landscaping/plantings” as improvements to make to the design of the developments for all three examples. Respondents identified “Building height” and “Building setback” as characteristics that make the design of the development appealing. The design of the Example 3 development was the most popular in terms of “Building height,” “Building setback,” and “Building articulation.”
Edge Context Example 1
Most respondents found this Edge development to be “Somewhat Unappealing” and many respondents identified it as “Very Unappealing.” Very few identified the design of this development as “Very Appealing.” Most respondents identified “Building setback” and Building height” as appealing characteristics. Most respondents found the characteristics “Building articulation” and “Landscaping/plantings” as needed improvements.

How appealing do you consider the design of the development shown in the image? Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
86 Marin County Survey Summary Report
30 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards What characteristics make the design of the development appealing to you? (Mark all that apply).

What improvements would you make to the design of the development? (Mark all that apply).

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
87 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 31 Edge Context Example 2
Most respondents identified the design of this development as “Somewhat Unappealing.” Very few respondents recognized this to be a “Very appealing” development. Most respondents identified “None” of the characteristics as appealing. Many respondents found “Building setback” and “Building height” as appealing characteristics. Most respondents identified “Building articulation” as an improvement to make to the design of the development. Many respondents identified “Location and configuration of parking” and “Landscaping/plantings” as improvements to make to the design.

How appealing do you consider the design of the development shown in the image? Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
88 Marin County Survey Summary Report
32 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards What characteristics make the design of the development appealing to you? (Mark all that apply).

What improvements would you make to the design of the development? (Mark all that apply).

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
89 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 33 Edge Context Example 3
Most respondents identified the design of the development as “Somewhat Appealing” and found the “Building height” as a characteristic that makes the design of the development appealing. Many respondents found the “Building articulation” and “Building setback” as appealing design characteristics.

Most respondents identified “Landscaping/plantings” and “Building articulation” as characteristics to improve the design of the development.

How appealing do you consider the design of the development shown in the image? Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
90 Marin County Survey Summary Report
34 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards What characteristics make the design of the development appealing to you? (Mark all that apply).

What improvements would you make to the design of the development? (Mark all that apply).

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
91 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 35 APPENDIX C: General Countywide Questions Written Input
Introduction
Appendix C includes unedited responses and comments from the write in questions of the survey. The comments in Appendix C appear as they were entered in the survey by the respondents.

In each of the 33 countywide multiple-choice questions, respondents were given the opportunity to write in comments to 2 questions:
• What characteristics make the design of the development appealing to you? • What improvements would you make to the design of the development? Respondents were also given the opportunity to provide a written comment at the end of the survey.
• Please provide any additional comments.

The write in comments are presented below as they were entered and as they appear in the online survey results. A summary of the write-in comments for each context is provided in the Preferences on Design Characteristics of the Survey Result Summary.

Positive/appealing and negative/unappealing comments are identified as such in that summary regardless of the question. For example, if a respondent entered a negative comment in response to the “What do you find appealing” question, it was summarized as a negative comment.

Core Context Example 1:

What characteristics make the design of the
development appealing to you?
What improvements would you make to the
design of the development?
• rounded facade, roof eaves
• Needs more set back for community space
• style is retrograde
• No parking garage.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
92 Marin County Survey Summary Report
36 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards • I like the entrance on the corner and the two
elongated windows on either side
• Difficult to see where parking is; height of
neighboring bldg.; landscaping; bldg.
access?!!?
• Mixed zoning use
• Fenestration and other design features
• Clean
• Nice colors and awnings
• Multi-use less town sprawl
• Architectural style
• Answer is assuming it is mixed use with retail
at ground level
• Reasonably appealing blend of residential
and commercial. Attractive architecturally
feature: the curved corner feature. Would like
to see better design feature in the decks off
the upper floors, but conceptually a good
approach to higher density mixed use
housing/ retailing for a downtown area.
• Entry and rounded area above entry.
• I like the mixed use storefronts with
apartments above.
• The actual classical architectural details
(dentals, curved portion, window trim,
balconies, etc.). Seems well proportioned too.
• I have no real opinion since I don’t know its
location.
• With more class- we’d like our property
values to rise – that design is taudry. Let’s at
least have the illusion of affluence like
Belvedere, or Mill Valley
• Like balconies and mix of business on ground
floor, residential above.
• It’s housing for God’s sake. Let’s build housing
and have less cost to do so because of the
concept that adding articulation and
fenestration is something we deserve.
• Neutral about it. Looks kind of bland.
• Curved lines at the corners.
• Bike parking.
• Mixed use; living space, business, and parking
• I like its light references to Spanish
• Ugly design and protruding outside features
• It’s a handsome structure, appropriate up to
the sidewalk and I like the entry at the corner.

Hard to compare with surrounding area, but
• It’s a very generic superblock with revivalist
features tacked on.
• Fenestration
• Those balconies look like cages for animals in
a pet store.
• See response above. Cant respond without
seeing more details.
• Those rooms rent for 4 grand very over
priced
• Make one story and move to country with
land
• The building shown is of a very ambiguous
and indistinct vernacular and lacks
architectural character. A building located at
a mixed-use zone corner in relatively dense
core area warrants more appealing design
thinking.
• I really like the building but new, not a lot of
character, I enjoy older, eccletic, varied
buildings
• In a downtown area to allow light and views
altering heights to highlight Key Views such
as Mt.Tam or nature scape! NO higher than
the 3 stories shops bottom offices middle
living top with UNDERGROUND parking or in
center of shops with garbage hidden as well
in parking structure area
• It's just not an attractive building you are
showing, but I love the overall concept.
• I can’t tell what green features building has.

That is important to me.
• Bike parking and storage
• Lighter colored trim.
• It’s very hard to say. The balconies and
shutters look fake/ non-functional.

Architectural appeal is present but not
outstanding.
• Paint a different color.
• Can’t see enough to make a comment.
• Allow for use of the sidewalk for retail
• Anything to give it more “character.” This
development isn’t bad, since the existing
building has a bit of character already.
• This survey doesn’t provide enough
information
• everything needs to change.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
93 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 37 has a nice scale and rhythm with upper set-in
patio on the upper level
• The design/ layout of the top floor is the most
appealing
• mass uses full lot, design symmetrical, subtle
detail
• Beauty
• I like the fact that the resident can walk to the
store and coffee shop, or theater without the
use of car. I have seen this set up in
Sunnyvale and it is very appealing and
accessible.
• The building selected does not fit the
questions asked.
• It's very cheap looking, trying to be historic
but not successful.
• I appreciate the neutral color palette
• Smaller Project
• I like the shutters and balconies and general
simplicity and classic feel of the architecture
• Curved corner entrance, awnings, wrought
iron details, intricate roof detail, available
parking
• but not seen from street
• It is difficult to see these attribute
• the corner rounded entry, awnings, roof
detail
• Mixed commercial/residential use
• Awnings, balconies, stucco and tile roofsuccc
• balconies
• The Architectural Design, ie. The rounded
corner containing the entrance with its own
elevated
• roof. And the outrigger detailing on the roof
overhangs.
• balconies
• The building seems massive in scale when
compared to the sidewalk. Ideally, the
building would be 2 smaller instead of 1
massive, or allow for a height increase, with
the upper housing units recessed which
would allow for more exterior design and
perceived mass reduction.
• this is appropriately designed for its location
• Make taller to fully utilize the footprint
(provide more housing)
• Parking is essential. Not providing parking is
to deny a reality. Off street parking is always
required and proven so during COVID
• rooftop garden / patio
• Could be taller and more dense given
location. Ground floor ceiling height could be
taller.
• Not so stark white. More vegetation.
• Larger & more units
• Incorporate garden or common spaces within
common building cores.
• I'd love to see some outdoor benches. It's
welcoming and practical
• Too massive
• The windows, canopies, and balconies are a
bit cluttered- would like to carry the base
materials up and define he first floor a little
more distinctly from the upper level
residential. I’s prefer a little warmer colors,
but the white and base and dark elements
work OK
• Good, balanced example of
residential/business infill. Timeless. Flexible.
• Kinda boring and uninviting
• Bicycle access and secure storage
• Reduce parking. We don't to concede as
much space to cars. More for bikes and
walking.
• Would like bldg to be bigger. We have a
housing shortage
• additional cornice articulation- it's a bit flat
• More pronounced facade articulation
• it looks like its trying to belong to an era it
doesn't belong to (presuming this is new)
• I dislike the fake traditional character
• The outermost part of the structure needs to
be the exterior wall. Balconies need to be
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
94 Marin County Survey Summary Report
38 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards recessed taken out from the inner space.

Landscaping needs to be by the edge of the
street, not by the structure. wider pedestrian
areas are pleasant to me.
• Again you have picked a p\builfing that you
think is improper, but you are not taking into
account when it was built ,what are it's
surroundings, etc. A perfect set up for your
program.
• I'm not convinced we need to insist on
historic references and context for objective
design
• A step-back style (so the top levels are further
from the street than the base level), more
landscaping, and a deeper setback from the
roadway would make these buildings more
dynamic and less obtrusive.
• Seems way too close to street and seems to
skimp a bit on really going down the
underlying vernacular which could make it
extraordinary.
• I cannot tell what the parking is, but I would
hope it is covered parking. Ideally it would be
a garage underground
• Silly balconies/too slab sided accented by bad
choice of color
• It is very difficult to see these attributes
• larger windows, better signage for what is
available on ground floor
• Such vertical and dense structures might be
ok depending on nearby transit options and
how big the city is. This may work for San
Rafael but does not work for Mill Valley.
• Allow variety in style/materials/colors from
neighboring buildings.
• Massing seems too much in context of
downtown Mill Valley as does height; 3 story
too tall, maybe ok on miller or other parts of
marun
• The building needs more height and at least
another floor. The tower at the corner is too
short - probably limited by the prescribed
height so it doesn't work as a design element
• perhaps more awnings and balconies
• Near transit
• retail shops on ground floor; ensure
adequate street or visitor parking
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
95 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 39 • More greenery, more human materials
• Classical design, dramatically increase
setbacks to allow for much much more space
for
• landscaping and garden area, reduce to two
stories
Core Context Example 2:

What characteristics make the design of the
development appealing to you?
What improvements would you make to the
design of the development?
• The tense makes it look like a prison
• Variation in color & cohesive are both good
• painting
• colors
• color
• clean
• Arcutecture of building needs to be of the
feel or style or character of the town or area
specific. Timeless charm of area.
• Prefer move variation in architecture
• The fact that its high density
• Tacky town USA
• Not visually appealing to me
• Color
• Density too high
• The colors are in harmonious with the
general area. Not enough architectural
interest
• Colorful
• Lively color
• Nice roof line. I like the whimsical variation in
colors.
• Cutesy imitation, lacks organic feel. Too
planned.
• Gaudy color scheme.
• Materials vs colors
• Unify colors
• The roof lines are ridiculous, creating a zigzag effect, less repetition and more variety in roof lines would be great
• Setback doesn’t work in thise case; tries too
hard to appear to be single family homes
when it is a multi-unit bldg.
• I think the color and density looks like a mess
• Color selection—vivid colors good, but could
be better
• paint color is too bold; angled roof doesn't fit
with Marin style
• style and paint job really date the building...
• Those pointy eaves are so-o-o boring!
• Building too dense & packed in for location.

Gives squeezed appearance
• Paint color, ugly fencing
• I don’t care for the paint colors
• Looks dated
• Stop the building. We need a moratorium. It’s
to crowded in Marin. Especially since the train
in San Rafael blocks access to the freeway
And access to downtown several times a day.
• Building color palette.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
96 Marin County Survey Summary Report
40 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards • Use of color, peaked rooflines
• Parking appears non-existent; missing
common social spaces.
• Not unique compared to our town buildings.
• Fencing looks tacky
• Images don't reveal where parking is located
so it is not possible to intelligently answer
questions about parking and to some regard
setbacks, access and overall site plan design.
• It's a low-income development
• looks cheap and unimaginitive. But there is a
friendly character to it as well.
• xxxx
• Again another effirt to gain your points.

However you do not provide enough
infornmation to answer many of the
questions. You effort is to replace architrects
with formulas and the result will be a formula
repested continuly.
• I like that the architecture tries to emulate
smaller cottage like structures and like the
idea of gardens beyond the sidewalk.
• Color play
• Colors
• Buildings jammed together needs more
greenery Pickleweed in my opinion is a great
low income development with greenery lots
of nature and close to grocery shopping and
MV community center
• The dead space between building facade and
street is a waste. Better to have the buildings
right onto the street with more internal
space.
• colors
• Lots of colors
• building color, lack of entry depth, angle of
roof line, lack of second floor setback
• Ugly colors, ugly details, ugly landscaping
• I watched in horror when this development
was being constructed and am still find it
outrageous that those design review
entity/ies who were responsible for
approving this development, ultimately
approved it as-constructed. I understand it
was designated as lower-income housing
near existing transportation, amenities and
infrastructure, however, the completely outof context architectural character of the buildings' form, color, articulation, and
detailing do nothing but amplify the block's
high-density, rather than skillfully integrate it
into the locale. It appears to exactly what it
apparently was: an ill-suited design for too
small of a site, trying to accommodate higher
density than reasonable for the site area,
which sacrificed appropriate frontage
setbacks and opportunity for street-facing
facade articulation and expression
expression that would have better fit a
development of this type into the scale and
aesthetic relationship with the street and
nearby lower-rise development of the area.
• Better design
• Where is the parking?
• Arcutechture needs to be symbiotic to the
character of the area, town be timeless and
not block VIEWs which create charm of area
keeping natrue scape in mind upsetting to
see tall buildings darken and block views
from in town shopping and touring
experiecne don't wipe out the charm and
natural BEAUTY
• It looks like a Disneyland housing tract.
• Not keen on the choice of colors on the
building. Also, too many colors.
• The fencing is especially ugly and this just
looks like tacky condos rather than mixed use
• Colors are terrible
• Don’t make a row of identical houses.
• Bike parking. Storage and infrastructure
• Fire the person who chose the colors and
start over with the painting
• Painting too colorful.
• Have building close to sidewalk with retail
space on the first floor
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
97 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 41 • Aesthetically, it’s very bland- no architectural
details, no trim, no variation. It’s just plain
stucco. Looks cookie-cutter and cheaply
constructed.
• This development is a bit ugly. I can see the
designer tried for something that looks like
Danish co-housing, which might have been
nice but there's something about it that looks
like cheap low-income housing. I know we
need low-income housing and if it needs to
be low-budget then I think this design is
acceptable, just not great.
• Bldg should be smaller than 1 city block
• Make it neutral colors with less roof lines to
look less dense
• Allow more individuality.
• Colors are too brash, needs more ground
level plantings
• Space between homes
• 27 Looks they glued the hotels together from
a Monopoly game without a Parker Brothers
consent. Redo entire project
• find a new architect who doesn't have a
poverty mentality in his sense of design.
• Awful
• paint colors
• structure tries to mask uniformity of design
with paint; could use some variety in facade
and better landscape
• less garish colors
• Articulation tries a little hard here. Ground
floor walk up units are nice, but don't fit the
context of this location (would prefer ground
floor commercial in this location). Setback
and landscaping are nice to have, but seem a
bit useless. Colors are a bit much and draw
too much attention to
• the building, which would be better as a
background piece rather than a center piece.
• These photos are too limited in scope to be
able to accurately access and answer these
questions.
• Colors
• Yuck
• Building too close together
• The whole look isn’t appealing. Housing
should blend in. If we are creating mixed use
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
98 Marin County Survey Summary Report
42 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards and hopefully affordable living for folks then
that design shouldn’t look anything different
than those who are well off in Marin County
You need to look at other successful places in
the US that have integrated their teal estate
and towns in a way that don’t separate out
low income homes
• from higher income. We do that here in
Marin and then everyone can say....oh that’s
the section 8 housing or oh that’s where
those people live. C’mon....it’s over the top
expensive here so build enough efficient
living that mirrors the look of what is already
here
• Avoid repetitiveness
• I do not the colors, the row nature, the
business for the articulation, the fence in
front gives it a prison (or dangerous
neighborhood) feeling, and it bears no
relationship to the neighborhood – it looks
like a alien plunked it down in the middle of
the night and ran.
• better exterior paint, fence looks cheap, no
continuity with landscaping
• design is ugly
• Looks cheap
• Design
• Design more suitable to Sausalito
• Rooftops and colors too busy
• Taller would work better given the context
• Color of buildings is atrocious
• Unique design of each unit. The design
shown is to repitative
• This development seems to jumble
townhome design with higher density core
development, resulting in a somewhat
uncomfortable feel. A mutifamily building
built to the street edge should have a
common entry or internal system. Entries to
Individual units should be set further back
from sidewalk. Additionally, the basic shapes
and mix of bright colors to cretae a "village"
look appears forced rather than authentic.
• Mixed use is a better goal, but shouldn't be a
requirement. Projects need to get built.
• combine units into one building that does not
look like a tract development
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
99 Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 43 • Miserable cookie cutter elevation. Lousy
fence
• Phony looking
• Simpler more rhythmic features that make
useful sense
• See comment above.
• colors
• color
• Better architecture
• Make it higher to accommodate more
housing
• I would make it all larger
• buildings feel a little like caricatures, need
additional detailing
• More diverse roof line
• materials. articulation and windows all could
easily be made better.
• xxxx
• different colors & more variation in materials
• setback further, softer fence/screen, more
balconies and bay windows
• This looks like piled up matchboxes. The
fence and landscaping makes it look cheap
and boxed in in a really bad way
• color scheme -- too many colors that do not
relate to each other
• I don't like these colors at all
• it's extremely ugly - especially the colors - do
not match surrounding areas
• Needs much better architectural design
• Withut knowing the site and the owners
interest impossible to answer.
• This looks like a Disneyworld low end hotel
• Color is a big issue here, especially for Marin
(where earth tones are part of the character).

Candidly, they also look dated and overly
suburban.
• Way too busy with articulation and color
changes. Could have more interesting
landscaping
• This looks like low income housing. It is on
too busy a street. The fence is terrible.
• Colors and style
• do away with, or soften the fencing
surrounding the complex. UGLY
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
100
Marin County Survey Summary Report
44 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards • Roofline too busy/jagged - Looks too much
like what it is, a bunch of dwellings mashed
together
• Variation in materials (not a flat, cheap,
stucco finish
• Even for a core area of a relatively big city,
this seems too dense.
• Provide commercial uses on ground floor
• We live in MARIN known the world over for
beautiful natural space and harmony with
nature. These buildings look like they could
be in Union City.
• Visually this is too much mass, looks chintzy
construction, fence looks like a prison, over
crowded
• Greater height with the same density would
allow for more articulation and better interior
spaces
• colors
• limit to 2 colors, use neutral colors, perhaps
different shades of one color
• near transit
• Colors, including the roof color.
• white iron fence is uninviting; would like
parking at the curb to buffer traffic from
sidewalk; can't see parking in the pictures;
ensure adequate visitor and street parking
• eliminate glaring colors
• Colors more neutral
• It's just a bit glaring in color and the yard
space in front is too shallow.
• Materials,
• color palette
• Less jarring color; more roof form articulation
so not so monotonous
• Classical design please, reduce height,
dramatically increase set-back to allow for
ample landscaping and garden, provide
underground parking, change color
selections, needs higher quality details
(railings look cheap)
• Front fence too high and insubstantial.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
101
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 45 Core Context Example 3:

What characteristics make the design of the
development appealing to you?
What improvements would you make to the
design of the development?
• I like the public space
• Fit a lot of housing in a small area
• the adjacent public plaza is the saving grace!
• Accommodates housing in downtown area.

Provides mixed use zoning
• None of your examples allow for review of
the site plan to be able to answer the
questions appropriately
• Even apartments need patios etc.
• I like the density
• Design features that break up the mass
• Too tall
• very upsetting that this building BLOCKED Mt
Tam views to the downtown area!!!!! This is
what I'm talking about...I would NOT want to
see this in DOWNTOWN San Anselmo!!!! or
Fairfax, CA
• Like for larger towns (e.g. San Rafael) but it'd
overpower in San Anselmo and other small
areas
• This just looks much more attractive and is a
great mixed use look. That said, it's a little tall
perhaps.
• Of the 3, this one least appealing. First was
my favorite
• high density, close to downtown core
• Cheap exterior materials and fake
architectural like the massively oversized
eves. The building on the left is poorly
proportioned and it’s design is already
looking dated.
• It is beautifully designed.
• Too big
• massing and scale
• Ugly, style looks to the past
• They are too large. Reduce the massing
• Roofline is awkward
• That overhanging roof looks kinda odd, out of
sync with the building walls.
• Balconies to vary large wall surface would be
more appealing
• Better design with anted patios and common
space
• More trees
• The six story example is way out of scale for
any Marin jurisdiction except San Rafael
• Add trees
• While not totally out of scale with the
downtown San Rafael context, it's
unfortunate that this development's
architectural character was chosen and
approved to be a dated post-modern
expression - something that looks closer to a
1980's Michael Graves building.
• better design
• Where is the parking?
• Colors are terrible
• better Bicycle infrastructure
• All of the different window sizes and styles
are very confusing to my mind. Again who is
picking these colors?
• Exterior materials quality
• Don't know where the parking is located
• Recess the upper floors to increase appealadd small patios.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
102
Marin County Survey Summary Report
46 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards • I don’t mind it. The tile, finishes, colors, etc.
seem a little dated now, but it’s not bad.
• Obvious mixed use
• a giant tacky taqueria
• Plaza next door and fountain when it worked
years ago
• space to walk around it
• Nice to have height and density with ground
floor retail.
• Curves and roof line are well done.
• Over planned. Too plasti. Cheap looking
trying to be upscale but it's crap.
• Common social, business, zone with water
fall feature to introduce nature elements
• Whatever, it's fine
• It looks like something found in a large city
urban core
• I really like the courtyard plaze
• retail below units
• Massive
• Atleast they tried
• Height of first floors ample
• Approve of the parking location and
configuration because I know the building
but wouldn't be able to answer based only on
images.
• Interesting architecture
• Should be this tall or taller
• It resembles a suburban shopping center.
• xxxx
• See pervious comments
• The courtyard is a nice feature
• Like the rounded elements
• Roof detail
• Not sure which of the two buildings you are
referring to
• With small downtowns in Larkspur, mill
Valley, San Andelmo our “core” doesn’t look
anything like this. We need to cherish our
downtown heritage and refresh it not cheaply
urbanize it. I think the refresh of downtown
Larkspur is a good example.
• It is interesting that images of San Rafael
Buildings are shown but San Rafael is not a
partner to this survey and project.
• scale of the building is too large for suburban
marin
• It looks like a SoCal Mall from the 80s. Just
simply and ugly design. What could be done
to improve it? Paint it white, but the ugly
design can't be helped.
• Make it fewer stories, not so tall
• Too high, no need for different colors, or
stucco but understand it might be more
affordable.
• fire the architect - gross - SO tacky
• Awful
• they look like Olive Garden
• I like this building on 4th Street but its height
would overwhelm places like San Anselmo
• The common area needs cluster areas either
via seating, planting or architectural structure
• Massing is fine, its a box. This building falls
short in articulation and materials. That said,
it is of its time. Hopefully we can do better
now...
• I get a stomach ache when I look at the
building. I'm not sure why. If the buidling was
a person, I think they'd be a jerk.
• more tree plantings
• Colors
• This architecture is already dated. It' s like a
car with fins
• Larger & more units
• Too Big
• Again....don’t make the building stand out but
design it in a way that it fits in and
complements the usiness and other
downtown buildings around it. Load it up
with greenery and beautiful landscaping
• Way to tall and imposing
• Doesn’t fit with town
• Architectural style is terrible
• The structure is acceptable, but the pastel
colors and (contemporary mediterranean?)
design appear similar to anything built on the
penninsula or East Bay. The scale is actually
approariate to the urban location but could
be more ocnsistn vwith Marin bulding and
have a bit more receding or softness at the
upper level. The grill eaves at the curved
elevations have no relation to anything and
appear awkward. s it elevates. The
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
103
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 47 • This is for a city, not Unincorporated Marin
• Facade articulation, balconies, brackets, fine
grained detailing (in one of them)
• Good that SR has areas that can be more
dense
• One portion too tall, even perhaps for San
Rafael
• Puzzling from street how to enter the homes.

Make evident.
• Better architecture
• Make it taller to accommodate more housing
• Make larger with more community amenities
• cost benefit analysis needs to apply to height
• This building would be out of place as a core
development except San Rafael or Corte
Madera. It is way out of scale for the other
communities.
• its just such a generically corporate
development that could be found anywhere,
USA.
• xxxx
• I dislike the fake traditional or post modern
look
• Improved architectural design
• Your list of simplistic questions never fits the
subject which is the poorblem with this whole
process
• I think it is key that buildings "step back" / are
tiered. This would allow height without the
feeling of something looming over the street.

Deep upper level balconies are also an
opportunity for additional landscaping, which
softens the look of a large structure.
• Ugly design
• Too tall, too geometric and pointy facing
street
• It seems like it is all commercial - I didn't think
anyone lives there - I thought is was all
offices.
• Color and style
• Messy-too many different design alements
• A large building face should not have one
material painted different colors. It is still a
mass of stucco with no character.
• Which building?
• There is no sense of place with these photos.

Part of what makes Marin SPECIAL is each of
the towns have embraced their sense of
place. Neighborhood connections are
important. Affordable housing does not have
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
104
Marin County Survey Summary Report
48 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards to be generic and lacking in a sense of place.

SF tore down beautiful old Bictorian and
demolished the local community in the 60s
with the idea that they were providing new
accessible housing for an African American
neighborhood. It didn’t work. It destroyed
middle class and low income black families in
the name of progress. These photos are
terrible haven’t we learned anything from the
colossal failure of Marin City. The top down
idea of making the flea market into a generic
big box shopping mail is a travesty. Support
locals with small infill building projects that
make sense for their neighborhood.
• Such vertical and dense structures might be
ok depending on nearby transit options and
how big the city is. This may work for San
Rafael but does not work for Mill Valley
• Limit high density buildings more than 2
stories to major transportation corridors.
• More room for large street trees to help
minimize massing
• near transit
• The courtyard/square of this project is very
uninviting. The colors are so boring, the
round corner is not an attractive use of space
or materials.
• Increased setbacks at higher levels
• reduce the height and bulk of the buildings
• It's too large/chunky
• Too tall and rounded design doesn't fit with
architecture of downtown San Rafael
• Need smaller scale for Unincorporated Marin,
greater setbacks, much much more
landscaping,
•
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
105
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 49 Core Context Example 4:

What characteristics make the design of the
development appealing to you?
What improvements would you make to the
design of the development?
• Entries should be at street level
• A reasonably aesthetic design.
• Everything its really ugly
• None of the aerial views are sufficient to
answer ½ the questions regarding the
building. This applies to all the examples.
• Traditional Marin development mass and
bulk with great design
• Move to county
• Side looks fine, but the front of the building is
not nice looking
• I’m confused by These photos. Photo number
two is quite appealing, is it the same building
just from you as far
• There are some decent elements of a
recognizable Architectural style
• It seems to fit within the parameters, while
also being very aesthetically pleasing. The
style fits within the context of Mill Valley.
• I like the variation with the balcony/, etc.
• Fix your survey. Pictures are of 2 different
buildings.
• looks like a cheap motel
• colors
• It lacks interest. Too homogeneous
• Nice complex with good scale, articulation
and materials.
• Corner structure is good. The rest is short
and timid.
• Copy, copy, copy, copy
• tile roof, big windows
• Not much really. It’s ok but definitely not
grrat
• This could be a taller bldg; slightly more
articulation and more invisible parking
• The entries should not be up steps. They
should be at street level.
• could have gone with a more dense plan
• The images appear to be different buildings.
one I like more than the other
• Make it attractive?
• It looks outdated needs underground parking
with park in center of buildings
• As this development backs onto a
creek/natural waterway, I would have allowed
a larger setback to the riparian zone to allow
for possible on-site stormwater
management, flood protection, and integrity
of the riparian corridor habitat.
• great design
• Greenscapes rooftop use
• Can’t discern how the first photo relates to
the second. 2nd photo much more appealing.
• Can't tell from this if building has any green
features.
• better Bicycle infrastructure
• Hard to say. I like the use of trees. There is a
more integral use of trees here than in other
examples
• Design is not appealing but landscaping and
balconies etc aren't bad
• One picture and set of responses per
building
• Just ugly
• start from scratch
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
106
Marin County Survey Summary Report
50 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards • This looks like a heap 1970's apartment
building
• can't see relationship to other buildings, like
the spanish look and the softer more mature
landscaping
• Again doesn’t fit
• architectural design elements are high quality
• Is surface parking in the middle of the lot the
only type that is available?
• variation in style and finishes
• Nice architecture
• The buildings attempt to be friendly and
present at least a few different materials to
help organize them visually..
• xxxx
• architectural details and articulation design
are very good
• Nothing is appealing to me
• See previous comments
• I think this is the best recent example of Multi
in MV. The only criticism is that the porch
roof obscures the storefronts below so it is a
difficult commercial space. There also was
never enough parking when it was a
restaurant and no safe access from Miller
south side.
• Architectural style/Spanish tiles, varying wall
textures. Don't like outdoor parking it should
be covered or underground; underground
would allow for shared public space in
between instead of parking lots
• Looks like short to tall, front to back, nice
• You are asking what makes it appealing, but
you aren't giving options to respond to
• architectural style of the t ypes of businesses
included... It seems like you are missing the
point of your own survey
• I looked at a BMR and full market rate condo
in this bldg. they were really proud about
using green materials but the configuration
of the space was strange. The one bedroom
loft had a door that went outside and looked
over the parking lot. Weird! The very small
one studio condo was really overpriced for
BMR. This building has no common areas,
community garden or open space. None of
the neighbors know each other. The family
• The lower level of the first bldg is too dark.

Allowing natural light and better visibility to
the storefront would draw more interest.
• Colo
• Height is too low for downtown SR but maybe
good for smaller Marin towns. The awning
effect hides the location of front door and
access a bit (may be the lighting)
• Seems a bit over-parked. Would prefer
interior parking to open lot.
• The photos look like 2 different buildings to
me. I dislike the first and like the second.
• Ugly
• Again, the pictures aren't sufficient to answer
the questions well.
• Building should be taller
• Fire the architect
• Again....pretty sterile and boring. I think you
can do a lot better to make housing that is
integrated into the existing landscape and
architectural. Look at it this way....step back
and look at it and say....does this look like
affordable housing? If so then you need to
change your design. People living in this
housing deserve it
• Choose designs matching character of town
• Go taller in height
• Design and style
• Regarding height -it appears ot e a mix of 2
and 3 story elements. Would like to see a
design that accommodates three stories
throughout.
• Dark under balcony. Hideous frills.
• Make it taller to accommodate more housing
• Would be nice if it was more monolithic
• surrounding buildings not shown
• This project less-so than other examples, but
it still seems like a solution that does not
come out of its community (or any
community for that matter) and is more
image than substance. But we are only
looking at photos here--which is not a good
way to judge places in the world.
• xxxx
• variation in materials
• retail should be leveled with sidewalk, not
raised
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
107
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 51 housing in the back has no relation to the
one bedroom lofts with great traffic noise.
• This building was not well designed. Many
small businesses have failed here due to the
design. An outdoor public/dining area
originally appealed but was too cold for
comfort. Screening came later and that
concealed the businesses inside from street
view. It became a dark hole in the facade; not
welcoming at all. Commercial bldg is too
close to street; imposing. It attempted to
address too many development issues and
just didn't get it right. This bldg is not
commercially viable as a result; many long
vacancies between failing tenants. Nice try
but not a win.
• Good architectural style for Marin
• If this is a site on Miller Ave. in Mill Valley, the
photos don't do it justice. I like the design of
this building in person but not in these
photos.
• Like buildings of different heights.
• Is not worth the effort.
• Make higher, not dense enough
• See previous comments
• Fillout the porch for visibility of commercial
spaces beyond.
• I am familiar with his building and it is too
close to the street. With more space, the
sidewalk area could be more inviting.

Because of this issue, businesses cannot
seem to thrive in the retail spaces. A good
example of the importance of thoughtful
design. I do appreciate that it is a smaller
building in general.
• Style and colors
• Too little info to say
• Color is less appealing, dark, and uninviting
• I would like to see those businesses open.
• As mentioned Pickleweed in MV is great and
there is another similar low income
development next to Larkspur Plaza Dr that I
don’t know the name of that is also really
nice. The area of Larkspur across from Escalle
has $2 M homes next to the Larkspur Plaza
condos which are very affordable from $
480K to $650k Which is also next to a
Subsidized low income housing complex. All
three of them have beautiful nature a sense
of shared community and Ex walk to
downtown with movies, cafe and grocery
shopping.
• This mostly works for Mill Valley. It is too
vertical though and could benefit from
terracing the floors. Also, the restaurant
space was poorly designed (too small) and
has not worked commercially.
• not enough parking, though placement in
back is great
• More plantings set back from street, this
really helps with not feeling so dense,
massive
• I would have granted another level to the
residential units at the rear
• near transit
• would design parking so that it's in garages
instead of the ugly lot in the middle of the
buildings.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
108
Marin County Survey Summary Report
52 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards • will to have the buildings go one story higher
to have parking garages on ground level
• should be taller - wasted space
• design too modern, lack of second story
window articulation
• If this is a site on Miller Ave. in Mill Valley,
then I like it. The photos do not make it look
appealing.
• Should be pulled away from creek and allow
public access
•
Suburban Context Example 1:

What characteristics make the design of the
development appealing to you?
What improvements would you make to the
design of the development?
• Not great, but at least each home has a
driveway.
• ugly
• high density
• There appears to be some sort of courtyard,
which is nice
• Too many roof lines
• Prefer pic on left vs middle pic where do
residents in first pic park.
• I'm starting to suffer from indigestion -
seriously!?? SO tacky
• colors
• Nice complex with good materials and
articulation.
• This trap is representative of what has
happened to communities around California
once planning commission got involved. Go
look at Danville to see how it was done right.
• these look like they will deteriorate
aesthetically
• Only the first image works
• higher quality materials
• Solar. Electric car charging potential in each
‘garage’
• More outdoor space
• Too clustered
• Too much concrete coverage in drivewaysadd more plants to soften • Have those 2-car garage entrances been
seismically strengthened? Ed?
• Make it not ugly
• Ugly
• The sameness of the different units in terms
of both color and design in ugly
• landscaping only moderately integrated into
designs. There are better suburban examples
than these.
• Underground parking
• better design
• I guess I don't really understand where the
parking is in relation to the entry.
• try to make less monolithic
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
109
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 53 • Looks cheap
• BORING!
• Reallya can't tell. These examples are terrible
for your purposes.
• I’m commenting on the left picture
• I find ugly buildings unappealing
• Same as all previous
• some architectural effort- though
proportions aren't great
• xxxx
• These have terrible design
• There are millions of examples of this type
and the result is due to the architect not
playing by some rulrs. This architect I would
say is a 6.
• The wood panel railing and gable brackets
• I appreciate that the colors are neutral.
• Balconies, peaked roofs
• Lower the building height of these
monstrosities
• Too dense for most Marin suburbs, maybe
okay in bigger cities.
• Can't see bldg access or siting from these
images.
• Curving walkway
• Balconies and braces
• Is this two different buildings or front and
back. The image at the left is more appealing
than the one on the right
• This is not suburban in Marin
• Parking in secon image - woudl prefer back
alley access so it's not all garage at ground
level
• Houses having individuality gives our town
character. Don't like rows of identical houses
or townhouses.
• better Bicycle infrastructur
• It's hard to answer these because a lot of
them are just ugly suburban designs.

Landscaping helps.
• scratch it completely
• very static
• look like townhouse kits
• Seems over-parked. Would prefer garage to
lot. Should prioritize open space for residents
over parking.
• Looks cheap
• Colors
• Bulldozer
• Just not an attractive style. Looks like cheap
track housing
• too big, too dense, too high
• Needs to fit in more with abMarin aesthetic.

This looks like a new San Diego development
• second photo - bldg needs more unifying
design elements to break up vertical fascade
• design is ugly
• It is very unfriendly at the ground-level due to
fences, lage driveways and garage doors are
facades.
• Too generic
• Thius is the tale of two building. The front
courtyard elevaitons are very pleaqsent
whrreing the rear alley elevations are faily
stark and heavy. The building and realy
impose ont othe curb, except for the
courtyard area. Architecture is pleasant but a
little top-heavy given the proximity to street
in subrban setting. Would
• Reduce parking requirements; consider
"maximum" parking standards and to allow
projects to propose the parking that is
needed start design again
• Too much emphasis on garage and parking
• Start over
• I’m commenting on the right hand photo
• Beautify them
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
110
Marin County Survey Summary Report
54 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards • Same as previous
• better proportions on window to wall ratios,
more detailing consistent with the intended
style
• Make larger
• variation instead of cookie cutter....but
benefit/cost needs to be done
• Ouch--make it stop.
• xxxx
• garage door taking up almost the entire
width, dislike fake craftsman style
• Just don't like this at all.
• Better architecture
• Your approach I just figured out is like
painting with numbers.
• If these buildings were set further away from
the road, there would be room for
landscaping to soften the look. Again, a stepback/tiered style would also help quite a bit. • Fire lane and bright yellow dotted curb cut
and fencing are all obnoxious and make it
look like an institution
• Lower heights of buildings PLEASE
• Style and colors
• Color and materials are bland and
unattractive; colors are not complimentary - a
color consultant should have been used.
• Are you asking as if I might be a resident?
Neighbor? Business?
• It is genetically horrible anytown
• Less dense.
• a little more public space would be nice
• More variety in colors and textures.
• Too dense
• Porkchop - inarticulate, lack of architectural
quality, poorly designed
• Pictures are not good enough to determine
improvements easily. Bldgs appear like they
are trying to be something that they are not --
phony cornices, bracketing, etc. Institutional
look with phony attachments which attempt
to soften basic box structure. There is little
opportunity for residents to make their units
their "home". Roadways are not that wide.

Need better photos in order to submit a
substantive response.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
111
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 55 • I can’t determine from these two photos if
this is the same building.....it looks like two
dissimilar projects. I find the first photo very
appealing but not the second photo.
• in the first picture, the building is right up
against the street, basically no setback. the
building in the second picture with just
garages and driveways out front is ugly; first
picture is much better
• Non-stucco siding is good for Marin aesthetic
• it looks like a fortress
• lighter color
• The garage side of the building is not great,
the front is better
• dont like gated buildings, not pedestrian
oriented
• BSALCONIES DARK AND INSET AND UNITS

NEED MORE PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
• Classical design, much much more room for a
garden and landscaping, low density
• Massing is bloated. Materials are cheap.

Detailing is done badly. This is very
unattractive.
• Metal fence too tall and doesn't fit.

Suburban Context Example 2:

What characteristics make the design of the
development appealing to you?
What improvements would you make to the
design of the development?
• Great design and layout. Location
• The water
• Benches by sidewalk
• Fits with landscape.
• A bit dated looking though
• look at the ones in Corte Madera - a bit more
upscale - raise the standards!
• Solar on rooftops. Access to electric car
charging
• Adding front porches encourages neighbors
to interact and know each other
• Terrible design.
• Exterior color selection. White trim poor
• ugly
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
112
Marin County Survey Summary Report
56 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards • There may be a lot of usable space and
landscaping around the units which would be
nice, but hard to see from photos
• colors
• location near water makes it appealing
• Location
• This is the stuff San Francisco area has to
endure not what makes the communities
attractive. Someone is mixing the point big
time. Looking at a van Gogh then making a
zillion copies at Printright.
• proximity to water, peaked rooflines
• Construction looks cheap
• look
• Too busy, second photo
• BORING!
• So hard to tell from pictures
• Appealing pedestrian entry. Nice symmetries.

Enough space.
• Overall project is appealing, difficult to give
detailed feed back with the limited
information provided in images
• Ugly, again. To be honest, we all just want
beautiful buildings. We really don’t care
about heights, set-backs, orientation. We only
care about landscaping because It can hide
ugly buildings.
• Same as previous
• unfair to use because of benefit of water shot
and trees in background
• has a tactile character which is appealing--
especially in its setting.
• xxxx
• surrounding natural beauty
• Oh, so now we are to like the project because
it is out in the woods. Architecture about a 7.
• I like clustering units and parking separately
• water, peaked roofs
• Needs mature trees/plants so these buildings
don’t stick out Ike a sore thimb
• Color is bland; no one wants pink and purple,
but colors need to have an aesthetic quality
without being bland.
• There are so many other factors...
• Great!
• more variation in color of individual units -
maybe design too
• Take out every other building they are to
close.
• This development appears to have been
constructed over a wetland which is
removing vital ecological habitat and function
from the local ecosystem.
• better design
• Looks less suburban and more car
dependent
• It's a pretty unattractive older structure.
• looks tight, urban, boxy and not private (from
inside or out); have to keep windows covered
• Solar roof or other green features
• Better Bicycle infrastructure
• As mentioned before, I don't think there's
much to improve these unappealing beige
suburban developments where all the units
looks the same. Somehow create more
variation? Less beige?
• Refresh structures
• more elegant
• too contrived/no charm
• Kind of a bland and uniform design and there
seems to be an inefficient use of the land
• Could be taller. Would be nicer with better
materials. Not a fan of parking.
• the color is nauseating. It looks like Barbie
doll skin.
• Color besides boring beige
• buildings too close together
• Again....use materials that look quality. How
about adding beautiful screened in porches
or patios that go out to the open space and
water. Maybe some cool architectural
themes...seen a lot of tin tyke roofing and
more modern but not track tyle
• Better construction
• This is too boxy
• could use higher quality material, set back
windows, less kitchy lattice work, more
substantial porches/door overhangs
• Materiality could be more 'regional'
• Too generic
• See
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
113
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 57 • Residences are architecturally 'individualized'.

They appear as separate bldgs even though
they share common walls.
• Proximity to water.
• materials have a fine grain texture to them,
softening the appearance. The massing is
broken up enough to avoid a bloated
appearance and long, massive walls.
• The buildings are simple yet fit elegantly with
landscaping and surrounds. The building
could have some variation to materials and
colors to add more of a valliage look than a
complex, but that should be subtle. o
• Water setting is appealing
• More varied and spirited façade
• Slightly increase overhangs on front.
• See comment above
• Again, better architecture.
• Same as previous
• Make taller
• unfair example compared to others because
of location
• would be better if the masses were broken
up a bit more. The internal spaces would
benefit from this too.
• xxxx
• additional material variety
• facade too plain
• don't really care for this.
• No further comment
• Looks cheap. Looks like low income housing.

Why are there random benches with no
shade trees. Lattice work in not appealing.

Cannot tell where the parking is located.
• Style and color
• More sophisticated colors
• This survey does not seem well written...
• Still too dense for Marin.
• Less mass
• Sea level rise is an issue here....
• More color, more open space for nature and
people.
• Architectural design and finishes.
• I don't like the materials!
• Cheesy 80s/90s chimneys
• Needs higher-quality details, higher- quality
windows, better landscaping
• The parking should be broken into more,
smaller clusters.
• Photos don't show relationship to street.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
114
Marin County Survey Summary Report
58 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards Suburban Context Example 3:

What characteristics make the design of the
development appealing to you?
What improvements would you make to the
design of the development?
• Ticky-tacky
• If this is suburban we are in trouble. Way too
monolithic
• Needs Much taller trees and decks
• So many unappealing aspects, yet not lethal.

A better approach and re-execution of the
landscaping (Boring and unimaginative, 2 sad
things) could go along way.
• I like the larger sized development.
• Unimaginative but ok
• Community feel, courtyard
• Dreadful - SO TACKY
• See last comment
• Roofline
• very successful medium density project
• Truly dreadful
• Like the green colors.
• colors
• The courtyard
• Same as previous
• xxxx
• variety in window types
• Better architecture
• Ah, denser,bad. There are good projects out
there and ,so far we seen maybe two.
• Lots of open space. close to downtown but
not right on the commercial corridor
• General feel - can't articulate
• Horrible generic
• the area behind/between the buildings is
great, makes it peaceful
• Varied roofs, building height really help w
visual mass and visible court yard too
• Solar on rooftops. Access to electric car
charging.
• Outdoor space to encourage neighbors to
know each other
• Too large. Parking should be in the middle of
a MultiFamily residential building
• Footprint too big
• Those entry arbors and knee braces are
clunky and poorly designed.
• Can’t see neighboring structures.
• too massive and monotonous. You can pull
back the camera but you can't hide the bulk.

Ok if not suburban
• Underground parking. Trees 10’x taller every
unit needs decks
• I find this building to be somewhat
architecturally brutal and imposing, both in
overall articulation of form, as well as color
palette chosen for the exterior. The interior
courtyard appears to be it's only appealing
aspect.
• better design
• Just try harder! I know your heart is in the
right place!
• It looks really tall and imposing. Looks like it's
trying to be charming, but missed the mark
by being too busy & large.
• Seems suitable for closer to downtown, not
middle of a street with single family home
• I like the idea of hiding the cars away (in a
garage, underground possibly) so that you
can use space to bring more landscaping in
and also to have areas people can sit outside,
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
115
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 59 • This today's version of ticky-tacky little boxes
stacked on top of each other. Unimaginative.
• Architectural design and colors.
• Attractive architectural style here
• density too high, lacks second floor
articulation
• This is NOT suburban in Marin. Too massive.
one or two possibly gated, so that people can
go there with their kids to just sit and play
out in their "front yard."
• Landscaping space allocated is great. Poorly
executed
• This doesn't look like it would fit in San
Anselmo.
• better Bicycle infrastructure
• I think any of these development designs
could be improved by designing more
variation into the design so it doesn't look
like a huge block of identical units.
• don't even think about it - gross
• very unappealing
• It would be nice to shield parked cars from
view, and reduce building height where it
would overwhelm neighboring structures
• More trees
• See last comment
• too top-heavy, insufficiently articulated
• Too big, too dense
• This complex feels disconnected from
everything else
• Looks a mess--needs simplifying or making
more homogeneous
• Is there any private outdoor space for each
unit? 5
• This is just a travesty.
• lower structure density
• Facade is a bit flat, relying to heavily on finish
materials and awkward rooflines for an
attempt to architectural expression.
• The interior courtyard’s first two stories
needed more articulation
• The building has an industrial workspace/ loft
feel. This is fine in the right context of
neighborhood
• Confused architecture. What does it want to
be?
• Looks like office building not homes
• Too long facades and too high. Make 2.5
instead of 3 floors high.
• It’s just ugly
• height stepping
• Same as previous
• the massing would be much improved if not
so blocky.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
116
Marin County Survey Summary Report
60 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards • xxxx
• additional balconies for units facing
courtyard/landscape area
• more street trees
• Uniformity of structure
• beter architecture
• Landscapiong young and the top floor is
discontinuos. Some designers like that idea--
bad.
• The two-toned colors and complicated
rooflines make things feel busy / not
sophisticated. This is also a very bulky
structure. I do think the landscaping is
positive.
• Location - this is a very busy street. Again the
red zones and the "grand driveway entrance"
make this seem like a huge complex or hotel.

If these don't have separate entrances the
hallways will feel like a hotel.
• No bowling lane buildings!!! No 3-4 story high
buildings in Mill Valley.
• ??????????
• Building is a massive, unattractive block.

Large flat structures (even with cheap
overhangs) will detract from the character of
any community (unless you are in Daly City).
• J
• Tear it down?
• This could work if it's close to transit and
major roads and walking distance to lots of
shops and parks etc.
• Seems too much mass for suburban area
• Needs more articulation in the building
facade - more balconies. Look at the work of
LA
• Architects Lorcan O'Herlihy for great
multifamily work
• This is very high density dwelling on a busy
street corner with what appears to be
difficult access. I am concerned about impact
on traffic and other infrastructure such as
water capacity in our resevoirs and aging
sewage treatment plants.
• See comments above.
• More open space, more natural areas for
play, more color.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
117
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 61 • add street parking to buffer sidewalk from
traffic; add retail/shops on ground floor;
better building design
• ugly apartment looking. Would rather see
detached units.
• hard to determine residential access point
relative to parking
• Massive scale/density
• More private outdoor space on balconies
• This is NOT suburban in Marin. It is too
massive and not enough quality landscaping.

Too modern.
• The parking should be broken up into smaller
clusters and screened from the street. The
fine grain detailing is good but the walls do
not have enough relief. It should be broken
up into smaller masses, less continuity of wall
planes, especially ones so tall.
• Abutting sidewalks narrow and at curb / not
landscaped.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
118
Marin County Survey Summary Report
62 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards Suburban Context Example 4:

What characteristics make the design of the
development appealing to you?
What improvements would you make to the
design of the development?
• Building materials appear ecologically
sustainable, lasting, fire resistant, and elegant
• Good small size
• Modern design
• Like the look
• duplex
• scale is nice. varying building planes and
colors works.
• I'd be happy with this in a street that is
otherwise suburban as it looks more to scale
• This building looks as if it could "age" well. I
like the muted colors and the wood trim. You
want to build something that doesn't look
weird and dated 25 years from now or
beyond.
• modern lines
• Well designed building.
• Nice modern design with good surface
variation. It doesn't feel like a giant
overwhelming mass of identitical units
• Too modern and looks cheap!
• heart not beating as rapidly - not bad for a
low class neighborhood
• Too boxy and similar to every new
multifamily townhouse in Seattle, WA and
Pacific Northwest
• Do not like modern
• The design has so!e uniqueness
• nice clean, modern, interesting lines, good
use of geometry
• This one is less overwhelming than the others
and is for that reason somewhat more
appealing
• windows too large for location - too open to
busy road
• Would prefer parking to the side or behind
building, but can see that it was not feasible
in this scenario. Solar on rooftops. Access to
electric car charging.
• Outdoor balconies
• not much yard for a suburb
• Underground parking
• This building's architectural character is
somewhat appealing and at least
contemporary and not pastiche historical.

However it is strikingly out of context with the
adjacent building character. The large
forecourt parking area is a seems oversized
but is at least partially screened from the
street frontage with planting.
• better design
• Totally cool, but doesn't go with the little
cottage next to it. Although it's leaps and
bounds better than the sixties era apartment
behind them.
• May be too modern to fit with much of Marin
• Native plants that attract birds or pollinators.

Can't tell for sure but plants appear to be
nonnative.
• better Bicycle infrastructure
• Super modern duplex right next door to a
turn-of-the-century Victorian on Blithedale.

This property seems to check all the boxes
but the architectural style is way out of place.
• Blend more with the environment!
• I give up
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
119
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 63 • Looks modern and nice, high quality design
elements and materials
• Attractive as an example of contemporary
architectural -somewhat industrial with warm
elements patched in. 2 or 4 units? Plantings
on frontage soften expansive parking area in
front yard. Rial approach-
• That 'different' is allowed.
• Apertures make sense to usefulness.

Increased height of lower floors is welcoming.
• You're making me regret taking the survey.

Same as previous
• xxxx
• I like the modern, clean look of it.
• These are prefabricated construction; cookie
cutter
• Someone has to introduce you to good
architecture.
• This is a great example of a more modern
building working and improving context
• super cool architecture with big windows
• This was a resource use of an awkward high
traffic street lot in Mill Valley.
• Appealing design.
• Modern style presents an interesting contrast
to existing structures.
• An interesting choice for this survey. Horrible
lot on E. Blithedale. Horrible ingress and
egress onto busy roadway. Design deserves a
better site.
• That is just ugly! It has no life, no color. It just
looks cold and uninviting.
• beautiful design; increases density in a very
pleasing design that integrates well into the
environment
• There is no Marin charm. It looks like a
modern commercial building.
• The parking design (whether plants or wall)
should obscure view of parked car
• Design
• Parking is a bit too prominent. Everything
else is OK.
• private outdoor space?
• The only thing lacking here is a third story.
• The building is well setback and somewta out
of character with immediate (older) sites.

Areasonable solution for parking, but
rparking lot approach separates the dwelling
form the street.
• Style is cold. Bad modern. Not appropriate
here
• Same
• Make taller
• could benefit nicely with more plantings (area
and height)
• xxxx
• Afchtiect a 61/2
• Again, this is a very "flat" building.
• The building is not a style I like, but that is a
matter of taste.
• This small project works on a busy street
near the shopping mail. No sidewalk on that
side of the street makes it very car centric.
• A bit less dense.
• Front yard parking is a big miss
• Bldgs should have been set close to the
street forming a wall with the open space and
parking behind as this is a very noisy corridor
• This was a very difficult, constrained site.

Builders used modular components for ease
of construction on busy road. The design is
attractive overall but requires ongoing
landscape maintenance to preserve its driveby appearance. Landscaping has grown in nicely and serves the site well. Too bad the
design isn't complimented with a nicer site;
but overall, good job.
• Design of building too modern, does not fit in
with neighboring structures
• More color, more open space, more
landscaping.
• less cemented areas, or more attractive
material
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
120
Marin County Survey Summary Report
64 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards • While I appreciate the more contemporary
design of this building, I’m worried that it
doesn’t fit the surrounding look of the
neighborhood. I don’t think designs like these
survive the test of time if they’re out of
context with adjacent buildings and the era of
those buildings.
• Personal opinion - too modern for that
neighborhood (but beautiful taken on its
own)
• too bad there is no front yard space as its the
sunny side of the lot
• historical design in FX not reflected in any
drawings
• Underground parking, needs traditional
architectural style with classical details,
porch, columns. This design looks like a
commercial property rather than a
residential one. Needs landscaping and
garden for a residence.
• The parking is criminal here. This is a very
nicely scaled and articulated building but it
should have incorporated tuck under parking
or some other way to conceal the massive
paved area at the front. Maybe carports with
roof decks above to provide outdoor space?
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
121
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 65 Edge Context Example 1:

What characteristics make the design of the
development appealing to you?
What improvements would you make to the
design of the development?
• Solar
• Looks like a hospital. Very unwelcoming
• At least they are low height.
• Landscaping is new and will look nice
eventually
• everything
• AssumiTo be that large, the dev't should have
a high percentage of the site set aside for
permanent open space. Makes the clustering
• Really ugly
• I'm familiar with this housing development in
Point Reyes Station and the photos posted in
this survey do not do it justice, unfortunately.

It is well scaled for the context, and the
architectural character, material choices, and
street frontages are well proportioned and
appropriate to the locale.
• Looks OK to me
• the landscaping will look good once its grown
a bit. Like the trellises. Maybe have an area
set up with picnic benches, or whatever,
that's covered and/or shaded.
• Conceptually, placing higher density housing
in open space makes so much sense to me.

Not in love with this specific example
architecturally but proportion of house : land
is appealing.
• Proximity to open space
• Looks spacious!
• OMG - DISGUSTING! Like an extended stay
complex
• Very dull, bland appearance 5/19/2020 4:00
PM
• Too ordinary
• site and the view
• massing and scale -- opening sizes
• Access to electric car charging
• Need balconies
• Such isolated developments intrude into
natural spaces, increasing wildfire risk and
separating
• residents from populations, exacerbating a
car dependent culture.ildfire risk
• Landscape needs some large trees
• Disconnected from anything but dwelling.

Classic ugly, characterless suburban sprawl.
• If no open space, a moderately high density
development that is crowding up to open
space. More approriate surrounded by a
built-up area.
• This is really ugly. Needs decks .

Underground parking the exterior Of building
are so flat!
• Bldg. Color Paletted
• better design
• Boring and poorly executed landscaping. I’m
sure you can fix!
• Looks like an attacking swarm of ugly T-11
sided barns.
• Over sized development for the edge setting.

Should be near a freeway.
• no individual outside access; huge entry
looks institutional; windows have no privacy;
no connection to outdoors
• This does not fit the character of San
Anselmo at all!
• It can't be helped. It's hideous. It looks like an
old folk's home. And it's BEIGE. Ugh.
• throw out designs
• Looks too big and institutional
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
122
Marin County Survey Summary Report
66 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards • This looks like a medical care facility
• designed for large tracts of open space, not
infill
• projects need to get built, so I guess this had
to be
• Please!
• Enclosing aspect feels like a community.
• scale, overall mass and lack of detail
• Hideous
• Same - basically build more housing
• unfair comparison for low cost housing to be
compared to for profit
• xxxx
• view of the mountains; natural beauty of the
surrounding area
• Bad design
• ARchitecturure a5. Young landscaping
• Roofline - not too busy - flows
• This is just a massive building dumped in a
semi developed area. Do we really want to
look like Gilroy?
• given the amount of space, seems like the
public area could be more inviting and put to
better use with benches, fountains, better
landscaping
• looks big
• Fits in well in Pt. Reyes Station
• planting should be bigger, setback should be
to edge or area behind building
• Beter Design
• Nothing, this is hideous
• Don't know this project. Might be better
when landscaping matures.
• it's pretty bland looking
• the design is too symmetrical, boring.
• Looks like a motel 6
• Needs varied colors
• sorry, this is awful
• The windows are too cookie-cutter
• Looks too institutional in the middle of
nowhere. What about pools and outdoor
recreation. Tennis courts, basketball parks
and a community garden and workout facility
That’s what folks need when they are living
out in the remote areas with less access.

Look T some of Colorado’s incredible housing
• color, I don't like the blah beige. A richer color
would make it look better.
• Too big for the area
• This design is not good
• Need designs for infill
• looks like a motel
• planting looks sterile; is there outdoor space
for residents?
• Stay away from open space
• This looks like a huge assisted living complex
• this looks totally out of context with the
setting
• The building doesn ot look that inviting,
somewhat like a complex o. YThe contry barn
elements are pleasant. The site appears to
waste a lot of space for swaths of ground
covers. Breaking up the buildings and
creating more units and landscaped outdoors
areas for a village would be more inviting.
• too massive at the entrance; isolated; I
assume this to be senior housing where
isolation exists internally as well
• Long walk with groceries. Banal elevations.
• Can’t see any other neighboring structures so
don’t know how it fits in
• BORING and UGLY
• Just make it beautiful please!
• Same - basically build more housing
• Make taller
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
123
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 67 • cost benefit needs to be applied to low cost
housing; aesthetics need to be lower priority
than making units affordable for low income
• seems to have damn near no relation to what
seems like beautiful terrain. Like it fell from
the sky...
• xxxx
• additional variety - building is too uniform
looking
• too massive, boring design, not enough trees
and landscaping
• Belongs to a different era.
• Too many damn questions. Without ample
choices for response.
• better architecture
• More custom design
• Can't wait for the next winner.
• Landscaping could be required to be more
"full" and green. I also think that having
parking in the front creates an uninspired
street view.
• High density housing should be prohibited.
• This looks like it belongs in Las Vegas.
• Something too stark about it. Subtle color
addition?
• We should be building density in cities
• Bland colors and surfaces do not contribute
to the aesthetics of the community.
• Tear it dow?
• Is it easy to use bikes around there?
• Landscaping space good, but needs more
trees to blend into environment
• This is NOT cluster housing - it's bilateral
symmetry makes this look like one institution
instead of a series of homes - terrible - Sea
Ranch is cluster housing / Fischer Friedman's
project above Sausalito is also cluster house -
way more impresive
• smaller
• More color! More palces for kids to play.
• Design no appropriate for the envirnment
• All
• ugly building; windows are too small; looks
like an area better suited to single family
homes with ADU's to increase density
• would rather see detached units.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
124
Marin County Survey Summary Report
68 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards • edge should receive some treatment in
transition
• Scale - why such density on the edge?
• Hide parking area with trees and landscaping,
needs dramatic landscape improvement,
increase quality of windows, add balconies,
add classical detailing
• Parking should be broken p into smaller
clusters. It would have been better running
the depth of the site, rather than along the
roadway. For pedestrians it is a very
unpleasant view to walk past all of the cars
and paving.

Edge Context Example 2:

What characteristics make the design of the
development appealing to you?
What improvements would you make to the
design of the development?
• Is that a community space & garden in the
foreground?
• Can fit a lot of housing in a small area
• See prior comments. If the development has
permanent open space set aside, it's great. If
not, it's a lot of mass jammed next to open
space.
• Looks good
• This is an ode to ugly parked cars. Terrible
waste of landscaping effort too.
• Yay for solar and raised beds. Nay on
everything else.
• color same tone as natural surroundings;
sense that windows could be uncovered and
maintain privacy; minimized height with
color; decent roof overhang
• Poorly executed. Hide the cars. Improve the
landscaping.
• If those are solar panels, that's a plus.
• Massing reduction
• Create a 'break' or bridge, or breezeway
between the two structures so that it does
not appear so monolithic.
• Looks like a hospital or nursing home.
• esp. egregious relationship to surrounding
bldg forms. should not be a monolithic block
but should instead allow a transition from the
single family forms to the larger multi unit
form
• Too much wasted space. Too much parking.
• fenestration is boring
• What is that gratuitous mound in the center
foreground of the photo on the left?
• Don’t like parking lot, better use of area with
pkg incorporated
• Same as before. Classic suburban sprawl with
no character.
• Too big and too much impervious surface
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
125
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 69 • Solar panels
• Proximity to open space
• I’m like the solar panels and space for
gardening
• no! no! no! seriously????? fire the team!
• I like that is is near open, undeveloped space
• Again, too ordinary
• Solar should be incorporated into every
feasible building plan
• This looks like a holiday inn
• not suitable for infill
• Wrong concept for San Anselmo
• Looks like a senior living complex. Nice ot
have bulk bestled p against hillside, setback
from neighborhood.
• This is so called "edge" design? Edge of
lunacy if you ask me.
• Nice enough building I the wrong place
• Parking lot is a non-starter
• Same - basically build more housing
• number of units to be build will drive what
can be cost efficient; unfair to compare to
smaller facilities
• xxxx
• design
• Seriously, where are you finding these
projects
• solar
• The concept of edge is flawed - unless it is
next to a national or state park what is edge
now will not be in 5 years. The development
itself needs space and community. This is a
arch drawing dumped in a field in Gilroy.
• like the solar
• given the space, would be nice to have it be
more visually appealing at the entrance with
parking in the back
• Bldg design does not appear to follow or
respect the contours of the site. The
development seems to be just 2 big boxes
plopped down on the site. The site is
horizontal in nature but the buildings are
vertical. The conflict doesn't work very well.
• color and wood materials and height not over
hill top
• see above
• Underground parking. It looks like a school
dorm
• This building seems very bland and
unappealing. It also appears to be a bit
massive and blocky given its adjacency to the
natural hillside into which it is fit. It would
have benefited greatly by more thoughtful
articulation of the massing and breaking up
of the singular and vertical façade faces.
• better design
• This is so ugly only someone’s mother could
tolerate it
• Do we have to include more edge
developement?
• Oversized and high density needs to be near
the freeway
• move the parking to safe, gated underground
parking areas so that you can make the
current parking area more appealing - with
landscaping, a shaded area, even a
playground for small lchildren. Gets people
out to naturally socialize with their neighbors
(hopefully post-COVID!). Maybe a water
fountain - great for relaxing and drowning
out car/road noise.
• Shade in parking lot, trees or solar panels like
at College of Marin
• Too massive
• Building Design looks too institutional
perhaps 2 buildings situated more
strategically on the property
• Oh my god, just NO.
• so bad
• do not like
• Soften parking design (landscaping, carports,
something) to improve entry of building
• a different color, just not beige or Barbie doll
skin
• Looks like a hospital.
• too massive without articulation
• Clearly need so recreational facilities as
otherwise it looks boring. How about patios
and cool porches too.
• This looks very institutional.
• Too much wrong to list
• Too big for the area
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
126
Marin County Survey Summary Report
70 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards • not suitable for infill
• no articulation, no set back elements, looks
inexpensive and somewhat cheap
• Core is better
• Finish facade materials are sad.
• Design is non-offensive, but bland. Some
balnconies and breaking up elements would
help to reduce the visual massing.
• Integrate with surroundings better, articulate;
edge conditions should strive to integrate
with nature
• More trees
• UGLY
• Break into blocks so it’s not a wall
disconnecting from open space behind it.
• Same - basically build more housing
• can't evaluate in abstract without knowing
constraints
• the blocky building is made worse by the
huge, barren parking area. Not a good edge
at all.
• xxxx
• dislike large parking in front with no
screening, add balconies or decks, the site is
on or near a hillsite but the design is straight
up like it is on flat land, does not make sense.
near
• I would include a shopping mall for all
necessities of every day.
• everything - this is just ugly
• improve design
• Archtecture a 5.
• Another example of not trying to look like
high density housing that clearly look like a
big box with ranch house roof
• Again, lush/green landscaping would help; as
would a step-back, tiered style. This would
keep buildings from looking flat and bulky.
• High density housing should be prohibited.
• So far these edge concepts look like they hold
hundreds of units in very tight quarters.
• Reconfigure solar panals-push together
rather spaced
• Bland, flat surfaces with unsophisticated
color make this look like a cheap tract.
• Tear it down
• too dense
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
127
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 71 • terrible project
• Project exhibits no imagination at all. Boring.

Uninviting. Wouldn't want to live here. Site is
nice enough but the project doesn't take
advantage of it.
• Too large
• Again it need more color more area for kids
to play, more imagination. It looks cold and
uninviting.
• Design not appropriate with environs
• All
• Way too chunky/too much mass
• start over; that building doesn't belong in
that area with SFH/ADU's; belongs more in a
core area with walk-able shops, cafe's etc.
otherwise every trip is by car, even in a higher
density development. it's too far from good
public transit too.
• Stands out a fit in landscape, though colors
are good blend.
• bicycle and walking friendly
• Scale - why such density at the edge?
• More private outdoor open space for
residents
• Traditional architecture design with classical
details please, underground parking, make
separate townhomes, reduce to two stories
• Way too massive, not enough facade
articulation. Unattractive overhangs. Not
enough fine grained detailing.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
128
Marin County Survey Summary Report
72 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards Edge Context Example 3:

What characteristics make the design of the
development appealing to you?
What improvements would you make to the
design of the development?
• solar
• see above edge comments re open space.

Lower density than other edge examples.
• It's OK
• solar panels
• Bravo!
• Like the natural landscaping.
• If those are solar panels, that is a plus.
• Fits well with natural setting.
• Proximity of open space
• tacky like novato
• reminds me of Motel 6 in Pismo Beach
• needs variety of color
• Blah
• The others were so bad that this one looks
better by comparison.
• Tough to get a lot big enough.
• Don’t disturb our open space
• A darker color scheme would have been
more successful
• The setback front porch entries maintain a
comfortable space from sidewalk.
• This is another example of a site that I know
very well and base on the site, topography,
etc. I think this is any excellent project.
• If that was in my City, I’d move. That’s the
case with this and the previous examples.
• Same - basically build more housing
• the scale and fragmented character of this
project helps make it a better edge project--
albeit devoid of character....
• xxxx
• natural beauty of the area
• Public or community space. Less sprawl.

Access to electric car charging.
• varying materials from one bldg to another
would help with reducing monolithic
development
• Don't build this
• From the photo on the right I can’t figure out
where the parking is, except on the street?
The street?
• Ugly sprawl.
• No public access off the end of the cul-de-sac.

What's the point of open space if you can't
access/use it?
• Start over looks like something from the 80’s
• better design
• Where is the parkiing?
• Again, I'd rather have it as habitat for critters,
not humans. No more edge developement.

Infill is a better answer.
• front windows look exposed, uncomfortable
• One or two would be OK, don't think look of a
row of identical houses fits in San Anselmo.
• Hopeless
• 9abismal all around
• bigger windows
• Feels like the '80s - too uniform (at least
change the paint...)
• too dense, packed in
• color
• Better but agin what’s the draw to living here?
Where are the amenities...pools, workout
facilities, gardens. Why about beautiful
expansivenporches and maybe even a
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
129
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 73 • design
• Ah, a crescent, we must be in England.

Buildre schlock. No architect got near this
project
• This is a nice massing with units that are
dense but distinct
• solar
• Solar! And it looks like some have patios.
• mediocre
• solar panels!
• Nice siding for Marin!
• building color not natural to environment.
like how it steps down hillside and not too tall
• ugly solar panels, cheap windows
clubhouse. Again I would look to neighboring
states for ideas. You can’t just build out in
this immense heat without creating outdoor
recreation for the home renters or owners
• See previous comment
• This property would really sing with improved
landscaping.
• Darker colors
• Some variations of amtierials, details and
colors of individual building could help to
make it more of a village look as opposed to
a complex.
• Create pedestrian experiences. This is a
bedroom community; lacks neighborhood
feel.
• Can’t see neighboring structures so don’t
know how it fits in
• Relationship to the site!
• It feels raw. Too parking oriented.
• Same - basically build more housing
• sameness is stultifying
• xxxx
• fake craftsman style
• It looks compacted, with no centrality, or
community feel. It is a drive through.
• design
• More inviting front yard/porch space and
allow buildings to be closer to property lien
to create a green space between both sides
of parking
• Should try to eliminate how many shared
walls there are
• Color: bland mono-color buildings look
institutional and cheap.
• If you look in west Novato there are cluster
developments like this. They are the worst
bedroom communities no community pool
with neighbors, library, cafe. It’s get in your
car and drive to work or school. What about
these blog relationship to their community?
Bike and walking paths. Community gardens
and playgrounds.
• make sure biking, walking and kids playing
are easy and safe
• Edge conditions should allow the edge to
'read' ie there needs to be space between the
units. Large monoblock housing structures
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
130
Marin County Survey Summary Report
74 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards are simple economic vehicles for the
developers to maximize their profit - allow
development closer to the setbacks IF the
buildings have same density with more
spaces between them
• This survey is too long.
• More color, more area for kids to play, more
color!
• Overall design not appropriate for
environment
• don't see the advantage of having this type of
density in a non-core area; doesn't look walkable to shops or good public transit being on the "edge"
• could be 3 or 4 stories tall
• building color change
• Disagree with MF housing at the edge
• Require traditional design with classical
details, underground parking, increase and
improve landscaping, separate townhomes
would be better
• Seems like a lot of paving. I wonder if there
could a better way to lay out parking. It's a lot
of paving that takes up space that could be
landscape.
• Looks ok where landscape frontage is more
than parking frontage.

Please provide any additional comments.
• I hope consideration will be given to prioritizing elements of the LEED Standards for materials use and energy efficiency. We have no excuse for building any structures that inefficient or wasteful and every responsibility to build intelligently. I'm also hoping that new structures are equipped with solar or are 'solar ready' and offer provisions for electric vehicles to be charged on site. The potential for inhabitants and visitors to congregate in community or sheltered landscaped areas with seating is desirable. Thanks for the opportunity to chime in!
• Please make apartment complexes. Housing is horrendous in Marin. I accept that I won't ever own a home but it'd be wonderful if there was more competition and a one bedroom wasn't $1800.
• How will these units be made available for low income and POC so we can address disparity of race in this county
• Most of these examples do not fit Marin. There are a few I recognized from Mill Valley. Those are okay as they are. The building on 4th St in San Rafael is fine for San Rafael but not for mill Valley
• Encourage more density near commercial areas and access to transportation. Also, allow second units in single family areas.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
131
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 75 • Substantially all the architecture was unimaginative and timid. None of the buildings diverged from lowest common denominator mid-century American standard. • I wish you had provided location types with each building, as some would be appropriate in a mall setting but not in a main street or residential setting and visa versa. Without that reference the building specifics become somewhat meaningless. • Challenging to answer some of these questions without seeing the neighboring building heights with in the community. Pictures weren't too helpful in showing all the attributes you asked about.
• Please stop allowing edge developments! They're major contributors to car culture and bad for the environment.
• Unable to go back & Check prior responses. Completed on cell. Unable to expand pictures to view site, etc til end. Thus could not see parking, neighborhood, overall site. etc. Sorry
• I don't see how objective discussion of 9 projects out of context can inform objective design standards. The term 'appealing' is not even defined. Do you mean it appeals to my taste. Would I want to live there? Or would I respect the diversity that this project brings to my community and therefore it appeals to me as an expression of someone else's taste. I cherish diversity and would not want 10 of even my favorite building in a community. This process seems like an attempt to legislate style. I think all of the projects would benefit from more design innovation. • Multi unit housing is vital to our county but adjustments must be made to design to allow for the health and safety of residents based on the current pandemic and to minimize issues if things like this happen again in the future. • A moratorium would be best for our community or build in Novato or Petaluma they have lots of room
• OPEN YOUR EYES AND REALLY SPEAK THE TRUTH. DO NOT COMPROMISE FOR • AVERAGE!
• This survey is too long
• I think you are missing a huge piece in this survey. Green design should be leading any new developments. Electric, solar, EV charging stations, community gardens, should be the guts to all of this. We need to look forward with resiliency in mind not just look and parking lot placement.
• Thank you!
• Thanks for both making a plan, and asking for input. Yay. Any new building should incorporate solar, electric vehicle charging and bike parking. I liked that a couple of the examples included raised beds, which is usually lacking for buildings with more density.
• I think urbank= density for larger towns like San Rafael is different than for San Anselmo -bigger towns 6 stories seem fine, otherwise, 3 feels like enough. For all, prefer parking behind or off street without street being all garages, • High density housing needs to be walking distance from services and transportation.

Parking needs to be under buildings or automated underground. Development in the unincorporated county should be minimized.
• Make sure every unit has parking for two cars. Not too tall. • To be honest, we can't see everything you're asking questions about, E.G. you mention positioning of parking when we can't see an entrance if it's inside, is there Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
132
Marin County Survey Summary Report
76 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards actually designated parking for the building, is there some short term parking close to the front door(s) as well as underground or other parking. • I support more mixed use and residential development, and am generally supportive of larger structures, particularly near transportation. • I believe we need more core context affordable housing 5/20/2020 8:03 AM • Make new buildings as green as possible. Consider fire and how many people would have to use a given road BEFORE you add houses people would have to drive to. • I'm all for higher density where people can walk or bike to work and errands. There needs to better accommodation for Bicycle infrastructure • Buildings should require 6 feet of fill dirt to raise them up if they are in a global warming flood zone.
• We need more residential, multi-family, and mixed use properties in our County, so I’m hoping these Objective Standards will make it harder for folks to stop new construction just because of their own specific subjective biases. With that being said, I do think it’s really important to make these buildings architecturally consistent with the existing properties. I think the vast amount of people in Marin agree that we don’t want uber-contemporary steel boxes next to vintage homes – it’s just aesthetically unappealing. I’m for new housing though, so if it fits within the parameters of what you can legally build, then I think it should be built. • Please make survey shorter and more interesting. 5/19/2020 5:27 PM • none of these building look amenable to people with disabilities (like a temporary sprained ankle even) - no or close to no personal outdoor space - looks like sardine cans
• This is a terrible survey. All the pictures were insufficient to answer the questions thoughtfully. As well there lacked any clarity. There were 3 different pictures, not always obviously relating to reach other.
• Some of these multi-unit building are huge and hulking, very unappealing. • When feasible, solar should be included in every building plan. • hard to do quickly, unsure of parking configuration--but a great start to get impressions. Articulation and interesting rooflines are key • My hope is that if we do multiple use design that we are very thoughtful in how we approach the development. For downtown areas the building should not be overwhelmingly tall and set back a bit from the street to allow for a feeling of openness. For suburban and edge big developments need to fit in with the aesthetic of Marin. Think more Sea Ranch and less Riverside county • I think the survey is too long. I try to do surveys, but I almost dropped out of this. It's not just the time it takes, but the images and questions really run together. • Looking forward to more multi-family and many more ADU's in Marin to help aid the housing shortage.
• Many of the examples provided seem to show rather dense, tightly compacted living spaces that don't necessarily fit the surroundings. There really were only two or three that truly worked within our natural landscapes and still satisfied better housing needs.
• Let us stay with traditional design -- I do not like modern steel and cubes • It was hard to sometime see the parking and access layouts as I could not zoom in on the screen. Also challenging to review relations ship to neighborhood without more photos and details on the surrounding areas.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
133
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards | 77 • Hard to understand the parking layouts and relationship to major roadways. • The smaller the better
• The selection of choices is somewhat bizarre. Absolutely not clear what the purpose of the survey is. What does it possibly have to do with "objective" design standards? • Yes make good designs available as standards to grow “the Missing Middle” please. • More landscaping. Muted colors. More articulation and better architectural design for some of those examples were very cookie cutter with no interesting elements • Thank you for doing this! It was a fun survey. I encourage increased density in Marin. • I hope to see almost none of those structures in Marin. I’m not paying $38k in property taxes for horrible design.
• Just build more housing. Anything you try to build, old, rich white people (or any combination thereof) will complain and spend a lot of time saying it ruins the character of our neighborhoods.
• Just Build more housing. Don't limit it based on parking. And don't cave to NIMBY pressure.
• For height, you should make it so that people can say whether they think it's too tall or too short. And setback should include setback from other buildings/property lines, not just the road. Those two factors more adequately capture the idea of whether someone wants it to be more sense or less dense. Additionally, no consideration public transit proximity, bike parking, alternate transportation. Marin County runs exclusively on cars apparently. This survey doesn't let you say that things should be bigger, taller, denser in general.
• very hard to evaluate without knowing the constraints that were involved in the design; plus the locations of the developments even within the grouping can influence responses. creating ideal "objective" design guidelines is nice exercise but overall objective is getting more affordable housing in Marin and to make the cost onerous in "ideal" objective design guidelines defeats the objective. Yes, subjective is worse but objective in the abstract is just as bad in its unyielding result • hard to judge places by photos. Keep that in mind. But good lord, what an unfortunate selection to wade through. Nothing seemed to grow out of its context. • The rebranding of 'form based codes' to 'objective design' doesn't change the problem that it gives one party too much arbitrary, subjective and vague interpretation power.
• Let's make communities, not buildings. Human beings need connection to their surrounding and the people who live in those structures. Thanks. • Not very helpful survey. Do not feel like my important opinions were sought or submitted. Waste of time.
• I do not think this is a very good survey - actually, I think it is a TERRIBLE survey. The photographs and the maps do not give very much information. More importantly, I question the purpose of the survey, as well. I don't think that there should be a onesize-fits-all approach. "Ugly" or "attractive" are very subjective, and every site is different. There needs to be room for new architectural styles and 21st building materials and approaches. What you are showing is everything that has already been done.
• I am very much in favor of Objective Design Standards and high density housing for ALL Marin communities. I would encourage more material innovation for a more dynamic look and allow more modern buildings, especially in core locations.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
134
Marin County Survey Summary Report
78 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards • Thank you for engaging the community in this! After taking the survey, my feeling is that we need to set our sights on a higher level of design/architecture in general.

Candidly, all images felt very dated and uninspired. (I feel bad saying this, I am a very nice person!) There is a lot of great design out there these days and I am hopeful that we can produce objective standards that bring this kind of innovation to any developments that occur in Marin. Also: I think it is helpful when buildings are set back from the street, the upper levels step back/tier, landscaping is lush / layered, and colors are kept neutral / respectful of nature. Thank you again for all of your work!
• High density housing should be prohibited--anything over 3 stories and 10 units. • There was no mention nor questions about density of each development and placement within the community. Form must follow function and Mill Valley has severely limited ingress/egress depending on location.
• What bothers me is anything that accents the impression of masses of people living on top of each other Too many modern apartment buildings look like they'll be outdated in 10-years.
• All cities in Marin County need to be approving more housing at all income levels, by accepting higher density development in core areas. State Senator Scott Weiner's plan is the way to make sure it happens.
• 20 units per acre is too much for most cities in Marin, largely due to context and to traffic problems. so less density please. got to make biking and walking a priority in all planning. and less parking. Solana Beach required a 18 unit have 53 parking spots--crazy! please do not come close to this.
• Marin's most beautiful and inviting communities offer variety in the sizes, styles and colors of their buildings. We should avoid dictating a singular approach. Design should take advantage of the natural setting.
• I am definitely an advocate for setting standards on architectural design and dwelling intensity. As mentioned earlier I am concerned about county water supply, sewage and traffic management infrastructure. I am confident that these essential elements will be studied carefully.
• Overall, the designs were substandard. Not appropriate and unfitting to many environs. Cheap materials. No charm.
• This entire series of slides does not represent Fairfax in its character at all, completely out of context.
• Please require traditional architectural design with symmetry and classical details.

Please require deep setbacks with elaborate landscaping. Require abundant parking but put it underground or behind a building, hidden with landscaping. Individual townhomes are preferred to apartment buildings. Limit height to two stories.

Require project to preserve views, sunlight, and privacy of neighbors. Require environmental impact report for all the areas where these objective standards would apply.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
135
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards |95 APPENDIX F: Town of San Anselmo Customized Survey
Summary of Responses
To augment the online survey for the Objective Design Standards Project in Marin County, the Town of San Anselmo developed additional questions to gather feedback on the design characteristics specific to the Town. The customized survey presented three multi-family and one multi-use developments examples with questions on the level of appeal and the characteristics that make the example appealing. The survey also included two questions to determine the most important characteristics in making development decisions and to incentivize affordable housing.

The City received 156 responses. Most respondents place importance on the design, aesthetics, and scale/ size of the building in making development decisions for multi-family in the Town. Respondents value incentives such as reduction in fees, increased density, and financial assistance for affordable housing in San Anselmo. Most respondents identified Example 2 as very appealing and Example 1 as the least appealing. Generally, the feedback pointed to “Building articulation,” “Building height,” and “Landscaping/plantings” as the highest priority characteristics for an appealing and unappealing design. The tables below provide an illustrations of the preferences of the respondents. The write-in comments are included as well.

What topics do you feel are the most important in making development decisions for multifamily in the Town? (Rank – most to least appropriate). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 SCORE
Aesthetics 34 20 20 16 11 13 15 2 1 6.51
Affordable
Housing 39 21 8 12 13 11 9 6 10 6.24
Design 16 33 36 23 10 6 5 3 2 6.68
Height 6 15 20 24 22 15 19 9 0 5.41
Landscaping 2 4 12 27 35 30 15 4 1 4.96
Parking 7 12 14 14 20 25 29 8 2 4.93
Scale/ Size of
the building 25 27 18 12 15 14 16 2 3 6.25
Views 2 2 8 5 1 6 15 77 5 2.89
Other 4 0 0 0 0 3 3 6 62 1.68
Development incentives are used to help offset the costs of affordable housing. What incentives would be most appropriate for affordable housing in San Anselmo? (Check all that apply)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Increased Height 22
Increased Stories 28
Increased Density 62
Decreased Parking 36
Decreased Setbacks 30
Direct Financial Assistance 61
Reduction in Fees 89
None 11
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
136
Marin County Survey Summary Report
96 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards Other (please specify) 14
• unclear what this question is asking. poorly worded. I think we should give financial assistance to low income families- not developers. developers shouldn't get incentives to build for low income housing- we should just require it on the ethical principle • Encourage mixed zoning in downtown area (ie res/com)
• MORE HOUSING
• Exactions for other public improvements in the Town, such as open space, flood mitigation, maintenance.
• I don't know
• 2nd unit on/within property
• Affordable housing is an urgent need. Full stop. Be flexible. Be compassionate. GIT ‘ER DONE! Please make this a priority. Thank you.
• I have no idea what this question means
• Increasing density is NOT an answer or improvement.
• less is more - quality not quantity
• I think it's okay to increase stories as long as height does not overwhelm surrounding structures (out of scale with neighborhood)
• We have such narrow streets and such a horrible parking situation here in San Anselmo that if we build housing without appropriate parking it will create a nightmare scenario that will be a danger for kids, cyclists and pedestrians.
• This has a great deal to do with the location in San Anselmo, downtown vrs other neighborhoods and terrain.
• Open space concessions
Multi-Family Development Example 1:

How appealing do you consider the design of the development shown in the image?

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
5 – Very Appealing 35
4 – Somewhat Appealing 62
3 – Neither Appealing or Unappealing 18
2 – Somewhat Unappealing 19
1 – Very Unappealing 10
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
137
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards |97 What characteristics make the design of the development appealing to you?

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Building setback 29
Location and configuration of parking 65
Building access 47
Building height 79
Building articulation 98
Screening 29
Landscaping/plantings 19
Area between the building and roadway 19
Relationship of the building with neighboring structures 24 None 16
Other (please specify) 16
• Size
• design
• decent downtown design
• Doesn't look appropriate for San Anselmo
• Nice color choices
• colors
• units look private inside; clever use of color; balconies look pleasant • This is beautifully designed. Loved watching it be built, • stylish
• It's not BEIGE!!! The modern design helps too.
• Less - a structure that size will take over and decrease the value of TAX

PAYING PROPERTY OWNERS
• It does overlook a corp yard on one side - appealing for owners? • No indication of nearby buildings making it impossible to answer all questions, as well as parking or entrances..
• Need more trees, foliage, landscaping. Do not make it institutional looking . Blend it in to the existing environment
• I think the exterior is boring, but the location of this building makes it a bit irrelevant.
• Probably the most sever example
What improvements would you make to the design of the development? (Mark all that apply).

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Building setback 31
Location and configuration of parking 14
Building access 8
Building height 6
Building articulation 16
Screening 24
Landscaping/plantings 79
Area between the building and roadway 27
Relationship of the building with neighboring structures 23 None 33
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
138
Marin County Survey Summary Report
98 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards Other (please specify) 10
• Too modern for San Anselmo
• better design
• That does not at all look like San Anselmo and also look overly lush - we need affordable housing.
• better Bicycle infrastructure
• Small space to work from
• should have been lower income apartments; not contiguous with sidewalk • Would prefer one garage entry to maximize open space. • Too Big for our town
• I’m hoping time will soften the severity as there really is almost zero landscaping. • Too dark of colors, too modern of architecture
Multi-Family Development Example 2:

How appealing do you consider the design of the development shown in the image?

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
5 – Very Appealing 72
4 – Somewhat Appealing 54
3 – Neither Appealing or Unappealing 6
2 – Somewhat Unappealing 8
1 – Very Unappealing 3
What characteristics make the design of the development appealing to you? (Mark all that apply).

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Building setback 70
Location and configuration of parking 65
Building access 63
Building height 90
Building articulation 95
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
139
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards |99 Screening 57
Landscaping/plantings 107
Area between the building and roadway 46
Relationship of the building with neighboring structures 48 None 8
Other (please specify)
• nice traditional design with good landscaping. Wood
shingles no bueno (fire)
• I feel this is a successful development that
incorporates density of units with visually appealing
architectural character, conformity with neighborhood
vernacular, and did a great job of street facing
presentation and screening/greening.
• Size of building
• Looks more like the area but still, why such large
units?
• natural wood
• I'm a sucker for brown shingles
• This one is nice because the design and the shingles fit in to the style of other homes in the area
• Cozy and woodsy
• Just the design of the building and materials
• I like that this feels like many of the older homes in San Anselmo
• Very neighbor friendly
• How well it fits in with the architectural design of the neighborhood
• This one looks very "home-y" which is nice in our small town
• Good architectural fit
14 What improvements would you make to the design of the development? (Mark all that apply).

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Building setback 12
Location and configuration of parking 9
Building access 6
Building height 7
Building articulation 7
Screening 8
Landscaping/plantings 11
Area between the building and roadway 14
Relationship of the building with neighboring structures 12 None 81
Other (please specify)
• Ugly
• No wood shingles
16 Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
140
Marin County Survey Summary Report
100 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards • better design
• It's just ugly, also all of the pictures in this survey are pretty bad to go by
• Side plantings
• Offer smaller units to increase density and access
• better Bicycle infrastructure
• This one is really nice but anything that can be done to differentiate the units would improve it.
• lesser of many evils - I'd check out Mill Valley
• low income units in this development were never kept as low income units. parking space for low income unit was sold separate from unit, depriving one unit of parking forever. • I know this structure and like it very much
• Not sure I would use shingles - I notice they start looking bad a lot faster than painted houses
• Too Big for our town
• Less density
• UGLY
• Add solar
Multi-Family Development Example 3:

How appealing do you consider the design of the development shown in the image?

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
5 – Very Appealing 58
4 – Somewhat Appealing 59
3 – Neither Appealing or Unappealing 11
2 – Somewhat Unappealing 9
1 – Very Unappealing 7
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
141
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards |101 What characteristics make the design of the development appealing to you? (Mark all that apply).

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Building setback 97
Location and configuration of parking 48
Building access 59
Building height 77
Building articulation 84
Screening 27
Landscaping/plantings 77
Area between the building and roadway 51
Relationship of the building with neighboring structures 50 None 16
Other (please specify)
• friendly traditional moderate density. Good
earthtones
• When the landscape grows into this housing
development it will fit in nicely with the Seminary
context.
• These are beautiful.
• All (again, brown shingles!)
• nothing appealing
• Just the overall design of the building. Now add bigger porches, outside space and BBQ pits , fire pits, some
recreation and a pool
• Great for seminary location. Not really high density. • Pretty low density
• Beautiful architecture fit
9 What improvements would you make to the design of the development? (Mark all that apply).

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Building setback 8
Location and configuration of parking 34
Building access 8
Building height 11
Building articulation 21
Screening 18
Landscaping/plantings 26
Area between the building and roadway 11
Relationship of the building with neighboring structures 15 None 57
Other (please specify)
• better design
• Wouldn't it be lovely if we could put all power lines in SA below ground? They are so ugly everywhere.
13 Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
142
Marin County Survey Summary Report
102 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards Parking lots - always ugly and boring. How about
covering the parking areas, cover them somehow with
solar panels but not ugly-looking ones and if somehow
possible, have landscaping around the panels or
somehow all over. I'll leave that to the designers!
• need privacy from each other; center space should be
broken down individually for private use and screened
• better Bicycle infrastructure
• This one is really nice too. Same comment as previous one: If there is anything to do to
• differential the units, that would improve it.
• throw out the design
• Vary the design of the facade to avoid uniform bulky
feel; obscure parking somehow; add some
landscaping in front of buildings
• In
• Pool, recreation facility, fire pits, bbqs for residents, outdoor picnic areas. All the latest and
• greatest affordable multi use building in CA are now
building with a lot of amenities. San anselmo is in dire need of facilities to recreate so give the tenants and
owners this please
• I would add more density
• Up the density
• Color of the shingle stain
• Add solar
Multi-Use Development Example 4:

How appealing do you consider the design of the development shown in the image?

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
5 – Very Appealing 48
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
143
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards |103 4 – Somewhat Appealing 51
3 – Neither Appealing or Unappealing 29
2 – Somewhat Unappealing 12
1 – Very Unappealing 4
What characteristics make the design of the development appealing to you? (Mark all that apply).

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Building setback 37
Location and configuration of parking 25
Building access 45
Building height 77
Building articulation 73
Screening 9
Landscaping/plantings 11
Area between the building and roadway 25
Relationship of the building with neighboring structures 63 None 20
Other (please specify)
• Congrats! Love mixed zoning. Didn’t realize there was existing housing here.
• cute downtown designs. Great size
• integration with commercial development
• These building are an appropriate scale and with
acceptable facades for their location on the busy SFD
Blvd. frontage.
• Close to town
• B
• Who knew!?
• Urban feel - helps make downtown lively if people live there
• Could be taller
• Classic, small old-town feel. Will never date or go out of style. Reminds me of a nice British or European
town.
• Love option for more downtown living/mixed use
• like using second story of ground floor store; adds
people to commercial space
• Somewhat historic, classic
• unclear what I am looking at - apartments over shops
or getting rid of the shops
• Like the use of living space above retail
• charming old building--good conversion to housing
• less ugly than most shown - THAT'S what I find
"appealing"
• Mixed use, with retail on ground floor
26 Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
144
Marin County Survey Summary Report
104 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards • Like concept of business on street, home above
• I love housing over businesses in Core areas.
• Mixed use is nice in a downtown setting
• This is very practical and attractive in a smart
downtown location.
• traditional and classic urban design.
• Proximity to core
• Historic downtown style; and I like the mixed use
commercial on the bottom
• Great mixed use concept and building style for 1920s40s influenced downtown SA What improvements would you make to the design of the development? (Mark all that apply).

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Building setback 18
Location and configuration of parking 24
Building access 10
Building height 9
Building articulation 25
Screening 10
Landscaping/plantings 54
Area between the building and roadway 24
Relationship of the building with neighboring structures 10 None 41
Other (please specify)
• retrofit the roofs with solar and possibly update the facades. • Don't know
• Mixed use
• Wouldn't expect ground level to be residential
• Power lines underground. Repave the sidewalk, ideally with small bricks - like those in downtown Truckee
• I am sure parking would be a challenge but I love this idea. • looks outdated, old-fashioned
• difficult to determine the plan
• better Bicycle infrastructure
• Difficult to address issues of parking and entrance based on photo
• I'm confused about this one. Are we talking about the units above the storefronts? Confused. It is what it is.
• the awnings reduce the ability to see the storefront, and do not seen to serve a purpose for retail stores other than signage.

Signage can be inscribed on the window...
• back to the drawing board
• Could be a total of 3-4 stories to achieve density.
19 Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
145
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards |105 • Could be taller in this location.
• Facade needs a "refresh"
• I don't understand! Not my idea of "multi-family"
• Currently not multifamily.
• an opportunity for 3 stories/ additional units
What is your favorite multi-family or mixed use (commercial and residential on same property) building/ development in San Anselmo?
• Love incorporation like last one on SFD & those along SA Ave. Long time resident but can’t come up with exact address. Strong proponent of mixed zoning in downtown as long as height limit kept at 3 stories or less
• Tamalpais Movie Theater; SF Theological Seminary
• The building on the corner of Woodland and Cedar
• the duplex row downtown old larkspur street behind the church • Oak Knoll Ave & SFD property.
• Some of the newer apartments near the seminary
• Does that even exist in San Anselmo :(
• I like examples 1, 2 & 4 from the above pictures.
• The complex at 71 Ross Avenue fronting opposite on Woodland. • ross street at jones
• Ross Ave condos
• Wells Fargo
• ~ 60 Ross Avenue
• Seminary property
• I don't know any - none where I live
• I like the mixed use buildings in the downtown area. I also like the units at around 35 Ross with the garages. Really hard to answer better without driving around. • Multi-family Development Example 2
• I actually really liked all the examples you showed. I'm especially partial to the homes that were built at the seminary. I don't know where in town it would work, but I think people might like the old time bungalow courts that were popular in LA in the 20'-30's. • The new townhomes on Magnolia - though grounds are too concrete and mroe green would be good - but lvoe modernity
• I don’t know of any
• apartments off of Ancho Vista in San Anselmo. Behind t he mortuary. Owned by G. Lucas I believe.
• apartments on Woodland, Ross andTamalpais
• The Seminary is a beautiful "classic." Can't think of others - would have been nice to see a couple of pics to prompt us.
• I like anything that fits in to local architectural character. No specific address. • don't have one; maybe it's good I don't notice them
• None in particular.
• Example 2
• Downtown
• Seminary housing village.
• El Paseo Apts next to Drake High
• 76 Ross Ave
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
146
Marin County Survey Summary Report
106 | Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards • Seminary on hill new shingle style student housing ( Pictured above) • I think 18 Mariposa checks all the boxes. It’s pretty, and provides much needed housing.

They’re obviously expensive, but at least it’s something! • 76 Ross Ave
• Most of the buildings are on a very small scale and it's hard to tell if there is residential use.

Sorry.
• 88 Buena Vista Ave
• san anselmo public library
• Cheda Building 508 San Anselmo Avenue
• 35 Tamalpais Ave
• The buildings around the Russian Orthodox Church on Ross Avenue. • 76 (Ross Court) and 57 (Sohner Court) Ross Ave
• 500 San Anselmo Avenue
• Ross ave. The wood single ones built in early 90s. Maybe late 80s • Any downtown building with apartments above. I have always wanted to live in one. I think the ones over Ludwigs (which I believe is used as an office) also the ones over the tea place and olive oil place.
• Sorry I don't know - I'll just go by what you've presented above • 71 Ross Ave
• None that I know of but there are places outside of San anselmo I like • There are not enough to choose from
• Multi-family Development Example 3
• THe apartments on top of the buildings along downtowns Main Street. You don't even know they are there.
• I really can't think of anyone at the moment. This might be better as a separate question. I have to get back to work.
• downtown san anselmo near town hall
• I like the mixed use concept found in downtown.
• Not sure at this point
• New condos by Post Office.
• Example #2
• Abbot Kinney Building San Rafael
• Some of the older two story apartments downtown, on Ross, like #57. Not the 80s ones crammed up next to the street.
• ?????
• San Anselmo Avenue business district
• Lipton Tea Gallery Duplex, between SA and Fairfax. I believe it’s an historic structure. • The 3rd you gave above
Describe why you like this building/ development (check all that apply):

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Architecture 54
Color 29
Materials 33
Building setback 24
Building articulation 36
Building height 35
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
147
Marin County Survey Summary Report
Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards |107 Configuration and location of parking (if parking is onsite) 23 Street frontage 26
Landscaping/ plantings 31
Amenities 12
Other (please specify) 21
• There all incorporate existing buildings of long duration. Can any vacant commercial sites be converted to affordable housing?
• All fancy duplexes with plant space and parking
• Designs with landscaping
• While shingled exterior may not be the best from the fire-safe perspective, it fits the town residential character very well. I have long admired this complex and grew up in SA.
• historic
• Don't know
• Mixed use
• Solar!!!! Bike parking!!! Electric vehicle charging!!! Communal gardening opportunities on site.
• set back and always kept clean. Does not intrude on nearby residences. • Don't like
• Old trees
• Private entrance
• Any of the turn-of-The-century commercial/mixed-use buildings we have are beautiful and are what helps define our town. We need more, and if they are architecturally consistent with the existing stock then even better! • the building is keeping true to it's intended architecture/style. The buildings in San Anselmo would appear much more charming is they did not mix periods for exterior decor-ie. awnings, etc...if the architectural integrity was maintained, it would create a continuity for "Main Street." Also, vertical parking so sidewalks could increase allowing room for landscaping, specifically trees. However, parking is very important in supporting "Main Streets" businesses, so this would have to be established nearby to make up the difference....
• none - I fantasize living in Mill Valley or Belvedere - magical • historic value
• All of above
• They look like a piece of history with interesting features. • The fact that it is downtown living will draw more people to shop local and support the downtown merchants.
• n/a
• I’m very partial to its vintage looking storefront windows and the combination of colors. I think it’s importanat to include character when you’re building mixed use buildings.

Item # 2A- Attachment 2
Item # 2A- Attachment 2
148
Map
Basem
San Anselmo Ave
Greenfield Ave
Sequoia Dr
Broadmoor Ave
Dominga Ave
4th St
Forrest Ave
Hillda le Dr
nic Rd
Ross Ave
Forbes Ave
Hum boldtAv e
Bolina s Ave
San Francisco Blvd
Rd
a Rd
Meerna a Ave
Saunders Ave
Broadway
Austin
Ave
5th Ave
Red Hill
Ave
Oak
Knoll Dr
Santa
Barbara Ave
Nova Albion Way
Porteous Ave
Kensingto n Rd
Cedar St
Angela Ave
Woodside Dr
Sir Francis Drake Blvd
Madrone Ave
Creek Rd
Center Blvd
Scenic Ave
Forbes Ave
ButterfieldRd
2nd St
Miwok Dr
Sc enicAve
Racquet Club Dr
Arroyo
Ave
Elizabeth Way
Oak Springs D r
Gold en Hinde Blvd
The Alameda
San Anselmo Ave
Suffield Ave
Los Ranchitos Rd
Sa n Gabriel Dr
Upper
Rd
West End Ave
O ak Ave
Marin da Dr
San Anselmo Ave
Rutherford Ave
Caleta Ave
Red Hill Ave
Blac khawk
D r
Sunnysi de Av e
a
P sadena
Ave
Tamalpais Ave
Hillsid eDr
Willow Ave
India n RockRd
Miracle Mile
¯
0 75
Feet
1 inch = 1,500 feet
Title 10, Chapter 20: Objective Design
and Development Standards
Public Review Draft
Prepared for Town of San Anselmo
April 14, 2023
Town of San Anselmo
149
ii
Objective Design and Development Standards
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 This page intentionally left blank
150
Table of Contents
Article 1: Introduction 1
10-20.01.010 Purpose 1
10-20.01.020 What is a Form-Based Code? 1
10-20.01.030 Guiding Principles 2
10-20.01.040 Applicability 3
10-20.01.050 Relationship to San Anselmo General Plan 4 10-20.01.060 Relationship to the San Anselmo Municipal Code 4 10-20.01.070 Application of the Form-Based Code 4
Article 2: Establishment of Zones 5
10-20.02.010 Purpose 5
10-20.02.020 Zones Established 5
10-20.02.030 Sub-Zones 6
10-20.02.040 Zone Map 6
Article 3: Zones 7
10-20.03.010 Purpose 7
10-20.03.020 General Requirements 7
10-20.03.030 Overview of Zones 12
10-20.03.040 Neighborhood.Small (N.S) 15
10-20.03.050 Neighborhood.Medium (N.M) 19
10-20.03.060 Main Street.Small (MS.S) 23
10-20.03.070 Adjacency Requirements 27
Article 4: Use Standards 29
10-20.04.010 Use Standards 29
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards iii 151
Article 5: General to Development Sites 31
10-20.05.010 Purpose 31
10-20.05.020 Screening 31
10-20.05.030 Landscaping and Lighting 33
10-20.05.040 Parking and Loading 36
10-20.05.050 Slope Standards 44
10-20.05.060 Public Frontage Standards 49
10-20.05.070 Privacy Standards 52
10-20.05.080 Service and Utility Standards 53
Article 6: Specific to Building Types 55
10-20.06.010 Purpose 55
10-20.06.020 Building Types 55
10-20.06.030 Overview of Building Types 58
10-20.06.040 Ancillary Building 60
10-20.06.050 House 62
10-20.06.060 Duplex Stacked 64
10-20.06.070 Cottage Court 66
10-20.06.080 Fourplex 68
10-20.06.090 Neighborhood Townhouse 70
10-20.06.100 Neighborhood Courtyard 72
10-20.06.110 Pocket Neighborhood 75
10-20.06.120 Multiplex 78
10-20.06.130 Main Street Building 80
10-20.06.140 Massing Compositions 82
iv
Table of Contents
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 152
Article 7: Specific to Private Frontage Types 89
10-20.07.010 Purpose 89
10-20.07.020 Private Frontage Types 89
10-20.07.030 Overview of Private Frontage Types 90
10-20.07.040 Porch Projecting 92
10-20.07.050 Porch Engaged 94
10-20.07.060 Dooryard 96
10-20.07.070 Forecourt 98
10-20.07.080 Maker Shopfront 100
10-20.07.090 Shopfront 102
10-20.07.100 Terrace 104
10-20.07.110 Gallery 106
Article 8: Specific to Architectural Design 109
10-20.08.010 Purpose 109
10-20.08.020 Applicability 109
10-20.08.030 Architectural Design Standards 109
10-20.08.040 Overview of Architectural Styles 109
10-20.08.050 Contemporary 113
10-20.08.060 Craftsman 125
10-20.08.070 Main Street Classical 137
10-20.08.080 Mediterranean 147
Article 9: Specific to Signage Types 159
10-20.09.010 Signage Standards 159
v
Table of Contents
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 153
Article 10: Specific to Large Sites 161
10-20.10.010 Purpose 161
10-20.10.020 General to Walkable Community Design 162
10-20.10.030 Walkable Neighborhood Plan 169
10-20.10.040 General to Civic Space 170
Article 11: Administration 179
10-20.11.010 Purpose 179
10-20.11.020 Procedures 179
10-20.11.030 Adjustments to Standards 193
Article 12: Definitions 199
10-20.12.010 Purpose 199
10-20.12.020 Definitions 199
10-20.12.030 Measurement Methods 199
vi
Table of Contents
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 154
vii
Table of Contents
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards This page intentionally left blank
155
Quick Code Guide for Developments Less Than Three Acres The following graphic is intended as a summary guide. Please refer to San Anselmo's written permit procedures and application standards for all necessary information.

Identify your zone, see
Article 3 (Zones)
a. Select your building type(s) Subsection 3 of the zone b. Comply with building placement standards Subsection 5 of the zone c. Comply with building form and height
standards
Subsection 4 of the zone
d. Select from allowed uses See Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 3 (Land Use Regulations) for the
underlying zone's allowed uses
e. Comply with parking standards Subsection 7 of the zone f. Select your private frontage type Subsection 8 of the zone Identify your building type
standards, see Article 6
(Specific to Building Types)
a. Select your detailed massing type Subsections 3 of the building type b. Comply with the standards Subsections 1, 2, 4-7 of the building type
1 Developments that propose multiple development sites shall apply this process for each development site.

Determine your Maximum Zoning Envelope1
1 Apply your private
frontage type(s), see
Article 7 (Specific to Private
Frontage Types)
Based on your selected private frontage type(s),
comply with the standards
Subsections 1-4 of the private
frontage type
2 Connect Ground Floor to Adjacent Streetscape
Identify your architectural
standards, see Article 8
(Specific to Architectural
Design)
Based on your selected detailed massing type,
select your architectural style
Subsections 1-16 of the
architectural style
3 Design your Building
viii
Table of Contents
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 156
Quick Code Guide for Developments Less Than Three Acres (Continued)
If adjustments are
proposed, see Section
10-20.11.030 (Adjustments to
Standards)
Meet the required findings to be eligible for the
adjustment to the standard(s)
Section 10-20.11.030 (Adjustments
to Standards)
Identify your approval
procedure, see Article 11
(Administration)
Comply with the procedure standards Section 10-20.11.020 (Procedures) 4 Proceed to Approval Process
ix
Table of Contents
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 157
Identify your zone(s),
see Article 3 (Zones)
For each WNP:
a. Select your building type(s)
Subsection 3 of the zone
b. Comply with building placement standards Subsection 5 of the zone c. Comply with building form and height
standards
Subsection 4 of the zone
d. Select from allowed uses See Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 3 (Land Use Regulations) for the
underlying zone's allowed uses
e. Comply with parking standards Subsection 7 of the zone f. Select your private frontage type for each
building type
Subsection 8 of the zone
Identify your building type
standards, see Article 6
(Specific to Building Types)
a. Select your detailed massing type for each
building type
Subsections 3 of the building type
b. Comply with the standards Subsections 1, 2, 4-7 of the building type
1 This process shall be applied to each development site.

Determine your Maximum Zoning Envelope1
2 Identify your WNP design
process, see Subsection 10-

20.10.020.1
Comply with the standards Section 10-20.10.020 (General to Walkable Community Design)
Prepare WNP Comply with the standards Section 10-20.10.030 (Walkable Neighborhood Plan)
1 Design your Walkable Neighborhood Plan (WNP)
Quick Code Guide for Developments Over Three Acres
The following graphic is intended as a summary guide. Please refer to San Anselmo's written permit procedures and application standards for all necessary information.
x
Table of Contents
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 158
Apply your private
frontage types to each
building type,
see Article 7 (Specific to
Private Frontage Types)
Based on your selected building types, comply
with the standards
Subsections 1-4 of the private
frontage type
3 Connect Ground Floor of each Building Type to Adjacent Streetscape Identify your architectural
standards, see Article 8
(Specific to Architectural
Design)
Select your architectural style standards for
each building type
Subsections 1-16 of the
architectural style
4 Design your Buildings
If adjustments are
proposed, see Section
10-20.11.030 (Adjustments to
Standards)
Meet the required findings to be eligible for the
adjustment to the standard(s)
Section 10-20.11.030 (Adjustments
to Standards)
Identify your approval
procedure, see Article 11
(Administration)
Comply with the procedure standards Section 10-20.11.020 (Procedures) 5 Proceed to Approval Process
Quick Code Guide for Developments Over Three Acres
(Continued)
xi
Table of Contents
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 159
xii
Table of Contents
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 This page intentionally left blank
160
10-20.01.010 Purpose
This Form-Based Code (FBC) sets forth the objective design and development standards applicable to housing developments which qualify under California State law for streamlined review and is consistent with objectives of the San Anselmo General Plan to facilitate housing production and preserve the highly valued character and scale of the Town's walkable centers, neighborhoods, and corridors. 10-20.01.020 What is a Form-Based Code?
Form-Based Coding (FBC) represents a paradigm shift in the way that the built environment is regulated. The formal short definition of a FBC is as follows:

Form-Based Codes foster predictable built results and a high-quality public realm by using physical form (rather than separation of uses) as the organizing principle for the code. These codes are adopted into city or county law as regulations, not mere guidelines. Form-Based Codes are an alternative to conventional zoning. -Form-Based Codes Institute
Unlike conventional, use-based codes, FBCs utilize the intended form and character, rather than use as the organizing framework of the code. This FBC is informed by the three physical context types found in San Anselmo: Natural, Walkable, and Auto-Oriented Suburban. FBCs implement the key characteristics that comprise the physical character of different areas (place types) documented across the community. Further, FBCs regulate a series of important elements not just to create a good individual building, but a high-quality place. The terminology in FBCs reflects the intended physical form and hierarchy of different places. For example, instead of a zone being labeled "commercial" or "mixed use," it might be called "main street." The term "main street" ties back to the intended physical form or place, which includes a mix of uses, civic spaces, streets, frontages, and building types that create walkable urbanism.

It is also important to note that while FBCs primarily regulate the intended physical form, they regulate use secondarily. FBCs allow a range of uses that are carefully chosen to maximize compatibility between uses and the intended physical form of the zone. The use-tables in a FBC are simplified and categorized by use-type, and clearly defined, to allow a greater degree of administrative decision-making related to particular uses.

Article 1: Introduction
Sections:
10-20.01.010 Purpose
10-20.01.020 What is a Form-Based Code?
10-20.01.030 Guiding Principles
10-20.01.040 Applicability
10-20.01.050 Relationship to San Anselmo General Plan
10-20.01.060 Relationship to the San Anselmo Municipal Code 10-20.01.070 Application of the Form-Based Code
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 1 161
10-20.01.030 Guiding Principles
The FBC is guided by the following principles in implementing the San Anselmo General Plan:

1. Across the Town, the FBC:

A. Provides clear and effective development standards that allow for streamlined review processes and the predictable production of housing;
B. Supports a diversity of housing choices appropriate to their location; C. Ensures appropriately-scaled infill development;
D. Reinforces and enhances community design and character in support of the community's vision with: a variety of neighborhoods; main street areas as the cultural and commercial heart of the community; and neighborhoods with centers along pleasant and convenient corridors that interconnect the Town;
E. Removes barriers to revitalization and reinvestment through clear, objective, and context-sensitive standards;
F. Ensures that each building plays a role in creating a better whole, not just a good building; and G. Promotes development patterns that support safe, effective, and multi-modal transportation options for all users and help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

2. Within the Downtown area, the FBC:

A. Reinforces the main street as a cultural and commercial destination accommodating appropriatelyscaled infill housing, mixed-use, and cultural development compatible with existing historic buildings; and
B. Facilitates transitions from single-use areas to mixed-use employment centers that are compatible with adjacent residential neighborhoods and public access.

3. Within residential neighborhoods, the FBC:

A. Protects the character of established neighborhoods and builds upon and reinforces the unique physical characteristics of the Town's walkable neighborhoods; B. Supports new walkable neighborhood patterns through new networks of well-designed multi-modal streets that are safe for pedestrians and cyclists; and C. Promotes neighborhoods with quality housing and diverse, context-sensitive housing choices.

4. Along major transportation corridors, the FBC:

A. Promotes a variety of housing choices;
B. Promotes small local businesses as an important part of the Town's economy; C. Promotes incremental infill and revitalization;
D. Reinforces neighborhood main streets as centers to continue as social and commercial focal points, with services and amenities for the surrounding neighborhoods located within a safe, comfortable walking distance of homes;
E. Balances pedestrian comfort and place-making with traffic efficiency; and F. Promotes and accommodates high-quality community design. 2 Introduction
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.01.030: Guiding Principles
162
10-20.01.040 Applicability

1. In areas subject to this FBC, the standards in this FBC prevail unless stated otherwise.

2. This FBC applies to proposed development as identified in Table A (Applicability).

Table 10-20.01.040.A: Applicability
Development Type
Housing Accountability Act
(HAA) Applies1
Senate Bill 35 (SB 35)
Applies2
Single-Unit House No No
Transitional Housing Yes
Supportive Housing Yes See Multi-Family Housing (2
or more residential units) Emergency Shelter Yes
Farmworker Housing Yes
Multi-Family Housing (2 or more residential units)
Affordable Yes Yes
Market Rate3 Yes No
Mixed-Use Development (at least 2/3 of square footage designated for residential units) Affordable Yes Yes
Market Rate3 Yes No
Other Development
Non-Mixed-Use4 No No
Non-Residential No No
1 See Government Code §65589.5 for additional eligibility criteria and specific protections by development type.
2 See Government Code §65913.4(a) for additional eligibility criteria (e.g., site standards, affordability provisions, and labor provisions).
3 "Market Rate" refers to projects that do not contain the minimum percentage of affordable housing units to be eligible for SB 35 streamlining. See Footnote 2. 4 Less than 2/3 of square footage designated for residential units.

3. This FBC also applies to additions or modifications to structures previously approved under the provisions of this Title.

4. Applications proposed for ministerial approval as allowed pursuant to California state law shall comply with all provisions of this FBC unless otherwise stated. For development projects which do not comply with all provisions of this FBC and are therefore ineligible for ministerial processing, the applicant may elect to submit an application for the applicable discretionary review provisions of Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 7 (Zoning Implementation Procedures), Article 14 (Variance) and Article 15 (Design Review). 3 Introduction
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.01.040: Applicability
163
10-20.01.050 Relationship to San Anselmo General Plan
Maximum densities and floor area ratios established by the General Plan shall apply to all development projects subject to this Title.
10-20.01.060 Relationship to the San Anselmo Municipal Code

1. Superseded Development Standards. Development standards contained in the San Anselmo Municipal Code shall apply to all development projects subject to this Article except for the following sections of Title 10, Chapter 3 (Zoning) which are replaced by provisions of this Article unless otherwise noted herein:

A. Article 4 (Development Standards)
B. Section 10-3.506 (Parking Spaces: Location)
C. Section 10-3.508 (Parking Spaces: Siting)
D. Section 10-3.510 (Parking Spaces: Screening)

2. Conflicts. Where the provisions of this Article conflict with other requirements of the San Anselmo Municipal Code, the regulations of this Title shall prevail.

3. Nonconforming Situations. The standards of Section 10-3.607 (Nonconforming Uses and Improvements) shall apply to all nonconforming situations. 10-20.01.070 Application of the Form-Based Code

1. The following shall be selected for each development site:

A. Only one building type per development site is allowed, except an Auxiliary Building (Section 10-

20.060.040) may be included within a development site in addition to the primary building type.

Parcels with enough land area to meet the zone standards for minimum development site width and depth may have multiple building types, and
B. At least one private frontage type shall be incorporated.

2. New development on a parcel of at least three acres or at least 700 feet long or deep shall be required to comply with the provisions of Article 10 (Specific to Large Sites). 4 Introduction
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.01.050: Relationship to San Anselmo General Plan
164
10-20.02.010 Purpose
This Article establishes the form-based zones ("zones") to implement the San Anselmo General Plan. The zones are for the purpose of generating and supporting the variety and physical character of existing and new walkable environments.
10-20.02.020 Zones Established
This Section identifies the zones, based on the intended physical form and character of the environments.

These zones focus on mixed-use, walkable environments and range in function and intensity from primarily residential areas with a mix of moderate intensity neighborhoods (Neighborhood.Small and Neighborhood.

Medium), to moderate-intensity corridors (Main Street.Small).

Article 2: Establishment of Zones
Sections:
10-20.02.010 Purpose
10-20.02.020 Zones Established
10-20.02.030 Sub-Zones
10-20.02.040 Zone Map
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 5 165
10-20.02.030 Sub-Zones

1. Sub-zones are slight variations of the base zone (e.g., Neighborhood.Small), are development-sitespecific, and mapped on the Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Zone Map. The FBC includes one type of sub-zone:

A. Open. The open sub-zone is applied for either or both of the following purposes:
(1) To allow more uses than the base zone allows in specific areas but within the same form and character of the base zone (e.g., Neighborhood.Small), except that sometimes additional frontages and signage are allowed within the same form and character of the base zone; and/or (2) To more easily allow certain uses that are already allowed in the base zone. In this way, the open sub-zone can provide additional flexibility to development sites located at or near intersections that function or are intended to function as a neighborhood node of non-residential uses. 10-20.02.040 Zone Map
The zones established in this Section are mapped on the Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Zone Map. When any of these zones are applied, the Zone Map shall be updated to reflect such changes.
6 Establishment of Zones
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.02.030
166
10-20.03.010 Purpose
This Article provides zones and standards to implement the San Anselmo General Plan to generate and support the variety of physical character of the intended development. 10-20.03.020 General Requirements

1. The FBC uses three form-based zone districts to regulate and generate the intended physical character.

Each zone district ("zone") regulates the foollowing eight topics:

A. Intent: the intended physical character and range of uses; B. Sub-zones: whether or not a sub-zone applies, allowing a broader list of building types and/or frontage types in specific geographic areas;
C. Building type and development site size: the menu of allowed building types and the associated minimum site dimensions.

D. Building form: the maximum overall building height, minimum ground floor height, and maximum building footprint (coverage);
E. Building placement: the minimum to maximum building setbacks and requirements for façade design;
F. Encroachments: allowed encroachments into required setbacks; G. Parking: the required location and design requirements for parking and vehicle access; and H. Frontages: the menu of allowed frontage types required at building entries along thoroughfares and public/common open spaces.

Article 3: Zones
Sections:
10-20.03.010 Purpose
10-20.03.020 General Requirements
10-20.03.030 Overview of Zones
10-20.03.040 Neighborhood.Small (N.S)
10-20.03.050 Neighborhood.Medium (N.M)
10-20.03.060 Main Street.Small (MS.S)
10-20.03.070 Adjacency Requirements
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 7 167

2. Parcels that vary in width or depth shall be measured using the average width and/or depth to apply the standards of this Article.

3. Development standards in this Article apply to primary buildings.

4. Individual building types have specific standards in Article 6 (Specific to Building Types) in addition to the zone standards to further calibrate each type for its context.

5. Encroachments at grade not allowed within a street ROW, alley ROW, or across a development site line.

6. On-Site Parking
A. Bicycles may be parked anywhere on development site, in compliance with pedestrian and vehicular access standards.

B. Driveways may be shared between adjacent development sites but shall not exceed maximum allowed width.

C. Front access not allowed on corner development sites, except where side street access cannot be provided.

D. Parking spaces may be grouped with those on adjacent development sites [See Figure 2(Example of Applying Development Sites on a Pedestrian Circulation Network)] and may be detached from development sites within the same block, in compliance with parking setbacks and access standards.

E. Where structured parking is provided, buildings are allowed to abut the parking structure and are exempt from minimum development site depth and rear building setbacks.

F. Subterranean Parking. Subterranean and semi-subterranean garages are subject to the following, in compliance with the requirement for habitable ground floor nonresidential space in Subsection 4 of the zone:
(1) Subterranean garages are exempt from the required parking and building setbacks in compliance with the frontage requirements.
(2) Semi-subterranean garages may project above the adjacent finished grade by up to 2 feet. (3) Development sites that provide all required parking in a subterranean or semi-subterranean garage are exempt from minimum development site depth.

7. Development Site. A development site is a parcel or portion of land within a parcel that is delineated from other development sites and/or parcels to accommodate one primary building or building type. A parcel can include multiple development sites, in compliance with Subsection 3 of the zone. Development sites are treated like parcels for the purpose of applying development standards, but are not required to be legally subdivided into individual parcels.

A. Each development site is required to front onto the adjacent street or internal pedestrian circulation network, whichever is closer. Where Public Frontage Standards apply, development sites shall not include the area of the Public Frontage Assembly.

B. Table A (Applicability of Development Site Requirements) identifies the requirements for projects which include a portion of a parcel, an entire parcel, or multiple parcels. 8 Zones
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.03.020: General Requirements
168
Table 10-20.03.020.A Applicability of Development Site Requirements Project Criteria Requirement
Project area is at least three net developable acres
Walkable Neighborhood Plan in compliance with Section
10-20.10.030 (Walkable Neighborhood Plan)
The linear dimension of the project area along or perpendicularly to an existing thoroughfare is at least 700 feet
Project area is through lot of at least three acres
Project area includes development site(s) which do(es) not front onto an existing public street, within a parcel of at least three net developable acres
Project area includes development site(s) which front(s) onto an existing public street, within a parcel of less than three net developable acres Compliance with the standards in Figure 1 (Example of
Applying Development Sites on Existing Right of Way
Network)
Project area includes development site(s) which do(es) not front onto an existing public street, within a parcel of less than three acres Compliance with the standards in Figure 2 (Example of
Applying Development Sites on a Pedestrian Circulation
Network)
9 Zones
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.03.020: General Requirements
169
Figure 10-20.030.020.1 Example of Applying Development Sites on Existing Right of Way Network Street Street
Street
Street
• See Form-Based Zone Map.
• See Article 3 (Zones) for development site requirements.

Street
Street
Street
Neighborhood Courtyard
Neighborhood Courtyard
Multiplex
Commercial
Zoning
Multi-family
Zoning
• Select only 1 building type for each development site from the allowed building types for the zone. Apply the dimensional standards for the development sites of each allowed building type. (See Subsection 3 of each zone in Article 3).
• Development sites are allowed to occupy some or all of a parcel in compliance with the standards.

Street
Street
Street
Commercial
Zoning
Multi-family
Zoning
• Place each primary building on its development site
in compliance with the required setbacks and other
standards of the zone (see Article 3).
• Each building is required to front onto the adjacent street or civic space.
• Select and apply frontage types to each building/unit entry (see Subsection 8 of the zone).
1 Identify Zone(s)
2 Apply Development Sites
3 Place Buildings
Street
Single-family Zoning
Street
Single-family Zoning
Key
Project Area Primary Building
Development Site Line
Vehicle Access & Parking
Example Zone Pedestrian Circulation
Landscaping
10 Zones
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.03.020: General Requirements
170
Figure 10-20.030.020.2 Example of Applying Development Sites on a Pedestrian Circulation Network • See Form-Based Zone Map.
• See Article 3 (Zones) for development site
requirements.
• Select only 1 building type per
development site from the allowed
building types for the zone. Apply
the dimensional standards for the
development sites of each allowed
building type. (See Subsection 3 of each
zone in Article 3).
• Projects of at least three acres must
include 2 or more building types.
• Development sites are allowed to occupy
some or all of a parcel in compliance with
the standards.
• Place each primary building on its
development site in compliance with the
required setbacks and other standards of
the zone (see Article 3).
• Each development site is required to front
onto the adjacent street or pedestrian
circulation network, whichever is closer.

The pedestrian circulation network is
contiguous and separate from vehicular
circulation.
• Vehicular and pedestrian circulation is
allowed to be grouped and independent
of development sites.
• It is not required that parking for a building
occur on the same development site.
• Select and apply frontage types to each
building/unit entry (see Subsection 8 of
the zone).

Neighborhood
Courtyard
Neighborhood
Courtyard
Neighborhood
Courtyard
Multiplex
Multiplex
Multiplex
Multiplex
Multiplex
Pedestrian Access (Fronts)
Vehicular Access (Rear)
Identify Zone(s)
Apply Development
Sites 1 2 3 Place Buildings
Street Street Street
Key
Project Area Primary Building
Development Site Line
Vehicle Access & Parking
Example Zone Pedestrian Circulation
Landscaping
11 Zones
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.03.020: General Requirements
171
Neighborhood.Small 10-20.03.040
Zone Abbreviation
N.S
Sub-Zone(s)
N.S-Open. The open sub-zone allows non-residential uses within the same form and character of the base zone.

Intent
A walkable neighborhood environment of small-to-medium
footprint, moderate-intensity housing choices, including mixed-use buildings with neighborhood-serving retail and services.

Desired Form
House-Scale Buildings
Primarily Detached Buildings
Small-to-Medium Building Footprint
Small-to-Medium Front Setbacks
Small-to-Medium Side Setbacks
Up to 2.5 Stories
House, Duplex Stacked, Cottage Court, Fourplex,
Neighborhood Townhouse, Neighborhood Courtyard, Pocket
Neighborhood, and Multiplex
Porch Projecting, Porch Engaged, and Dooryard Frontage
Types; Shopfront in Open Sub-Zone
Table 10-20.03.030.A: Zones Overview
Less Urban
10-20.03.030 Overview of Zones
Table A (Zones Overview) provides an overview of each zone and its intent.

Neighborhood.Medium 10-20.03.050
Zone Abbreviation
N.M
Sub-Zone(s)
None
Intent
A walkable neighborhood environment with mediumto-large footprint, moderate-intensity housing choices, including mixed-use buildings with neighborhood-serving retail and services.

Desired Form
Primarily House-Scale Buildings
Primarily Detached Buildings
Medium-to-Large Building Footprint
Small Front Setbacks
Small Side Setbacks
Up to 3 Stories
Neighborhood Townhouse, Neighborhood Courtyard,
Multiplex, and Main Street Building
Porch Projecting, Porch Engaged, Dooryard, Shopfront and Terrace Frontage Types
12 Zones
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.03.030
172
Table 10-20.03.030.A: Zones Overview (Continued)
Main Street.Small 10-20.03.060
Zone Abbreviation
MS.S
Sub-Zone(s)
None
Intent
A walkable, district of small-to-medium footprint, moderate intensity, mixed-use buildings and housing choices,
supporting neighborhood-serving ground floor retail, food and services.

Desired Form
Primarily House-Scale Buildings
Primarily Attached Buildings
Small-to-Medium Building Footprint
None-to-Small Front Setbacks
None-to-Small Side Setbacks
Up to 3 Stories (Up to 2 Stories in Historic Core)
Neighborhood Townhouse, Neighborhood Courtyard,
Multiplex, and Main Street Building
Porch Projecting, Porch Engaged, Dooryard, Forecourt,
Maker Shopfront, Shopfront, Terrace, and Gallery Frontage Types.

More Urban
13 Zones
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.03.030
173
14 Zones
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 This page intentionally left blank
174
10-20.03.040 Neighborhood.Small (N.S)
General note: the illustrations above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature.

2. Sub-Zone(s)
N.S-Open. The open sub-zone allows
non-residential uses within the same
form and character of the base zone.

1. Intent
A walkable neighborhood environment of small-to-medium footprint, moderateintensity housing choices, including mixed-use buildings with neighborhoodserving retail and services.

The following are generally appropriate form elements in the zone.

House-Scale Buildings House, Duplex Stacked, Cottage Court, Fourplex, Neighborhood Townhouse,
Neighborhood Courtyard, Pocket
Neighborhood, and Multiplex
Primarily Detached Buildings
Small-to-Medium Building Footprint
Small-to-Medium Front Setbacks
Small-to-Medium Side Setbacks Porch Projecting, Porch Engaged, and Dooryard Frontage Types; Shopfront in
Open Sub-Zone
Up to 2.5 Stories
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 15 175

4. Building Form
Height
Primary Building5
Stories 2.5 max.

To Highest Eave/Parapet 24' max.

Overall 30' max.

Ground Floor Finish Level
Residential 6" min.6
Non-Residential 6" max.

Ground Floor Ceiling
Residential 9' min.

Non-Residential 12' min.

Accessory Structure(s)7 2 max.

Footprint
Max. Development Site
Coverage
See standards in Article 6
(Specific to Building Types)
Depth, Ground-Floor Space
Cottage Court 12' min. 8
All Building Types 20' min. 8
5 See Article 6 (Specific to Building Types) for refinements to massing and height standards.
6 Common entries may be set at grade in compliance with local and federal accessibility standards.
7 Each accessory structure 120 sf max. and 8' max. height if located in required setback areas.
8 For habitable/occupiable space only

3. Building Types and Development Site Size
Allowed Building
Types
Development Site1
Width Depth Standards
House-Scale
Ancillary Building2 N/A N/A 10-20.06.040
House 50' min. 100' min. 10-20.06.050
Duplex Stacked 50' min. 100' min. 10-20.06.060
Cottage Court 90' min. 120' min. 10-20.06.070
Fourplex 50' min. 110' min. 10-20.06.080
Neighborhood
Townhouse
18' min.3 100' min. 10-20.06.090
Neighborhood
Courtyard
70' min.4 150' min. 10-20.06.100
Pocket
Neighborhood
170' min.; 260' min.; 10-20.06.110
300' max. 500' max.

Multiplex 75' min. 125' min. 10-20.06.120
Block-Scale
None
Each development site shall have only one primary building type.
1 Development sites of at least 3 acres or over 700' long or deep are required to include civic space and new street(s) per Article 10 (Specific to Large Sites).
2 The Ancillary Building is not a primary building type. 3 Represents one townhouse
4 For an L-shaped building; 100' min. for a U-shaped building ROW Line
Side Street
Front Street (Narrowest Side)
Interior
Development Site
Corner
Development Site
Interior
Development
Site
ROW Line
Key
ROW/ Development Site Line
Key
16 Zones
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.03.040: Neighborhood.Small (N.S)
176

6. Encroachments
Encroachments into Minimum Setbacks
Encroachment Type Front Side St. Side11 Rear11
Architectural Features 3' max. 3' max. 3' max. 5' max.

Private Frontages 10' max. 10' max. X X
Patio Covers X X 3' max. 5' max.

Stairs/Ramps12 3' max. 3' max. 3' max. 5' max.

Decks (Max. 3' Above
Grade)
X X 5' max. 2' max.

Ramps providing ADA or FHA visitability are allowed within setbacks but shall not encroach within public ROWs.

Fences, hedges, and other screen devices are allowed within setbacks as identified in Section 10-20.05.020 (Screening). 11 No encroachment allowed for Accessory Structures.
12 Stairs that are part of a private frontage may encroach into the setback an additional 3' beyond the allowed
encroachment of the private frontage but not into the
public ROW.

Encroachments into Public Right of Ways (ROW)
Upper story encroachments on front and side street require 8' min. of vertical clearance.

5. Building Placement
Setback (Distance from ROW/ Development Site Line)9
Front (Facade Zone)
Interior Development Site 10' min.10; 20' max.

Corner Development Site 10' min.10; 20' max.

Side Street (Facade Zone)
Primary Building 10' min.; 20' max.

Accessory Structure(s) 20' min.

Side
Primary Building 7' min.

Accessory Structure(s), Pools, and
Hot Tubs 5' min.

Rear
Primary Building 15' min.

Accessory Structure(s), Pools, and
Hot Tubs 5' min.

Building Facade
Facade Zone Front St. Side St.

Façade Zone Defined by Primary
Building/Frontage (See Subsection
10-20.12.030.2)
65% min. 55% min.

Facade Design
All building facades shall be designed in compliance with Article 8 (Specific to Architectural Design).
9 Development sites with slopes ≥ 6% shall comply with
Section 10-20.05.050 (Slope Standards).
10 Within N.S. 15' Front Setback Overlay, min. 15' for existing parcels at least 90' deep and 50' wide
Key X = Not Allowed N/A = Not Applicable
Side Street
Front Street (Narrowest Side) Front Street (Narrowest Side) Side Street max.
min.
min.
max.
min. min.

ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Buildable Area
Acc. Structures Only
Facade Zone
Key
ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Setback Line
Encroachment Area
Key
17 Zones
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.03.040: Neighborhood.Small (N.S)
177

8. Frontages
Allowed Private Frontage Type Standards
Porch Projecting 10-20.07.040
Porch Engaged 10-20.07.050
Dooryard 10-20.07.060
Shopfront18 10-20.07.090
Allowed Public Frontage Type Standards
Street 10-20.05.060.C.1
18 Open sub-zone only

7. Parking
Vehicular Spaces13
All Uses14 See Section 10-3.502 (Parking
Standards)
Bicycle Spaces15
Residential Uses
Long Term 1 min. per bedroom (incl. Studios)
Short Term 0.1 per bedroom; min. 2 per project
Setback (Distance from ROW/ Development Site Line)
Front 40' min.16
Side Street 20' min.

Side 5' min.

Rear 5' min.

Driveway17 One-Way Two-Way
Curb Cut/Width 8' max. Not Allowed
Curb cut width along alley may exceed 8'.
13 See Subsection 10-20.05.040.4 for additional standards. 14 See Article 4 (Use Standards) for the underlying zone's allowed uses and permit requirements.
15 See Subsection 10-20.05.040.3 for additional standards. 16 10' min. allowed for parking courts of 6 or fewer spaces.

See Subsection 10-20.05.040.8.C.(2).
17 See Subsection 10-20.05.040.8.B for additional standards.

Front Street (Narrowest Side)
Side Street
min.
min.
min. min.

ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Parking Area
Key
18 Zones
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.03.040: Neighborhood.Small (N.S)
178
10-20.03.050 Neighborhood.Medium (N.M)
General note: the illustrations above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature.

2. Sub-Zone(s)
None

1. Intent
A walkable neighborhood environment with medium-to-large footprint, moderateintensity housing choices, including mixed-use buildings with neighborhoodserving retail and services.

The following are generally appropriate form elements in the zone.

Primarily House-Scale Buildings Neighborhood Townhouse, Neighborhood Courtyard, Multiplex,
and Main Street Building
Primarily Detached Buildings
Medium-to-Large Building Footprint
Small Front Setbacks Porch Projecting, Porch Engaged,
Dooryard, Shopfront and Terrace
Frontage Types
Small Side Setbacks
Up to 3 Stories
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 19 179

4. Building Form
Height
Primary Building5
Stories 3 max.

To Highest Eave/Parapet 26' max.

Overall 35' max.

Ground Floor Finish Level
Residential 6" min.6
Non-Residential 6" max.

Ground Floor Ceiling
Residential 9' min.

Non-Residential 12' min.

Accessory Structure(s)7 1 max.

Footprint
Max. Development Site
Coverage
See standards in Article 6
(Specific to Building Types)
Depth, Ground-Floor Space 20' min.8
5 See Article 6 (Specific to Building Types) for refinements to massing and height standards.
6 Common entries may be set at grade in compliance with local and federal accessibility standards.
7 Each accessory structure 120 sf max. and 8' max. height if located in required setback areas.
8 For habitable/occupiable space only

3. Building Types and Development Site Size
Allowed Building
Types
Development Site1 Standards
Width Depth
House-Scale
Ancillary Building2 N/A N/A 10-20.06.040
Neighborhood
Townhouse
18' min.3 100' min. 10-20.06.090
Neighborhood
Courtyard
70' min.4 150' min. 10-20.06.100
Multiplex 75' min. 110' min. 10-20.06.120
Block-Scale
Main Street Building 25' min. 100' min. 10-20.06.130
Each development site shall have only one primary building type. 1 Development sites of at least 3 acres or over 700' long or deep are required to include civic space and new street(s) per Article 10 (Specific to Large Sites).
2 The Ancillary Building is not a primary building type. 3 Represents one townhouse
4 For an L-shaped building; 100' min. for a U-shaped building ROW Line
Side Street
Front Street (Narrowest Side)
Interior
Development Site
Corner
Development Site
Interior
Development
Site
ROW Line
Key
ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Key
20 Zones
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.03.050: Neighborhood.Medium (N.M)
180

6. Encroachments
Encroachments into Minimum Setbacks
Encroachment Type Front Side St. Side10 Rear10
Architectural Features 2' max. 2' max. 1' max. 5' max.

Private Frontages 8' max. 8' max. X X
Patio Covers X X 1' max. 5' max.

Stairs/Ramps11 2' max. 2' max. 1' max. 5' max.

Decks (Max. 3' Above
Grade)
X X 5' max. 2' max.

Ramps providing ADA or FHA visitability are allowed within setbacks but shall not encroach within public ROWs.

Fences, hedges, and other screen devices are allowed within setbacks as identified in Section 10-20.05.020 (Screening). 10 No encroachment allowed for Accessory Structures
11 Stairs that are part of a private frontage may encroach into the setback an additional 3' beyond the allowed
encroachment of the private frontage but not into the
public ROW.

Encroachments into Public Right of Ways (ROW)
Upper story encroachments on front and side street require 8' min. of vertical clearance.

5. Building Placement
Setback (Distance from ROW/ Development Site Line)9
Front (Facade Zone)
Interior Development Site 10' min.; 15' max.

Corner Development Site 10' min.; 15' max.

Side Street (Facade Zone)
Primary Building 10' min.; 15' max.

Accessory Structure(s) 15' min.

Side
Primary Building 5' min.

Accessory Structure(s) 5' min.

Rear
Primary Building 15' min.

Accessory Structure(s) 5' min.

Building Facade
Facade Zone Front St. Side St.

Façade Zone Defined by Primary
Building/Frontage (See Subsection
10-20.12.030.2)
70% min. 60% min.

Key X = Not Allowed N/A = Not Applicable
Side Street
Front Street (Narrowest Side) Front Street (Narrowest Side) Side Street max. min.
min.
max.
min. min.

ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Buildable Area
Acc. Structures Only
Facade Zone
Key
ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Setback Line
Encroachment Area
Key
21 Zones
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.03.050: Neighborhood.Medium (N.M)
181

8. Frontages
Allowed Private Frontage Type Standards
Porch Projecting 10-20.07.040
Porch Engaged 10-20.07.050
Dooryard 10-20.07.060
Shopfront 10-20.07.090
Terrace 10-20.07.100
Allowed Public Frontage Type Standards
Street 10-20.05.060.C.1
Avenue/Boulevard 10-20.05.060.C.2

7. Parking
Vehicular Spaces12
All Uses13 See Section 10-3.502 (Parking
Standards)
Bicycle Spaces14
Residential Uses
Long Term 1 min. per bedroom (incl. Studios)
Short Term 0.1 per bedroom; min. 2 per project
Setback (Distance from ROW/ Development Site Line)
Front 40' min.15
Side Street 15' min.

Side 5' min.

Rear 5' min.

Driveway16 One-Way Two-Way
Curb Cut/Width 8' max. Not Allowed
Curb cut width along alley may exceed 8'.
12 See Subsection 10-20.05.040.4 for additional standards. 13 See Article 4 (Use Standards) for the underlying zone's allowed uses and permit requirements.
14 See Subsection 10-20.05.040.3 for additional standards. 15 10' min. allowed for parking courts of 6 or fewer spaces.

See Subsection 10-20.05.040.8.C.(2).
16 See Subsection 10-20.05.040.8.B for additional standards.

Front Street (Narrowest Side)
Side Street
min.
min.
min. min.

ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Parking Area
Key
22 Zones
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.03.050: Neighborhood.Medium (N.M)
182
10-20.03.060 Main Street.Small (MS.S)
General note: the illustrations above are intended to provide a brief overview of the zone and are descriptive in nature.

2. Sub-Zone(s)
None

1. Intent
A walkable district of small-to-medium footprint, moderate intensity, mixed-use buildings and housing choices, supporting neighborhood-serving ground floor retail, food and services.

The following are generally appropriate form elements in the zone.

Primarily House-Scale Buildings Neighborhood Townhouse, Neighborhood Courtyard, Multiplex,
and Main Street Building
Primarily Attached Buildings
Small-to-Medium Building Footprint
None-to-Small Front Setbacks Porch Projecting, Porch Engaged, Forecourt, Shopfront, Terrace, and
Gallery Frontage Types; Dooryard and
Maker Shopfront Frontage Types on
Side Street
None-to-Small Side Setbacks
Up to 3 Stories (Up to 2 Stories in
Historic Core)
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 23 183

4. Building Form
Height Historic
Core
Not in
Historic
Core
Primary Building5
Stories 2 max. 3
To Highest Eave/Parapet 26' max.

Overall 30' max 35' max.

Ground Floor Finish Level
Residential 6" min.6,7
Non-Residential 6" max.

Ground Floor Ceiling 14' min.

Accessory Structure(s)8 2 max.

Footprint
Max. Development Site
Coverage
See standards in Article 6
(Specific to Building Types)
Depth, Ground-Floor Space 30' min.9
5 See Article 6 (Specific to Building Types) for refinements to massing and height standards.
6 Common entries may be set at grade in compliance with local and federal accessibility standards.
7 Only on side street and at least 60' from front of
development site
8 Each accessory structure 120 sf max. and 8' max. height if located in required setback areas.
9 For habitable/occupiable space only
ROW Line
Side Street
Front Street (Narrowest Side)
Interior
Development Site
Corner
Development Site
Interior
Development
Site
ROW Line
Key
ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Key
24 Zones
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.03.060: Main Street.Small (MS.S)
184

6. Encroachments
Encroachments into Minimum Setbacks
Encroachment Type Front Side St. Side11 Rear11
Architectural Features 3' max. 3' max. X 5' max.

Private Frontages12 X X X X
Patio Covers X X X 5' max.

Stairs/Ramps13 3' max. 3' max. X 5' max.

Decks (Max. 3' Above
Grade)
X X 3' max. 2' max.

Ramps providing ADA or FHA visitability are allowed within setbacks but shall not encroach within public ROWs.

Fences, hedges, and other screen devices are allowed within setbacks as identified in Section 10-20.05.020 (Screening).

Encroachments into Public Right of Ways (ROW)
Upper story encroachments, including the Gallery (Section 10-20.07.110), on front and side street require 8' min. of vertical clearance.
11 No encroachment allowed for Accessory Structures.
12 The Gallery Frontage Type (Section 10-20.07.110) may encroach over the sidewalk to within 18" of the curb face. 13 Stairs that are part of a private frontage may encroach into the setback an additional 3' beyond the allowed
encroachment of the private frontage but not into the
public ROW.

5. Building Placement
Setback (Distance from ROW/ Development Site Line)10
Front (Facade Zone)
Interior Development Site 0' min.; 10' max.

Corner Development Site 0' min.; 10' max.

Side Street (Facade Zone)
Primary Building 0' min.; 10' max.

Accessory Structure(s) 10' min.

Side
Primary Building 0' min.

Adjacent to Res'l Zone 10' min.

Accessory Structure(s), Pools, and
Hot Tubs 3' min.

Rear
Primary Building 15' min.

Adjacent to Res'l Zone 20' min.

Accessory Structure(s), Pools, and
Hot Tubs 5' min.

Building Facade
Facade Zone Front St. Side St.

Façade Zone Defined by Primary
Building/Frontage (See Subsection
10-20.12.030.2)
65% min. 55% min.

Facade Design
All building facades shall be designed in compliance with Article 8 (Specific to Architectural Design).
10 Development sites with slopes ≥ 6% shall comply with Section 10-20.05.050 (Slope Standards).

Key X = Not Allowed N/A = Not Applicable
Side Street
Front Street (Narrowest Side) Front Street (Narrowest Side) Side Street max.
min.
min.
max.
min. min.

ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Buildable Area
Acc. Structures Only
Facade Zone
Key
ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Setback Line
Encroachment Area
Key
25 Zones
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.03.060: Main Street.Small (MS.S)
185

8. Frontages
Allowed Private Frontage Type Standards
Porch Projecting 10-20.07.040
Porch Engaged 10-20.07.050
Dooryard19 10-20.07.060
Forecourt 10-20.07.070
Maker Shopfront19 10-20.07.080
Shopfront 10-20.07.090
Terrace 10-20.07.100
Gallery 10-20.07.110
Allowed Public Frontage Type Standards
Avenue/Boulevard 10-20.05.060.C.2
Main Street 10-20.05.060.C.3
19 Only on side street

7. Parking
Vehicular Spaces14
All Uses15 See Section 10-3.502 (Parking
Standards)
Bicycle Spaces16
Residential Uses
Long Term 1 min. per bedroom (incl. Studios)
Short Term 0.1 per bedroom; min. 2 per project
Setback (Distance from ROW/ Development Site Line)
Front 40' min.17
Side Street 40' min.

Side 0' min.

Rear 5' min.

Driveway18 One-Way Two-Way
Curb Cut/Width 8' max. 12' max.

Curb cut width along alley may exceed 12'.
14 See Subsection 10-20.05.040.4 for additional standards. 15 See Article 4 (Use Standards) for the underlying zone's allowed uses and permit requirements.
16 See Subsection 10-20.05.040.3 for additional standards. 17 10' min. allowed for parking courts of 6 or fewer spaces.

See Subsection 10-20.05.040.8.C.(2).
18 See Subsection 10-20.05.040.8.B for additional standards.

Front Street (Narrowest Side)
Side Street
min.
min. min. min.

ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Parking Area
Key
26 Zones
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.03.060: Main Street.Small (MS.S)
186
10-20.03.070 Adjacency Requirements
A. Where a new building in a ODDS Zone is adjacent to the zone(s) or other physical feature identified in Table A, adjacency standards are required. The new building shall be designed in compliance with the requirements of this Table.

Table 10-20.03.070.A: Adjacency Requirements
Applicability Standard
Where abutting a single-family residential district
Height Limit Max. 2.5 stories and 35' in height within 30' of shared side and/or within 50' of shared rear property line
Building Volumes Max. 60' width per building volume; 20' min. separation between building volumes
Screen Landscaping Screening trees are required along shared side and rear property lines at a quantity of one per 25 linear feet
except where structures are located. Screening trees
shall have a typical mature height of at least 25 feet and mature canopy width of 15 feet and shall be planted at
14-inch box size or larger and at least 8 feet in height.

Existing trees to be retained that are at least 25 feet tall and 15 feet wide may substitute for required planting on a one-to-one ratio. Three closely spaced tall screening shrubs with a typical mature height of at least 20 feet and mature width of at least 5 feet may be substituted
for one screening tree and shall be planted at 15-gallon size or larger and at least 8 feet in height. At least 30% of screening trees and shrubs shall be evergreen.

Landscape Buffer A landscaped buffer of at least 5 feet in depth is required along the length of the rear property line except where structures are located
Where within 100' of a Creek
Ground Floor Ground floor frontage required using the frontage types allowed by the zone. Min. 15' building setback.
27 Zones
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.03.070: Adjacency Requirements
187
28 Zones
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 This page intentionally left blank
188
Article 4: Use Standards
10-20.04.010 Use Standards
Allowed land uses are set forth in Article 10-3.03 (Land Use Regulations) as identified in Table A (Allowed Uses).

Table 10-20.04.010.A: Allowed Uses
Underlying Zone Reference for Allowed Uses
Residential Article 10-3.03 (Land Use Regulations)
Non-residential Article 10-3.03 (Land Use Regulations)
Sections:
10-20.04.010 Use Standards
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 29 189
30 Use Standards
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 This page intentionally left blank
190
10-20.05.010 Purpose
This Article provides standards to ensure that new development accomplishes the following:

1. Makes a positive contribution to the development pattern of the area;

2. New or altered structures are compatible with the design and use of existing structures on neighboring properties;

3. Respects the existing conditions of neighboring properties; and

4. Does not adversely affect neighboring properties, with "adversely affect" meaning to impact in a substantial, negative manner the habitability of these properties. 10-20.05.020 Screening

1. Intent. This Section provides standards for screening, fences, and walls for the protection of property, the enhancement of privacy, the attenuation of noise, and the improvement of the visual environment.

2. Design Standards for Screening. Except for wall- and ground-mounted equipment that is not visible from the public right-of-way or abutting development sites, all equipment shall comply with the following:

A. Screening Height Maximums. Screening shall not exceed the maximums identified in Table A (Maximum Screening Height).

B. Screening Height Measurement. Screening height shall be measured as the vertical distance between the finished grade at the base of the screen and the top edge of the screen material. No combination of wall and screen shall exceed the maximum height alllowed in Table A (Maximum Screening Height).

Article 5: General to Development Sites
Sections:
10-20.05.010 Purpose
10-20.05.020 Screening
10-20.05.030 Landscaping and Lighting
10-20.05.040 Parking and Loading
10-20.05.050 Slope Standards
10-20.05.060 Public Frontage Standards
10-20.05.070 Privacy Standards
10-20.05.080 Service and Utility Standards
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 31 191
Table 10-20.05.020.A: Maximum Screening Height
Zone Item Maximum Height Allowed
Front Side St. Side Rear
N.S, N.M Fences2
Free Standing Walls
Landscaping1
3' max.
3' max.
4' max.
3' max.
3' max.
4' max.
8' max.
8' max.

No max.
8' max.
8' max.

No max.

MS.S Fences
Free Standing Walls
Landscaping1
X
X
3' max.

X
X
3' max.
8' max.
8' max.

No max.
8' max.
8' max.

No max.
1 Excludes trees
2 6' of solid material with 2 ' of open material (lattice, wrought iron, or grille work allowing visibility through 50% of the material) at the top
Key X = Not Allowed

3. Courtyard Screening
A. Fences, walls and other screening installed to create a courtyard without a roof shall not exceed five feet in height and shall be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the front property line or back of sidewalk, whichever is the least.

B. Landscaping installed in compliance with Section 10-20.05.030 (Landscaping and Lighting).

4. Screening on Retaining Walls. The total height of screens and the retaining walls they are mounted on or attached to shall not exceed six feet.

5. Mechanical Equipment Screening
A. The following mechanical equipment is exempt from screening:
(1) Free-standing or roof-mounted solar equipment; and
(2) Vents less than two feet in height.

B. For new installation or relocation of existing mechanical equipment, the equipment shall be screened.
(1) Roof-Mounted Equipment. Building parapets or other architectural elements in the building’s architectural style shall screen roof-mounted equipment. (a) New buildings shall be designed to provide a parapet or other architectural element that is as tall or taller than the highest point on any new mechanical equipment to be located on the roof of the building; and
(b) For existing buildings with no parapet less than two feet in height, mechanical equipment shall be surrounded on all sides by an opaque screen wall as tall as the highest point of the equipment. The wall shall be architecturally consistent with the building and match the existing building with paint, finish, and trim cap detail. 32 General to Development Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.05.020
192
(2) Wall- and Ground-Mounted Equipment
(a) Equipment is not allowed between front or side street facades and the street. (b) All screen devices shall be as high as the highest point of the equipment being screened. (c) Equipment and screening shall be in compliance with the setbacks of the zone. (d) Screening shall be architecturally compatible and include matching paint, finish, and trim cap of the building.

6. Barbed Wire and Razor Wire. Barbed wire and razor wire screening are not allowed.

7. Safety. Fences, walls, and other screening and landscaping, whether provided in compliance with the provisions of this Subsection or provided in addition to those provisions, are subject to review by the Traffic Engineer in the following areas to ensure that visibility is maintained:

A. Within 10 feet of the point of intersection of:
(1) A vehicular access way or driveway and a street; and/or (2) A vehicular access way or driveway and a sidewalk.

B. Within 20 feet of the point of intersection of two or more vehicular access ways, including driveways, alleys, or streets.

C. As used in this Subsection, "point of intersection" is measured from the face of curb or if none, from the edge of pavement.
10-20.05.030 Landscaping and Lighting

1. Intent. This Section prescribes landscaping and lighting standards for protection and enhancement of the environmental and visual quality of the community, enhancement of privacy, and the control of dust.

2. Required Landscaping. The landscaping required by this Section shall be installed as part of the development or improvement(s) requiring the landscaping. Standards for landscaping in parking areas shall be in combination with Section 10-20.05.040 (Parking and Loading).

A. Landscaping materials shall be integrated into the required setbacks, stream and wetland buffers, and design of the selected private frontage type(s).

B. Landscape materials shall be applied to the planting areas identified for public frontage type(s).

C. Any tree 22 inches in diameter at breast height or larger removed for construction of a residential unit shall be replaced on-site with a 48-inch box tree. 33 General to Development Sites
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.05.030
193

3. Required Lighting
A. Site improvements, including lighting, as required to be consistent with the selected Architectural Style for the primary building.

B. Lighting shall be provided in compliance with the following:
(1) All parking lot lights shall be full cutoff luminaires, as certified by the manufacturer, with the light source directed downward and away from adjacent residences. (2) Bollard lighting may be used to light walkways and other landscape features, but shall cast its light downward.
(3) Internally illuminated fascia, wall, roof, awning or other building parts are prohibited. (4) Uplighting of landscaping is prohibited.
(5) All nonessential exterior lighting associated with non-residential uses shall be turned off or dimmed no more than 30 minutes after the close of business or when the non-residential use is not in use.

4. Design Standards
A. Landscape Area. A minimum percentage of a development site shall be landscaped in compliance with Table A:

Table 10-20.05.030.A: Landscape Area
Zone
Minimum percent of
development site area
composed of landscaped area
Minimum percent of
facade zone composed of
landscaped area
Neighborhood.Small 25% 70%
Neighborhood. Medium 10% 50%
Main Street.Small 10% Not required
B. Allowed Landscaping Materials
(1) Required landscaped areas shall be composed of trees, shrubs and groundcover, and shall exclude areas occupied by structures, hardscape, and pools, in compliance with the following minimum standards:
(a) Trees shall be planted at 15-gallon size or larger; (b) Shrubs shall be planted at one-gallon size or larger; (c) Ground cover shall be planted at spacing of a minimum 12 inches on center; (d) Decorative nonliving landscaping materials including, but not limited to, sand, stone, or gravel may be used up to 10 percent of required landscape areas. (2) Street trees. Where the sidewalk abutts the subject property, street trees, of at least 15-gallon size, spaced no further than 35 feet apart, double-staked, shall be planted between the curb and the back of sidewalk, where missing. If there is no sidewalk, the street trees shall be placed in planters at least four feet by six feet without encroaching into the parking or travel lane. 34 General to Development Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.05.030
194
C. Species Selection
(1) Native and drought tolerant species are required to meet the minimum standards, in conformance with Title 9, Chapter 22 (Water Efficient Landscaping). (2) Landscaping shall be in compliance with Ross Valley Fire Department Standard 220 (Vegetation Management Plan).

D. Existing Vegetation. On-site trees of caliper size 22 inches minimum, measured at 52 inches above grade, shall be incorporated into the landscaping. In compliance with Ross Valley Fire Department Standard 220 (Vegetation Management Plan). Acacia, Eucalyptus, Plum, Privet, and Monterey Pine trees may be removed.

E. Landscape Integration with Frontage Type(s). Required landscaping shall be placed within and/or around the variety of frontage type elements in compliance with Table B:

Table 10-20.05.030.B: Landscape Integration with Frontage Type(s) Frontage Type Location
Porch: Projecting, Engaged Containers within Porch, Planters at base of Porch and along building facade
Dooryard Containers and/or planters within Dooryard
Forecourt Containers and planters within Forecourt
Maker Shopfront Containers along base of Shopfront
Shopfront, Gallery Containers along base of Shopfront or Gallery Terrace Containers within Terrace, planters at base of Terrace F. Retaining Walls
(1) Retaining walls within the front and/or side street façade zone(s) or visible from the public sidewalk adjoining the development site shall:
(a) Not exceed four feet in height as measured to the adjacent finished grade or sidewalk whichever is nearest;
(b) Include a landscape planter in front of the wall. The planter shall be at least 18 inches deep measured perpendicular to the wall; and
(c) Be finished with allowable wall material(s) of the selected architectural style for the primary building.
(2) Retaining walls along the interior development site line that are beyond the front and/or side street façade zone(s) shall:
(a) Not exceed three feet as measured to the adjacent finished grade; (b) Include a landscape planter in front of the wall. The planter shall be at least three feet deep measured perpendicular to the wall; and
(c) Be finished with allowable wall material(s) of the selected architectural style for the primary building.
35 General to Development Sites
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.05.030
195
(3) Retaining walls along the rear development site line that are beyond the front and/or side street façade zone(s) shall:
(a) Not exceed eight feet as measured to the adjacent finished grade; (b) If exposed, include a landscape planter in front of the wall. The planter shall be at least three feet deep measured perpendicular to the wall;
(c) Be finished with allowable wall material(s) of the selected architectural style for the primary building; and
(d) Not require landscaping or wall material finish(es) if within the building and not exposed.

G. Landscape Maintenance
(1) Required landscaping shall be maintained in a clean and healthy condition. This includes pruning, weeding, removal of litter, fertilizing, replacement of plants when necessary, and the appropriate watering of all landscaping.
(2) Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all planting areas in compliance with requirements of Title 9, Chapter 22 (Water Efficient Landscaping).
(3) Root barriers are required on all trees planted within 10 feet of paved areas. 10-20.05.040 Parking and Loading

1. Intent. This Section prescribes standards for motor vehicle and bicycle parking areas, loading and access drives, and standards for reducing motor vehicle trips per capita to and from development. These standards are intended to ensure that new development accomplishes the following:

A. Consistency with the intended physical character of walkable environments; B. Provision of bicycle parking to increase bicycle trips and reduce motor vehicle trips per capita; and C. Appropriately limits, screens, and landscapes motor vehicle parking areas to protect and enhance the environmental and visual quality of the community, enhance privacy, attenuate noise, and control dust.

2. On-site parking. On-site parking is allowed in all zones subject to the standards in this Section.

3. Bicycle Parking Standards. Bicycle parking shall be provided in compliance with the standards of the zone.

4. General Vehicular Parking Standards
A. Sharing of On-Site Parking. Sharing of parking between different uses and developments is allowed.

B. Sharing of Non-Residential Parking Required. If on-site parking spaces for non-residential uses are provided, such spaces shall be made available for use by the general public during at least one of the following time periods:
(1) Monday through Friday, 8 AM to 5 PM; or
(2) Monday through Friday, 5 PM to 11 PM and all day on Saturday and Sunday. 36 General to Development Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.05.040
196
C. Larger Vehicle Parking
(1) Trucks, tractors or tractor-trailers having a capacity of more than a 1.5-ton load, front- and rear-end loaders, or any kind of commercial, industrial, agricultural, or transportation vehicles/ equipment used primarily for business purposes, shall not be parked or stored in any zone for purposes other than unloading, loading, or delivery services. (2) Automobiles, small trucks, vans, and vehicle trailers allowed in conjunction with an approved home occupation (one per home occupation), and recreational vehicles are excluded from the provisions of this Subsection.

D. Storage of Unregistered or Inoperable Motor Vehicles. Automotive vehicles, trailers, or vehicles of any kind or type, requiring licenses that are without current license plates or are inoperable shall only be parked within completely enclosed buildings.

E. Cargo or Freight Container. Portable cargo or freight storage containers in any zone for purposes of loading or unloading may be parked or stored on-premise for a period not to exceed 10 days in any one calendar year.

5. Number of Motor Vehicle Parking Spaces Required
A. Required Spaces. Parking shall be provided in compliance with 10-3.502 (Parking Standards). For any use not addressed in 10-3.502 (Parking Standards), parking shall not exceed a ratio equivalent to the average peak parking occupancy rate for the most comparable use in the Institute of Transportation Engineers Parking Generation Manual.

B. Required Number of Parking Spaces
(1) Calculating Required Parking for a Mixed-Use Development. For a building with residential and non-residential uses, shared parking shall be calculated as follows. The sum of the required parking for the two use types as stated in Subsection 7 of the zone shall be divided by the factor listed in Table A (Shared Parking Factor for Two Uses). The required number of parking spaces shall be rounded up to the closest whole number.

Table 10-20.05.040.A: Shared Parking Factor for Two Uses Residential Lodging Office Retail
Residential 1.0 1.1 1.4 1.2
Lodging 1.1 1.0 1.7 1.3
Office 1.4 1.7 1.0 1.2
Retail 1.2 1.3 1.2 1.0

6. Electric Vehicle Charging. Electric vehicle charging facilities shall be provided in compliance with Chapter 9-19 (Green Building Requirements).
37 General to Development Sites
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.05.040
197

7. Traffic-Reducing Parking Standards
A. Carshare Parking Spaces
(1) Carshare parking spaces shall be provided in the amounts specified in Table B (Required Carshare Parking Spaces).

Table 10-20.05.040.B: Required Carshare Parking Spaces
Residential Uses Carshare Parking Spaces Required
0-49 units None
50-100 units 1
101 or more units 2 + 1 per additional 200 units
Office/Research & Development Uses Carshare Parking Spaces Required ≤ 10,000 sf None
> 10,000 sf 1 per 10,000 sf
(2) The required carshare space(s) shall be made available, at no cost, to a carshare service for purposes of providing carshare services to its members. At the election of the property owner, the carshare spaces may be provided:
(a) On the development site; or
(b) On another off-street site within 1,000 feet of the development site. (3) Required carshare space or spaces shall be designed in a manner that will make the spaces accessible to non-resident subscribers from outside the building as well as building residents. (4) Prior to approval of the building or Site Permit for a building subject to the carshare standard, a Notice of Special Restriction on the property shall be recorded indicating the nature of standards of this Subsection and identifying the minimum number and location of the required carshare parking spaces. The form of the notice and the location or locations of the carshare parking spaces shall be approved by the Jurisdiction.
(5) If it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Jurisdiction that no carshare service can make use of the dedicated carshare parking spaces, the spaces may be occupied by non-carshare vehicles; provided, however, that upon 90 days of advance written notice to the property owner from a carshare service, the property owner shall terminate any non-carsharing leases for such spaces and shall make the spaces available to the carshare service for its use of such spaces.

B. Carpool Spaces. If parking is provided at a development, parking spaces reserved for use by carpool/vanpool vehicles shall be designated in preferred locations (including, but are not limited to, closest to building entries). The locations of these spaces shall be approved by the the Town. The minimum number of carpool spaces required is listed in Table C (Required Carpool Parking Spaces).

Table 10-20.05.040.C: Required Carpool Parking Spaces
Office/Research & Development Uses Carpool Parking Spaces Required ≤ 40 parking spaces None
> 40 parking spaces 10% of the total number of spaces
Other Uses Carpool Parking Spaces Required
All Other Uses None
38 General to Development Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.05.040
198

8. Parking Spaces, Design and Layout
A. Access. On-site parking areas shall be accessed per the following:
(1) On-site parking shall be designed with an appropriate means of vehicular access to a street or to an alley to cause the least interference with traffic flow. (2) Ingress to and egress from parking spaces shall be from an on-site aisle or driveway, directly from the front, side street, public alley, or rear lane. (3) On-site loading space(s) shall be in compliance with Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 5 (Parking and Loading).

B. Driveways
(1) Access to Driveways
(a) Driveway access to and from developments of two or fewer dwelling units onto public streets shall be where practical by forward motion of the vehicle; and (b) Driveway access to and from developments of three or more dwelling units onto public streets shall be by forward motion of the vehicle.
(c) Minimum 30 feet separation between driveways for all uses except developments of two or fewer dwelling units.
(2) Number of Driveways. Table D (Number of Driveways) specifies the maximum number of driveways for a development site.
(3) Driveways shall be setback from development site lines as follows:
(a) For front access, minimum two feet from side development site lines; and/or (b) For side street access, no less than the minimum rear parking setback per the zone; and/or (c) Where driveway access is shared by abutting development sites, Subsections (a) and (b) above do not apply; minimum two feet from building(s), and in compliance with Ross Valley Fire Department Standard 210 (Roadway and Driveway Bridges). (4) Driveways shall extend to and include the area between the development site line and the edge of the street pavement.
(5) The design and construction of all on-site parking access drives shall be in compliance with Title 7, Chapter 1 (Driveways).

Table 10-20.05.040.D: Number of Driveways
Lot Frontage (Corner Parcel Applies Same
Requirements as Side Street) Maximum Number of Driveways Up to 150' 1
150' to 299' 2
Each additional 300' over 299' 1
39 General to Development Sites
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.05.040
199
C. Parking Techniques. In compliance with Subsection 7 of the zone, the following techniques may be applied individually or in combination:
(1) Tandem Parking. Parking spaces are arranged in a series up to three spaces. Tandem parking is allowed in all zones for all uses. Tandem parking spaces are allowed for residential uses only when designated for use by occupants of the same dwelling unit. (2) Parking Court. Parking spaces in groupings of covered or uncovered spaces or individual garages not in a podium configuration shared between two development sites. The maximum width of the parking court is 56 feet measured parallel to the adjacent street/right-of-way. The parking court is accessed from the adjacent street/right-of-way and the maximum width of the entrance to the parking court is determined by Subsection 7 of the zone. See Figure 1 (Parking Court(s). (3) Podium Parking. Parking spaces are located in an at-grade garage under the rear and/or interior side of the building or under all of the building except for the required ground floor habitable space. Occupiable space is along the edges of and/or above the garage level. The podium is not visible or exposed along the front and side street building facades. (4) Subterranean Parking. Parking spaces are located below the adjacent finished grade of the building. The subterranean garage is allowed to be up to 5 feet above the adjacent finished grade of the building in compliance with the building form (Subsection 3 of the zone) and frontage standards (Article 7).
(5) Stacked Parking System. Parking spaces are arranged in a system that provides two to three spaces in the horizontal area of one space. This type of system is within a podium parking garage.
(a) Stacked parking spaces are allowed when designated for use by residents, except for parking designated for use by persons with disabilities. (b) Mechanical lifts shall be accompanied by an on-site battery or electrical generator to provide sufficient power to clear the lift of all vehicles or shall be capable of manually clearing the lift without power.
(c) In parking systems that stack individual vehicles, each vehicle accommodated by the stacker counts as an individual parking space.
40 General to Development Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.05.040
200
Figure 10-20.05.040.1: Parking Court(s)
Parking Court
Development Site 1 Development Site 2
Key
Development Site Line
Building Setback Line
Width 56' max.

Parking Court Setback: Small Parking Court
(6 or fewer spaces
Large Parking Court
(& or more spaces)
15' min.

Behind required ground floor habitable space
required in Subsection 4 of the zone
Decorative wall and
landscaping
36" max. height in compliance with Section 10-20.05.030 (Landscaping and Lighting)
D. Identification as to Purpose and Location. On-site parking areas of four or more spaces shall include painted lines, wheel stops, or other methods of identifying individual parking spaces and loading areas, while distinguishing such spaces from aisle and other circulation features. 41 General to Development Sites
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.05.040
201
E. Materials
(1) All on-site parking areas and driveways shall be surfaced only with materials identified in Section 5-8.11 (Limitation of Impervious Surfaces, Flatwork Permits and Post-Construction Requirements) and Ross Valley Fire Department Standard 210 (Roadway and Driveway Bridges). (2) Parking areas shall comply with Section 5-8.11 (Limitation of Impervious Surfaces, Flatwork Permits and Post-Construction Requirements), exclusive of required landscaping in Table E (Required Parking Lot Landscaping).

F. Landscaping. The landscaping standards identified in Table E (Required Parking Lot Landscaping) shall be applied with the standards of Subsection 10-20.05.020 (Screening) and Subsection 10-

20.05.030 (Landscaping and Lighting).
(1) Parking and loading areas shall be screened from adjacent residential zones by a six foot wall, fence, or evergreen.
(2) Screening is not required when parking area(s) is adjacent to an alley. (3) Landscaping areas shall integrate stormwater management features per Title 5 Chapter 8 (Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention).
(4) For portions of parking areas covered by photo-voltaic solar collectors that also function as shade structures, the minimum standard for trees does not apply.

G. Location
(1) Location of on-site parking is regulated by the required setbacks in Subsection 7 of the zone and the following:
(a) Parking lots with 11-20 spaces shall be separated at least by five feet from buildings to make room for a sidewalk, landscaping, and/or other planting between the building and the parking area;
(b) Parking lots with more than 20 spaces shall be separated by at least 12 feet from buildings to make room for a sidewalk, landscaping, and other planting between the building and the parking area; and
(c) The required separation may be eliminated to the rear of buildings in areas designed for unloading and loading of materials.
42 General to Development Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.05.040
202
Table 10-20.05.040.E: Required Parking Lot Landscaping
Number of Parking Spaces Percent of Gross Parking Area Required to be Landscaped 10 or fewer None
11 to 20 5' min. wide planter along property line
21 to 50 5%; 5' min. wide planter between every 5 spaces, property line, and building(s)
51 and over 10%; 5' min. wide planter between every 5 spaces, property line, and building(s)
General Landscaping
Perimeter Planter 5' min. landscape buffer along property line(s) for the length of the parking area
Required Border 6" high curb or equivalent
Border and Stormwater Curb or equivalent shall include breaks every 4" to provide drainage to retention and filtration areas.

Car Overhangs Shall be prevented by stops
Required Quantity 1 tree per every 10 parking spaces, beginning at 11 total spaces Tree Well Size1 5' min. in any direction
Tree Can Size 15 gallon min.

Tree Box Size 20% of required trees shall be 24" min.

Tree Caliper 1" min.

Tree Height at Installation 7' min. vertical clearance
Tree Location Evenly spaced throughout parking lot to provide uniform shade 1 Any vehicle overhang requires the minimum planter area width to be expanded by an equivalent dimension.

H. Size of Parking Lot. Parking lots larger than 10,000 square feet in size shall be broken down into smaller parking areas with planted landscape areas with a minimum width of 15 feet between them to minimize the perceived scale of the total field of stalls. 43 General to Development Sites
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.05.040
203
10-20.05.050 Slope Standards

1. Intent. This Section provides the standards for development in all zones on development sites with sloped topography. For the purposes of this Section, sloped topography is any slope of six percent or more.

A. If there is a conflict between any provisions in this Section or the standards in Title 10, Chapter 3 (Zoning), the more restrictive provision shall apply.

B. Table A (Amount of Sloped Areas Allowed to be Developed) identifies the amount of developable area for sloped portions of development sites. This, in combination with the standards in this Section and the maximum allowed building footprint shall be applied to the design of the sloped portions of development sites.

C. Developments subject to Article 10 (Specific to Large Sites) requiring new streets shall be in compliance with maximum grade standards in Ross Valley Fire Department Standard 210 (Roadway and Driveway Bridges).

Table 10-20.05.050.A: Amount of Sloped Areas Allowed to be Developed Portions of
Development
Site with
Existing Slope
Development Site 1, 2
Up to 3 acres >3 acres
0–5.99% 100% max. 100% max.
6–9.99% 100% max. 70% max.
10–14.99% 100% max. 25% max.
15–19.99% 100% max. 5% max.
20–29.99% 50% max. 0% max.
> 30% 0% max. 0% max.
1 In compliance with the setbacks of the zone, required on-site open space, this Section, and the maximum building footprint standards in Article 6 (Specific to Building Types). 2 In compliance with required amount of civic space identified in Subsection 10-20.10.040.5.

2. Building Height
A. Maximum Building Height. Building height is regulated by Subsection 4 of the zone. The maximum allowed height of a building shall follow the existing topography of the development site to ensure that each building is in compliance with the allowed building height. (1) Figure 1 (Site Grading for Small-to-Medium Detached and Attached Building Forms) and Figure 2 (Site Grading for Large or Attached Building Forms) in this Section illustrate allowed and nonallowed site grading methods.

B. Exposed Basements. Basements do not count toward the maximum stories allowed in the zone if exposed less than half of the basement's story height below the average adjacent finished grade. 44 General to Development Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.05.050
204

3. Topography and Required Location of Primary Building. Sloped topography can present issues with locating the primary building on a development site in compliance with Subsection 5 of the zone.

Table 10-20.11.030.A (Adjustments to Standards for Development Sites Less than 6% Slope) and Table 10-20.11.030.B (Adjustments to Standards for Development Sites Over 6% Slope) identify allowed administrative variations for issues arising from sloped topography, subject to the required findings.

4. Topography and Required Location of Parking. Sloped topography can present issues with locating parking on a development site in compliance with Subsection 7 of the zone. Table 10-20.11.030.A (Adjustments to Standards for Development Sites Less than 6% Slope) and Table 10-20.11.030.B (Adjustments to Standards for Development Sites Over 6% Slope) identify allowed administrative variations for issues arising from sloped topography, subject to the required findings.

5. Grading or Regrading of Development Sites. When existing development site topography is proposed to be changed, grading shall not result in any of the following:

A. Creation of retaining walls or blank walls taller than four feet within required front or side street facade zones;
B. Retaining walls on side development site lines taller than three feet; C. Retaining walls on rear development site lines not within the building footprint, taller than 10 feet; D. Building(s) that do not reflect the existing topography of the development site; E. Terraced development sites that result in a vertical difference of more than 4 feet between the adjacent right-of-way and the finished grade of the development site; F. Grading beyond the building pad(s) and the required access drive(s); G. Cut exceeding 16 feet in height from top to toe; or
H. Cut slope exceeding two horizontal to one vertical.

6. Graded Slopes
A. Graded slopes shall be screened from view under or behind buildings with landscaping or natural topographic features.

7. Drainage Facilities. All proposed drainage facilities shall preserve major drainage channels in their natural state and be designed in such a manner as to minimize soil erosion and to otherwise preserve the public health, safety, and welfare, in compliance with Title 7, Chapter 12 (Watercourses). 45 General to Development Sites
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.05.050
205
Figure 10-20.05.050.1: Site Grading for Small-to-Medium Detached and Attached Building Forms Allowed Site Grading. The following examples apply to the House, Duplex, Cottage Court, Fourplex, Neighborhood Townhouse, Multiplex, Pocket Neighborhood and Neighborhood Courtyard Building Types.

Allowed. Grading that results in each new modified
building stepping and reflecting the topography of the
parcel or development sites, and that connects each
building with the adjacent street and public realm.

Medium Slope
Small Footprint
Axonometric Detail
Elevation
Detail
Elevation Key
Distance between building entries on slopes
greater than 6% shall not exceed 50'.

Building footprint width steps with slope.

Finished grade of terraced development site is less
than 4 feet from the adjacent street/right-of-way.

Not Allowed. Grading that results in each new or
modified building not following and reflecting the
topography of the parcel or development sites, and
disconnects each building from the adjacent street and
public realm.
v
Distance between building entries on slopes
greater than 6% exceeds 50'.
``
Building footprint width does not step with slope.

Finished grade of terraced development site is
more than 4 feet from the adjacent street/right-ofway. 46 General to Development Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.05.050
206
Figure 10-20.05.050.2: Site Grading for Large or Attached Building Forms Allowed Site Grading. The following examples apply to the Multiplex and Main Street Building Types.

Allowed. Grading that results in each new or modified
building fronting on the adjacent street(s), and that
connects the building facades to the adjacent street and public realm, and avoids large blank retaining walls.

Key
Slope is used to express the ground floor.

Building footprint steps with slope
through a partial ground story.

Not Allowed. Grading that disconnects new and
modified building facades from the adjacent public
realm, and that results in large blank retaining walls.

Key
Height does not create building with frontage
and entries along adjacent streets; terraced
development site is more than 4 feet from adjacent
sidewalk/street/right-of-way.

Building footprint does not step with slope.
47 General to Development Sites
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.05.050
207

8. Massing. Buildings on sloped development sites shall reflect the existing topography of the development site.

A. Buildings with footprints 36 feet wide or less shall have a simple water table element or change in material between the basement and the ground floor.

B. Buildings with footprints wider than 36 feet and 2.5 stories or taller shall have a minimum of one story tall defined base. The base shall be defined through the use one of the following methods:
(1) Change in material;
(2) A continuous horizontal band between the base and upper floors; and/or. (3) Use of a continuous shopfront frontage.

C. All design shall be in compliance with the selected style for the building(s) in Article 8 (Specific to Architectural Design).

9. Frontage. Along front and side street facades, the primary building on each development site shall be designed in compliance with the standards for ground floor private frontage as required by Subsection 8 of the zone.

10. Administrative Relief. Section 10-20.11.030 (Adjustments to Standards) provides for administrative variations from the standards in this Section due to topographic constraints. 48 General to Development Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.05.050
208
10-20.05.060 Public Frontage Standards

1. Intent. Public frontage types provide a coordinated approach to design standards for the area between each development site's private frontage(s) and the adjoining right-of-way or private driveway easement.

Public frontage types consist of planters, walkways, curbs, planters, and planting as illustrated in Table C (Public Frontage Assemblies).

2. Required Improvements. The public frontage along the development site(s) shall be improved per Table A (Required Improvements) and the development scenario that applies to the project.

Table 10-20.05.060.A: Required Improvements
Development Scenario
Required Improvements
Infill Development
Site
on Existing Block
Two or More
Development Sites
on Existing Block
More Than Half of
Existing Block New Block(s)
Development
consists of one
development site.

Development
consists of two or
more development
sites
that are less than
half of the block face.

Development
consists of two or
more development
sites that are more
than half of the block
face.

Development
creates one or more
new blocks.
a. Sidewalk. Add missing
segment(s) along abutting front
and/or side street.

R R R R
b. Sidewalk. Repair uneven
segments along abutting front
and/or side street.

R R R N/A
c. Street trees. Add street trees
along abutting front and/
or side street where there is
adequate room to also maintain
sufficient width for traffic lanes,
pedestrian sidewalks, and
bicycle facilities. See Subsection

04.030.4.A.(2).

R R R R
d. Crosswalk improvements.

Add crosswalk.

X X X Including
adjacent and new
intersection(s).
e. Bicycle facilities. Add bicycle
facilities required in Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan.

X X R Including bike lanes.

Key R = Required X = Not Required
49 General to Development Sites
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.05.060
209

3. Design Standards for Public Frontages. Public frontages shall be designed and maintained in compliance with the following standards:

A. The required elements are identified in and shall be configured according to Table C (Public Frontage Assemblies) and in compliance with Title 7, Chapter 10 (Street Improvements Conditions to Building Permits).

B. Planting and landscape selection shall be in compliance with Title 9, Chapter 22 (Water Efficient Landscaping).

4. Pedestrian Crossings
A. Curb Ramps. Perpendicular corner curb ramps with a separate ramp installed in each direction are required.

B. Crosswalks. Crosswalks shall be designed per the Town's applicable standards and applicable State guidelines and standards.
(1) Standard Crosswalk. Crosswalk Width

5. Allowed Public Frontage Types
A. Street. The Street Frontage includes raised curbs drained by inlets with sidewalks separated from vehicular lanes by individual or continuous planters. Landscaping consists of street trees of a single or alternating species aligned and spaced at 35' intervals on average.

B. Avenue/Boulevard. The Avenue/Boulevard Frontage includes raised curbs drained by inlets with wide sidewalks separated from the vehicular lanes by a continuous planter, and parking on both sides. Landscaping consists of single or double rows of a single or alternating tree species aligned and spaced at 35' intervals on average.

C. Main Street. The Main Street Frontage includes raised curbs drained by inlets with very wide sidewalks along both sides separated from the vehicular lanes by individual tree wells with grates.

Landscaping consists of a single tree species aligned and spaced at 35' intervals on average.

Key P = Allowed X = Not Allowed
Table 10-20.05.060.B: Public Frontage Types Overview
Table B (Public Frontage Types Overview) provides an overview of the allowed public frontage types in or abutting each zone.

Public Frontage Types Specific Standards N.S N.M MS.S
Street 10-20.05.060.C.1 P P X
Avenue/Boulevard 10-20.05.060.C.2 X P P
Main Street 10-20.05.060.C.3 X X P
50 General to Development Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.05.060
210
Table 10-20.05.060.C: Public Frontage Assemblies
Table C (Public Frontage Assemblies) identifies the required elements and dimensions of each public frontage type.

Street
10-20.05.060.C.1
Avenue/Boulevard
10-20.05.060.C.2
Main Street
10-20.05.060.C.3
Assembly. The type
and dimension of curbs,
walkways, and planters.

PUBLIC FRONTAGE: STREET PUBLIC FRONTAGE: AVENUE/BOULEVARD PUBLIC FRONTAGE: MAIN STREET PUBLIC FRONTAGE: STREET PUBLIC FRONTAGE: AVENUE/BOULEVARD PUBLIC FRONTAGE: MAIN STREET Total Width 11' min. 13' min. 16' min.

Note: See below for required elements of each assembly
a. Curb. The detailing
of the edge of the
vehicular pavement,
incorporating drainage.
i. Type Raised Curb Raised Curb Raised Curb
b. Walkway. The
pavement dedicated
exclusively to
pedestrian activity.
i. Type Walkway Walkway Walkway
ii. Width 6' min. 8' min. 12' min.

Note: Placement of curb ramps shall match the desired path of pedestrian travel. See Marin County Standard Plans for curb ramp design. c. Planter. The area
that accommodates
street trees and other
landscaping.

Arrangement Regular Regular Regular
Types Planting Strips along curb edge
and R.O.W. edge
Planting Strips along curb Tree Wells (must be located
between walkway and curb)
Width 5' min. 5' min. 4' min.
51 General to Development Sites
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.05.060
211
10-20.05.070 Privacy Standards

1. Intent. These standards are designed to provide privacy between primary living spaces of buildings on each side of a development site line in neighborhood zones (N.S or N.M). Windows and balconies along the side of a building within 20 feet of an interior side development site line in N.S or N.M zones are subject to these standards.

2. Standards
A. Primary living spaces adjoining an interior side setback shall either:
(1) Orient principal/main windows/glazed openings toward the front and rear of the building, away from interior side development site lines; or
(2) Set the window/glazing openings:
(a) Perpendicular to interior side development site lines; or (b) More than six feet from interior side development site lines B. Windows and balconies openings within 6 feet of an interior side development site line shall either:
(1) Have a minimum sill height of 44 inches; or
(2) Place the window at an angle of at least 30 degrees, measured perpendicular to the adjacent side development site line.

Figure 10-20.05.070.1: Sill Height Standards along Interior Development Site Line Privacy Standards Diagram
Development Site Line
Development Site Line
Sideyard Setback Line
Privacy Standards Diagram
Area Within 6' of Development
Site Line
Principal Window
44" min. Sill Height
No Limitation on Sill Heights (Window at 30° angle)
52 General to Development Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.05.070
212
10-20.05.080 Service and Utility Standards

1. Mailboxes
A. Maximum 5 feet tall from finished grade.

B. Minimum setback of 3 feet from property line.

C. Mailbox(es) shall incorporate colors used on the nearest primary building(s) they serve.

2. Trash Enclosures
A. Trash enclosures shall be integrated into the building or located a minimum of 50 feet from a public right of way or adjacent offsite parcel and designed to match the primary building’s roof style, exterior finish materials and colors.

B. Trash enclosures shall be designed to achieve the minimum size required to fit the number and size of trash bins and containers needed to accommodate the waste generated by the building user.

C. Proposed bins and containers shall be indicated on the plans to demonstrate compliance with this requirement
D. Trash enclosures shall include a gate opening and doorway in addition to any gate opening. Gate openings shall be at least 9 feet wide.

3. Utilities Cabinets, Meters, and Backflow Preventers
A. Utility cabinets and meters shall be contained within the building or fully screened from view by a solid wall of equal height of the utility cabinet or meter.

B. Backflow preventers and fire department connections (FDC) within 50 feet of a public right of way shall be screened from the public right of way by landscaping of equal height and width as the backflow preventer and/or fire department connection (FDC).

4. Service Areas
A. Service areas (for loading and unloading) shall be integrated into the building or screened from public view by a six-foot high solid masonry wall. Service bay doors shall not be oriented toward the public right of way.

5. Trash Receptacles/Cans.

A. Mixed-use projects with a commercial component other than office shall provide at least one trash receptacle/can per public frontage. The trash receptacle/can shall be placed within 10 feet of a pedestrian walkway connection to the public right of way (i.e. sidewalk).

6. Pedestrian Pathways.

A. Pedestrian pathways shall be comprised of durable, all-weather, dustless paving material that is differentiated in regard to material, texture (i.e. stamped patterns, and/or colors) from the private street and public sidewalk.

7. Truncated Domes.

A. Truncated domes shall be imbedded (flush) with the pavement and not tacked onto the surface of the ground.
53 General to Development Sites
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.05.080
213
54 General to Development Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 This page intentionally left blank
214
10-20.06.010 Purpose
This Article provides the standards for development of individual building types to achieve the intended physical character of each zone, offer housing choices and affordable housing opportunities, and incubate small businesses as amenities within walkable neighborhoods. 10-20.06.020 Building Types

1. Building types are used to articulate size, scale, and intensity according to the intent of each zone.

2. Building types are categorized into two groups: House-Scale Buildings and Block-Scale Buildings. See Figure 1 (Example of House-Scale and Block-Scale Buildings) for examples.

A. House-Scale Buildings. Buildings that are the size of a house, typically ranging in footprint from as small as 25 feet up to 80 feet overall; and
B. Block-Scale Buildings. Buildings that are individually as large as most or all of a block or, when arranged together along a street, appear as long as most or all of a block.

3. The development site size standards for each building type are set in each zone to generate pedestrianoriented buildings within the overall intended physical character of each zone. The development site size standard identifies the range of development site sizes on which the given building type is allowed to be built.

4. Certain building types have additional standards beyond the zone standards to further calibrate the type for its context.

Article 6: Specific to Building Types
Sections:
10-20.06.010 Purpose
10-20.06.020 Building Types
10-20.06.030 Overview of Building Types
10-20.06.040 Ancillary Building
10-20.06.050 House
10-20.06.060 Duplex Stacked
10-20.06.070 Cottage Court
10-20.06.080 Fourplex
10-20.06.090 Neighborhood Townhouse
10-20.06.100 Neighborhood Courtyard
10-20.06.110 Pocket Neighborhood
10-20.06.120 Multiplex
10-20.06.130 Main Street Building
10-20.06.140 Massing Compositions
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 55 215

5. Each development site shall have only one primary building type, except as follows, and in compliance with all standards:

A. Where allowed by the zone, one Ancillary Building (Section 10-20.06.040) is allowed in addition to the primary building type;
B. The Cottage Court (Section 10-20.06.070) may consist of up to nine individual buildings; C. The Pocket Neighborhood (Section 10-20.06.110) may consist of up to 10 individual buildings; and

6. In N.S-O and MS.S, detached buildings are allowed to be connected in compliance with the following:

A. The connection is at least 30 feet behind the building façade nearest to the street; B. The area of connection is at least 15 feet and up to 30 feet wide; C. The building façade nearest to the street is in compliance with the required façade zone; D. Upper story connections are at least 10 feet above the finished grade of the building and at least 13 feet, 6 inches above if the area below accommodates vehicle access.

7. On-site open space. The standards identify only the required type (private or common) and amount. For example, if the type only has standards for private open space, common open space is not required for that building type. The identified amount is for the entire building unless specified otherwise.

8. Parking may be designed as tuck-under, detached garage(s), podium or subterranean, in compliance with the zone standards for parking placement.

9. Wings are allowed for certain building types to allow an increase in building square footage without increasing the maximum allowed footprint of the main body.

A. Wings are required to be smaller in footprint, one story less and 10 feet less to highest eave/parapet than the main body to visually reduce the overall size of a building.

B. The building type standards specify the amount that wings are required to be offset from the main body so that their facades are not aligned.

C. Wing offset from Main Body required only on all facades.

D. Wings may be the same number of stories and height as the main body when a density bonus is applied to the building.

10. The maximum number of units identified for each building type is dependent on the development site being large enough to accommodate the zone's standards (e.g., parking).

11. Individual designs may vary from the diagrams for each building type in compliance with the standards of this Article and Article 8 (Specific to Architectural Design).

12. New buildings and their improvements are subject to the Town's local standards for Fire Safety and Building Safety.
56 Specific to Building Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.06.020
216
Figure 10-20.06.020.1 Example of House-Scale and Block-Scale Buildings House-Scale Buildings
Main body only Main body only
Main body with side and rear wings Main body with rear wing Block-Scale Buildings
57 Specific to Building Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.06.020
217
10-20.06.030 Overview of Building Types
Table A ( Building Types Overview) provides an overview of the allowed building types in each zone. The names of the building types are not intended to limit uses within a building type. For example, a Duplex may have non-residential uses within it as allowed by the zone.

Table 10-20.06.030.A: Building Types Overview
Specific
Standards N.S N.M MS.S
House Scale
Ancillary Building 10-20.06.040 P P P
House 10-20.06.050 P X X
Duplex Stacked 10-20.06.060 P X X
Cottage Court 10-20.06.070 P X X
Fourplex 10-20.06.080 P X X
Neighborhood Townhouse 10-20.06.090 P P P
Neighborhood Courtyard 10-20.06.100 P P P
Pocket Neighborhood 10-20.06.110 P X X
Multiplex 10-20.06.120 P P P
Block Scale
Main Street Building 10-20.06.130 X P P
Key P = Allowed X = Not Allowed
58 Specific to Building Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.06.030
218
59 Specific to Building Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards This page intentionally left blank
219
10-20.06.040 Ancillary Building
Example of Ancillary Building
Example of Ancillary Building
Example of Ancillary Building

1. Description
An accessory structure located at the rear of a development site, above or abutting a detached garage that provides a small residential unit (accessory apartment), home office space, or other small commercial or service use, as allowed by the zone. When used for residential purposes, this
housing type is one form of an Accessory Dwelling Unit
(ADU).

Synonym: Granny Flat, Carriage House

2. Number of Units
Units per Building 1 max.

Ancillary Buildings per Dev't Site 1 max.

Not allowed on the development site of a Cottage Court
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. 60 Specific to Building Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 220
DINGBUILDING TYPE: CARRIAGE TYPE: CARRIAGE HOUSE HOUSE 4. Pedestrian Access The main entrance shall not be through a garage.

5. Vehicle Access and Parking
Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Subsection 7 of the zone.

Parking may be covered, uncovered, or in a garage.

6. Open Space
Private Open Space
Not required

3. Building Size and Massing
Height
Stories 2.5 max.1
Main Body2
Area 1,000 sf max.

Depth 24' max.

Separation from Primary
Building3
10' min.

Massing Types
Front Gable Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.A
1 Includes garage story
2 In compliance with the setbacks of the zone
3 An Ancillary Building may be connected to the primary building by an uninhabitable space including, but not
limited to, a breezeway.

Alley access required if alley exists Alley access required if alley exists Front Street Front Street Side Street
Side Street
ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Frontage
Key
ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Ancillary Building
Primary Building Type
Key
61 Specific to Building Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.06.040: Ancillary Building
221
10-20.06.050 House
Example of House
Example of House
Example of House

1. Description
A small-to-medium-sized, detached, House-Scale Building with one unit, small-to-medium setbacks, a rear setback, and located within a low-intensity, walkable neighborhood.

2. Number of Units
Units per Building 1 max.

Buildings per Development Site 1 max.1
1 Not including ADU
General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. 62 Specific to Building Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 222
BBUUIILLDDIINNGG TTYYPPEE:: HHOOUUSSEE

4. Pedestrian Access
Main Entrance Location Front Street

5. Vehicle Access and Parking
Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Subsection 7 of the zone.

Parking may be covered, uncovered, or in a garage.

6. Open Space
Private Open Space
Area 300 sf min.

Required setbacks and driveways do not count toward open space.

Required private open space shall be located behind the main body of the building.

3. Building Size and Massing
Height
Stories 2.5 max.

Main Body2
Width 36' max.

Depth 48' max.

Wing(s) 2,3
Width 20' max.

Depth 20' max.

Separation between Wings
on Same Facade
15' min.

Offset from Main Body 5' min.

Massing Types
Front Gable Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.A
Side Gable Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.B
Gable L Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.C
Facades shall be designed in compliance with Article 8
(Specific to Architectural Design).
2 In compliance with Subsection 5 of the zone
3 Height is limited to 1 story less than main body and 10' less to highest eave/parapet.

Front Street Front Street Side Street
Side Street
Alley access required if alley exists Alley access required if alley exists ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Building
Key
ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Frontage
Private Open Space
Key
BUILDING TYPE: HOUSE, SMALL
63 Specific to Building Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.06.050: House
223
10-20.06.060 Duplex Stacked
Example of Duplex Stacked
Example of Duplex Stacked
Example of Duplex Stacked

1. Description
A small-to-medium-sized, detached, House-Scale Building with small-to-medium setbacks and a rear setback. The
building consists of two stacked units, both facing the street and within a single building massing. The type has the
appearance of a medium-to-large, single-unit house and is scaled to fit within lower-intensity neighborhoods.

2. Number of Units
Units per Building 2 max.

Buildings per Development Site 1 max.

General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. 64 Specific to Building Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 224
BUILDBUILDING ING TYPE TYPE: : DUPL DUPLEX EX, STAC, STACKED KED

4. Pedestrian Access
Main Entrance Location Front Street3
Each unit shall have an entry facing the street on or within 15' of the front facade.
3 On corner development sites, each unit shall front a
different street.

5. Vehicle Access and Parking
Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Subsection 7 of the zone.

Parking may be covered, uncovered, or in a garage.

6. Open Space
Private Open Space
Width 15' min.

Depth 15' min.

Required setbacks and driveways do not count toward open space.

Required private open space shall be located behind the main body of the building.

3. Building Size and Massing
Height
Stories 2.5 max.

Main Body1
Width 36' max.

Depth 48' max.

Wing(s)1,2
Width 15' max.

Depth 24' max.

Separation between Wings on
Same Facade
15' min.

Offset from Main Body 5' min.

Massing Types
Front Gable Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.A
Side Gable Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.B
Gable L Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.C
Facades shall be designed in compliance with Article 8
(Specific to Architectural Design).
1 In compliance with Subsection 5 of the zone
2 Height is limited to 1 story less than main body and 10' less to highest eave/parapet.

Front Street Front Street
Side Street
Alley access required if alley exists Alley access required if alley exists Side Street ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Building
Key
ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Frontage
Private Open Space
Key
BUILDING TYPE: HOUSE, SMALL
65 Specific to Building Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.06.060: Duplex Stacked
225
10-20.06.070 Cottage Court
Example of Cottage Court
Example of Cottage Court
Example of Cottage Court

1. Description
A group of up to nine small, detached, House-Scale Buildings arranged to define a shared court open to and visible from the street. The shared court is common open space and
takes the place of a private rear setback, thus becoming an important community-enhancing element. The type is scaled to fit within low-to-moderate-intensity neighborhoods and in non-residential contexts.

Synonym: Bungalow Court

2. Number of Units
Units per Building 1 max.

Buildings per Development Site 3 min.; 9 max.1
1 In the N.S zone, the rearmost Cottage may contain up to 2 units, for a total of 10 units.

3. Building Size and Massing
Stories 1.5 max.

To Highest Eave/parapet 18' max.

General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. 66 Specific to Building Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 226
BBUUILIDLDININGGTTYYPPEE: C: COOTTATAGGEECCOOUURRTT_l_alragrege

5. Vehicle Access and Parking
Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Subsection 7 of the zone.

Parking may be covered, uncovered, or in a garage.

Spaces may be individually accessible by the units and/or common parking area(s) at rear or side of development
site.

6. Open Space
Common Open Space
Width 20' min. clear
Depth 75' min. (3-4 units)
90' min. ( 5-9 units)
Required setbacks and driveways do not count as open space.

Up to 1/3 of the shared court(s) may be used for stormwater management if designed as a rain garden or bioswale.

7. Miscellaneous
Fencing
Fencing only allowed around or between individual buildings and shall not exceed 36" in height.

Visibility shall be maintained through the fencing.

3. Building Size and Massing (Continued)
Main Body (per Cottage) 2
Width 32' max.

Depth 32' max.

Separation between Cottages 7' min.

Wing(s)
Not Allowed
Massing Types (per Cottage)
Front Gable Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.A
Side Gable Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.B
Gable L Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.C

4. Pedestrian Access
Shared court shall be accessible from front street.

Pedestrian Path Setbacks
From Building Entrance 6' min.

Pedestrian connections shall connect all buildings to
the public ROW, shared court, and parking areas.

Main entrance to units required from shared court.

Facades shall be designed in compliance with Article 8
(Specific to Architectural Design).

Units on a corner may enter from the side street.
2 In compliance with Subsection 5 of the zone
Front Street Front Street
Alley access required if alley exists Alley access required if alley exists ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Building
Key
ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Frontage
Common Open Space
Key
BUILDING TYPE: HOUSE, SMALL
67 Specific to Building Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.06.070: Cottage Court
227
10-20.06.080 Fourplex
Example of Fourplex
Example of Fourplex
Example of Fourplex

1. Description
A small-to-medium-sized, detached, House-Scale Building that consists of three to four side-by-side and/or stacked units, typically with one shared entry or individual entries along the front. The type has the appearance of a mediumsized, single-unit house and is scaled to fit within low- to moderate-intensity neighborhoods.

2. Number of Units
Units per Building 3 min.; 4 max.

Buildings per Development Site 1 max.

General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. 68 Specific to Building Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 228
BUILDING BUILDING TYPE: TYPE: MULTIPLEX MULTIPLEX SMALL SMALL

4. Pedestrian Access
Main Entrance Location Front Street
Each unit may have an individual entry.

5. Vehicle Access and Parking
Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Subsection 7 of the zone.

Parking may be covered, uncovered, or in a garage.

6. Open Space
Common Open Space3
Width 15' min.

Depth 15' min.

Required setbacks and driveways do not count toward open space.

Required common open space shall be located behind the
main body of the building.
3 None is required if the building is within 800' of public open space

3. Building Size and Massing
Height
Stories 2.5 max.

Main Body1
Width 48' max.

Depth 48' max.

Wing(s)1,2
Width 15' max.

Depth 20' max.

Separation between Wings on
Same Facade
15' min.

Offset from Main Body 5' min.

Massing Types
Front Gable Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.A
Side Gable Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.B
Gable L Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.C
Twin Gable Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.D
Flat Roof Box Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.G
Flat Roof L Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.H
Facades shall be designed in compliance with Article 8
(Specific to Architectural Design).

3. Building Size and Massing (Continued)
1 In compliance with Subsection 5 of the zone
2 Height is limited to 1 story less than main body and 10' less to highest eave/parapet.

Front Street Front Street Side Street
Side Street
Alley access required if alley exists Alley access required if alley exists ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Frontage
Common Open Space
Key
BUILDING TYPE: HOUSE, SMALL
ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Building
Key
69 Specific to Building Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.06.080: Fourplex
229
10-20.06.090 Neighborhood Townhouse
Example of Neighborhood Townhouse
Example of Neighborhood Townhouse
Example of Neighborhood Townhouse

1. Description
A small-sized, typically attached, House-Scale Building (up to four units side-by-side) with a rear setback. Each Neighborhood Townhouse consists of one unit. As allowed by the zone, the type may also be detached with minimal separations between buildings. The type is typically located within low-to-moderate-intensity neighborhoods.

Synonym: Rowhouse

2. Number of Units
Units per Building 1 max. (up to 4 side-by-side)
Buildings per Dev't Site 1 max.

General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. 70 Specific to Building Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 230

BUILDINBGUI
TLYDPINEG: TTOYWPNE:HTOOUWSNE-HNOeUigShEb-oNrheoigohdborhood

4. Pedestrian Access
Main Entrance Location Front Street
Each unit shall have an individual entry facing a street.

5. Vehicle Access and Parking
Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Subsection 7 of the zone.

Parking may be covered, uncovered, or in a garage.

6. Open Space
Private Open Space
Width 8' min.

Depth 8' min.

Required setbacks and driveways do not count toward open space.

Required private open space shall be located behind the main body of the building.

3. Building Size and Massing
Height N.S
MS.S
N.M
Stories 2.5 max.1 3 max.

Main Body (per Townhouse)2
Width per Unit 18' min.

Depth per Unit 40' max.

Width per Building 120' max.

Wing(s)2,3
Width 14' max.

Depth 25' max.

Separation between Wings on
Same Facade
15' min.

Offset from Main Body 5' min.

Massing Types (per Run)
Side Gable Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.B
Twin Gable Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.D
Facades shall be designed in compliance with Article 8
(Specific to Architectural Design).
1 2 stories max. in Historic Core
2 In compliance with Subsection 5 of the zone

3. Building Size and Massing (Continued)
3 Height is limited to 1 story less than main body and 10' less to highest eave/parapet.

Front Street
Alley access required if alley exists
Front Street
Alley access required if alley exists
ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Building
Key
ROW/Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Frontage
Private Open Space
Key
BUILDING TYPE: HOUSE, SMALL
71 Specific to Building Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.06.090: Neighborhood Townhouse
231
10-20.06.100 Neighborhood Courtyard
Example of Neighborhood Courtyard
Example of Neighborhood Courtyard
Example of Neighborhood Courtyard

1. Description
A detached, House-Scale Building that consists of up to 16 multiple attached and/or stacked units, accessed from a shared courtyard. The shared court is common open
space and takes the place of a rear setback. The type is typically integrated as a small portion of lower-intensity neighborhoods or more consistently into moderate-intensity neighborhoods.

Synonym: Courtyard Apartment

2. Number of Units
N.S MS.S
Units per Building 12 max. 16 max.

Buildings per Dev't Site 1 max.

General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. 72 Specific to Building Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 232
BUILDING TYPE: BUILD COURTYARD ING TYPE: CO APARTMENT URTYARD A,P Neighborhood ARTMENT, Neighborhood

4. Pedestrian Access
Main Entrance Location3 Courtyard or Street
3 The main entry of ground floor units shall be directly off of a courtyard or street, whichever is closer.

5. Vehicle Access and Parking
Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Subsection 7 of the zone.

Parking may be covered, uncovered, or in a garage.

6. Open Space
Common Open Space L-shaped U-shaped
Width 20' min. 25' min.

Depth 30' min. 60' min.

Courtyard(s) shall be accessible from the front street.

Multiple courtyards are required to be connected via a
Passage through or between buildings.

Building shall define at least three walls of the courtyard.

Up to 1/3 of the shared court(s) may be used for stormwater management if designed as a rain garden or bioswale.

Front of courtyard not defined by building shall be defined by 2'-6" to 5' tall wall with entry gate/door.

3. Building Size and Massing
Height N.S
MS.S
N.M
Stories 2.5 max.1 3 max.

Main Body2
Width 100' max.

Depth 100' max. 120' max
45' max.

Massing Types
Gabled L Courtyard (L shaped) Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.E Gabled Front
Courtyard
(U-shaped) Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.F
Building shall be designed in an L-shape or U-shape
Facades shall be designed in compliance with Article 8
(Specific to Architectural Design).
1 2 stories max. in Historic Core
2 In compliance with Subsection 5 of the zone
Front Street Front Street Side Street
Side Street
Alley access required if alley exists Alley access required if alley exists ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Building
Key
ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Frontage
Common Open Space
Key
BUILDING TYPE: HOUSE, SMALL
73 Specific to Building Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.06.100: Neighborhood Courtyard
233
74 Specific to Building Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 This page intentionally left blank
234
10-20.06.110 Pocket Neighborhood
Example of Pocket Neighborhood
Example of Pocket Neighborhood
Example of Pocket Neighborhood General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory.

Source: Starr Hill Vision Plan
Source: Ross Chapin
Source: Ross Chapin

1. Description
A group of 5 to 10 detached, House-Scale Buildings each containing one to four units, arranged to define a shared open space. The shared open space is common open
space and takes the place of a private rear setback, trees become an important community-enhancing element.

The type is scaled to fit within low-to-moderate intensity neighborhoods.

2. Number of Units
Units per Building 4 max.

Buildings per Development Site 5 min.; 10 max.

Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 75 235
BUILDING TYPE: POCKET NEIGHBORHOOD

3. Building Size and Massing
Main Body (per Building)1
Stories 2.5 max.

Buildings along Front and Side
Street
Width 60' max.

Depth 40' max.

Buildings along Side and Rear
Width 36' max.

Depth 48' max.

Side Setback in Addition to Zone
Setback
5' min.

Building Separation2
Between 1-story Buildings 10' min.

Between Buildings > 1-story 15' min.

Community Building1,3
Stories 2.5 max.

Width 40' max.

Depth 30' max.

Wing(s)
Not Allowed

3. Building Size and Massing (Continued)
Massing Composition Types (per Building)
Front Gable 1-4 Units per
Building
Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.A
Side Gable 1-4 Units per
Building
Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.B
Gable L 1-4 Units per
Building
Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.C
Twin Gable 2-4 Units per
Building
Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.D
Facades shall be designed in compliance with Article 8
(Specific to Architectural Design).

No single-unit buildings allowed along the front or side street
1 In compliance with Subsection 5 of the zone
2 Including community building
3 Shall front on common open space and is not allowed along front or side street
Front Street
ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Building
Community Building
Key BUILDING TYPE: POCKET NEIGHBORHOOD
76 Specific to Building Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.06.110: Pocket Neighborhood
236
GHBORHOOD Front Street

4. Pedestrian Access
Main Entrance Location
Buildings with 1 Unit4 At Common Open Space
Buildings with 2 or more Units At Front or Side Street
Pedestrian Path Width
Along Buildings and Open Space 5' min.

At Front or Side Street Connection 10' min.

Pedestrian Path Setbacks
From Building Entrance 12' min.

From Side of Building 8' min.
4Max. 40' from edge of common open space

5. Vehicle Access and Parking
Offset from Buildings 5' min.

Driveway and parking location shall comply with standards in Subsection 7 of the zone.

Parking not allowed along private or common open space.

Parking may be covered, uncovered, or in a garage.

Turnaround access required in compliance with Fire
Department standards.

6. Open Space
Private Open Space per Building
Required for full length of building at all facades adjacent or abutting a pedestrian path or common open space
Common Open Space5 5 Bldgs.6 6-10 Bldgs.6
Width 30' min. 50' min.

Depth 40' min. 100' min.

7. Miscellaneous
Fencing
Fencing only allowed around or between individual buildings and shall not exceed 36" in height.

Visibility shall be maintained through the fencing.
5 Shall provide access from front or side street
6 Not including community building
ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Frontage
Key
Private Open Space
Common Open Space
Key
BUILDING TYPE: POCKET NEIGHBORHOOD
77 Specific to Building Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.06.110: Pocket Neighborhood
237
10-20.06.120 Multiplex
Example of Multiplex
Example of Multiplex
Example of Multiplex

1. Description
A medium-to-large-sized, detached, House-Scale Building that consists of 5 to 18 side-by-side and/or stacked units, typically with one shared entry. The type is scaled to fit within moderate-intensity neighborhoods.

Synonym: Mansion Apartment

2. Number of Units
N.S MS.S
Units per Building 8 max. 12 max.

Buildings per
Development Site
1 max.

General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. 78 Specific to Building Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 238
BUILDING TYPE: MULTIPLEX
At smaller scale (1"=50', others are 1"=40')
BUILDING TYPE: MULTIPLEX
At smaller scale (1"=50', others are 1"=40')

4. Pedestrian Access
Main Entrance Location Front Street
Units located in the main body shall be accessed by a
common entry along the front street.

On corner development sites, units in a wing may enter from the side street.

5. Vehicle Access and Parking
Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Subsection 7 of the zone.

Parking may be covered, uncovered, or in a garage.

6. Open Space
Common Open Space
Width 30' min.

Depth 20' min.

3. Building Size and Massing
Height N.S
MS.S
N.M
Stories 2.5 max.1 3 max.

Main Body2
Width 60' max.

Depth 60' max.

Wing(s)2,3
Width 24' max.

Depth 40' max.

Separation between Wings on
Same Facade
15' min.

Offset from Main Body 5' min.

Massing Types
Side Gable Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.B
Gable L Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.C
Twin Gable Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.D
Flat Roof Box Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.G
Flat Roof L Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.H
Facades shall be designed in compliance with Article 8
(Specific to Architectural Design).
1 2 stories max. in Historic Core

3. Building Size and Massing (Continued)
2 In compliance with Subsection 5 of the zone
3 Height is limited to 1 story less than main body and 10' less to highest eave/parapet.

Front Street Front Street Side Street
Side Street
Alley access required if alley exists Alley access required if alley exists ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Building
Key
ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Frontage
Key
79 Specific to Building Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.06.120: Multiplex
239
10-20.06.130 Main Street Building
Example of Main Street Building
Example of Main Street Building
Example of Main Street Building

1. Description
A small-to-large-sized, Block-Scale Building, typically attached, but may be detached. The type is intended to
provide a vertical mix of uses with ground-floor retail, office, or service uses and upper-floor service or residential uses.

The type makes up the primary component of neighborhood and downtown main streets, therefore being a key
component to providing walkability.

2. Number of Units
Units per Building Unrestricted1
Buildings per Dev't Site 1 max.
1 Number of units restricted by International Building Code (IBC) and Uniform Fire Code (UFC) standards.

General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. 80 Specific to Building Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 240
BUILDING TYPE: MIXED-USE BUILDING TYPE: MIXED-USE

4. Pedestrian Access
Distance between Entries
to Ground Floor Shops
50' max.

Upper floor units shall be accessed by a common entry
along the front street.

Ground floor shops shall have individual entries along
the adjacent street.

Ground floor units allowed along side street at least 60' from front of development site.

On corner development sites, units in a wing or
accessory structure may enter from the side street.

5. Vehicle Access and Parking
Driveway and parking location shall comply with
standards in Subsection 7 of the zone.

Parking may be covered, uncovered, or in a garage.

6. Open Space
Common or private open space is not required.

3. Building Size and Massing
Height N.S N.M
MS.S
Stories 2.5 max. 3 max.2
Main Body3
Width 100 max. 140 max.

Depth 90 max. 180 max.

Wing(s)
Not Allowed
Massing Types
Side Gable Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.B
Flat Roof Box Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.G
Flat Roof L Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.H
Flat Roof T Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.I
Flat Roof Front Courtyard Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.J
Flat Roof Rear Courtyard Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.K
Flat Roof Closed Courtyard Subsection 10-20.06.140.2.L
Facades shall be designed in compliance with Article 8
(Specific to Architectural Design).
2 2 stories max. in Historic Core
3 In compliance with Subsection 5 of the zone
Outline of Building above
Front Street Front Street Side Street
Side Street
Alley access required if alley exists Alley access required if alley exists ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Frontage
Key
ROW/ Dev't Site Line
Building Setback Line
Building
Key
81 Specific to Building Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.06.130: Main Street Building
241

1. Bay Composition. Each façade shall be arranged according to a pattern of bays. See Subsection 10-

20.12.030.4 (Measuring Bays) for details on the application of bays to façades.

A. Each bay shall be at least 5’ wide and no wider than 15'.

B. Each façade shall contain at least 2 bays and no more than 9 bays.

C. All bays within the same main body or wing shall be the same height.

2. Main Body Massing Types
For each building type, select from the allowed massing types and apply the standards to the main body width facades along a street or civic space in compliance with the following standards. Façades of intersecting volumes shall be offset by a minimum of 3 feet.

A. Front Gable
This massing type is a simple rectilinear form that is deeper than it is long. If the roof is sloped, it may be either hipped, gabled, or shed.

Main Body
Main Body Width Max. allowed by Subsection 3
of the building type
B. Side Gable
This massing type is a simple rectilinear form that is longer than it is deep. If the roof is sloped, it may be either hipped, gabled, or shed.

Main Body
Main Body Width Max. allowed by Subsection 3
of the building type
10-20.06.140 Massing Compositions
82 Specific to Building Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.06.140: Massing Compositions
242

2. Main Body Massing Types (Continued)
C. Gable L
This massing type divides the façade into two parts, with one part projecting and one part set back to create a shallow forecourt. If the roof is sloped, it may be either hipped, gabled, or shed on each volume.

Main Body
Main Body Width Max. allowed by Subsection 3
of this building type
Projecting Volume 1 bay min.; 5 bays max.

Recessed Façade 1 bay min; 7 bays max.

D. Twin Gable
This massing type divides the façade into three parts, with the middle part set back slightly to create a shallow open space. If the roof is sloped, it may be either hipped, gabled, or shed.

Main Body
Main Body Width Max. allowed by Subsection 3
of this building type
Projecting Volume 1 bay min.; 5 bays max.

Recessed Façade 1 bay min; 9 bays max.
83 Specific to Building Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.06.140: Massing Compositions
243
F. Gabled Front Courtyard
This massing type divides the façade into three parts, with the middle part set back substantially to create a deep open space. If the roof is sloped, it may be either hipped, gabled, or shed.

Main Body
Main Body Width Max. allowed by Subsection 3
of this building type
Projecting Wing 1 bay min.; 5 bays max.

Center Façade 1 bay min; 7 bays max.

2. Main Body Massing Types (Continued)
E. Gabled L Courtyard
This massing type divides the façade into two parts, with one part set back substantially to create a deep open space. If the roof is sloped, it may be either hipped, gabled, or shed.

Main Body
Main Body Width Max. allowed by Subsection 3
of this building type
Projecting Volume 1 bay min.; 5 bays max.

Recessed Façade 1 bay min; 9 bays max.
84 Specific to Building Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.06.140: Massing Compositions
244

2. Main Body Massing Types (Continued)
G. Flat Roof Box
This massing type is a simple rectilinear form with a flat roof.

Main Body
Main Body Width Max. allowed by Subsection 3
of this building type
H. Flat Roof L
This massing type divides the façade into two parts, with one part projecting and one part set back to create a shallow forecourt. The roof is flat.

Main Body
Main Body Width Max. allowed by Subsection 3
of this building type
Projecting Volume 2 bays min.; 5 bays max.

Recessed Façade 1 bay min; 7 bays max.
85 Specific to Building Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.06.140: Massing Compositions
245

2. Main Body Massing Types (Continued)
I. Flat Roof T

ORIGNAL
This massing type divides the façade into three parts, with the middle part projecting. The roof is flat.

Main Body
Main Body Width Max. allowed by Subsection 3
of this building type
Projecting Volume 2 bays min.; 5 bays max.

Recessed Façade 1 bay min; 7 bays max.

J. Flat Roof Front Courtyard
This massing type divides the façade into three parts, with the middle part set back substantially to create a deep open space. The roof is flat.

Main Body
Main Body Width Max. allowed by Subsection 3
of this building type
Projecting Volume 1 bay min.; 5 bays max.

Recessed Façade 1 bay min; 9 bays max.
86 Specific to Building Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.06.140: Massing Compositions
246

2. Main Body Massing Types (Continued)
K. Flat Roof Rear Courtyard
This massing type divides the rear façade into three parts, with the middle part set back substantially to create a deep courtyard not visible from the street. The roof is flat.

Main Body
Main Body Width Max. allowed by Subsection 3
of this building type
L. Flat Roof Closed Courtyard
This massing type fronts a courtyard with building façades in all 4 sides. Courtyard not visible from the street. The roof is flat.

Main Body
Main Body Width Max. allowed by Subsection 3
of this building type
87 Specific to Building Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.06.140: Massing Compositions
247
88 Specific to Building Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 This page intentionally left blank
248
10-20.07.010 Purpose
This Article provides the standards for private frontages ("frontages"). Private frontages are the components of a building that provide the transition and interface between the public realm (street and sidewalk) and the private realm (setback or building).
10-20.07.020 Private Frontage Types

1. The names of the private frontage types indicate their particular configuration or function and are not intended to limit uses within the associated building. For example, a Porch may be used by nonresidential uses including, but not limited to, a restaurant or office, as allowed by the zone.

2. Each building is required to include at least one private frontage type along the front street or adjacent civic space. Buildings with entries along a side street are required to include at least one private frontage type on those facades.

3. The ground floor, for a minimum depth as identified in Subsection 4 of the zone, is required to be habitable/occupiable space in compliance with this Article. Accessibility is provided through the allowed private frontage types for each zone.

4. Private frontage types not listed in Subsection 8 of the zone are not allowed in that zone.

5. Each building may have multiple private frontage types in compliance with the allowed types in Subsection 8 of the zone.

6. Each private frontage type shall be located in compliance with the facade zone per Subsection 5 of the zone.

7. Standards are stated for the front and side street facades of a development site.

Article 7: Specific to Private Frontage Types
Sections:
10-20.07.010 Purpose
10-20.07.020 Private Frontage Types
10-20.07.030 Overview of Private Frontage Types
10-20.07.040 Porch Projecting
10-20.07.050 Porch Engaged
10-20.07.060 Dooryard
10-20.07.070 Forecourt
10-20.07.080 Maker Shopfront
10-20.07.090 Shopfront
10-20.07.100 Terrace
10-20.07.110 Gallery
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 89 249

8. In addition to the zone's standards, each private frontage is further refined through these standards to further calibrate the type for its context.

9. Certain types are only allowed in the open sub-zone (e.g., N.S-O) or on a side street in the base zone (e.g., N.S) to implement the intended physical character.
10-20.07.030 Overview of Private Frontage Types
Table A (Private Frontage Types Overview) provides a summary of the allowed private frontage types in each zone. See referenced Section(s) for standards.

Table 10-20.07.030.A: Private Frontage Types Overview
Private Frontage Type
Specific
Standards N.S N.M MS.S
Porch Projecting 10-20.07.040 P P P
Porch Engaged 10-20.07.050 P P P
Dooryard 10-20.07.060 P P O
Forecourt 10-20.07.070 X X P
Maker Shopfront 10-20.07.080 X X O
Shopfront 10-20.07.090 O P P
Terrace 10-20.07.100 X P P
Gallery 10-20.07.110 X X P
Key P = Allowed O = Allowed Only in Open Sub-Zone or Side Street X = Not Allowed 90 Specific to Private Frontage Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.07.030
250
91 Specific to Private Frontage Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards This page intentionally left blank
251
10-20.07.040 Porch Projecting
Example of a Projecting Porch
Example of a Projecting Porch
Example of a Projecting Porch

1. Description
The main facade of the building is set back from the front development site line with a covered structure encroaching into the front setback. The resulting setback area may be defined by a fence or hedge to spatially maintain the edge of the street. The Porch may be one or two stories, is open on three sides, with all habitable space located behind the building setback line.

General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. 92 Specific to Private Frontage Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 252

2. Size
Width, Clear 12' min.1
Depth, Clear 8' min.

Height, Clear 8' min.

Stories 2 stories max.

Finish Level above Sidewalk 12" min.2
Pedestrian Access 3' wide min.

Distance between Porch and
Sidewalk
5' min.

Distance between Porch columns shall be in compliance
with selected architectural style in Article 8 (Specific to Architectural Design).
1 Reduce to 8' min. and maximum 1 story when applied to Cottage Court Building Type
2 Common entries may be set at grade per local and federal accessibility standards.

3. Miscellaneous
Porch shall be open on three sides and have a roof. Clear glass may be installed between the porch columns if the minimum size of individual panes is in compliance with the standards in Article 8 (Specific to Architectural Design).

The Porch is allowed to encroach into the front and side street setbacks in compliance with Subsection 6 of the zone.

Ramps are required to be integrated along the side of the building to connect with the Projecting Porch.

The Porch shall be designed in compliance with the
standards in Article 8 (Specific to Architectural Design) for the selected architectural style.

Setback ROW Street Setback ROW Street
ROW/ Development Site
Line
Setback Line
Key
93 Specific to Private Frontage Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.07.040: Porch Projecting
253
10-20.07.050 Porch Engaged
Example of an Engaged Porch
Example of a two-story Engaged Porch
Example of an Engaged Porch

1. Description
A portion of the main facade of the building is set back from the front development site line to create an area for a covered structure that projects from the facade that is set back. The Porch may project into the front setback. The resulting setback may be defined by a fence or hedge to spatially maintain the edge of the street. The Porch may be one or two stories and has two adjacent sides that are engaged to the building, while the other two sides are open.

General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. 94 Specific to Private Frontage Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 254

2. Size
Width, Clear 8' min.

Depth, Clear 8' min.

Height, Clear 8' min.

Stories 2 stories max.

Finish Level above Sidewalk 12" min.1
Pedestrian Access 3' wide min.

Distance between Porch and
Sidewalk
5' min.

Distance between Porch columns shall be in compliance
with selected architectural style in Article 8 (Specific to Architectural Design).

Encroachment area of Building Facade
Depth 6' max.

Width 1/3 min. of overall
building facade
1 Common entries may be set at grade per local and
federal accessibility standards.

3. Miscellaneous
Up to 20% of the building facade and porch(es) may project into the front setback line for the zone.

Porch shall be open on two sides and have a roof. Clear glass may be installed between the porch columns if the minimum size of individual panes is in compliance with the standards in Article 8 (Specific to Architectural Design).

The Porch is allowed to encroach into the front and side street setbacks in compliance with Subsection 6 of the zone.

Ramps are required to be integrated along the side of the building to connect with the Engaged Porch.

The Porch shall be designed in compliance with the
standards in Article 8 (Specific to Architectural Design) for the selected Architectural Style.

Setback ROW Street Setback ROW Street
ROW/ Dev't Site Line Setback Line
Key
95 Specific to Private Frontage Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.07.050: Porch Engaged
255
10-20.07.060 Dooryard
Example of a residential Dooryard
Example of a commercial Dooryard
Example of a residential Dooryard

1. Description
The main facade of the building is set back from the front development site line, which is defined by a low wall or hedge, creating a small private area between the sidewalk and the facade. Each Dooryard is separated from adjacent Dooryards. The Dooryard may be raised or at grade.

General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. 96 Specific to Private Frontage Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 256

2. Size
Depth, Clear 6' min.

Length 15' min.

Distance between Glazing 4' max.

Depth of Recessed Entries 3' max.

Pedestrian Access 3' wide min.

Finish Level above Sidewalk 12" max.1
Height of Dooryard Fence/Wall
above Finish Level
36" max.
1 Common entries may be set at grade per local and federal accessibility standards.

3. Miscellaneous
For live/work, retail, service, and restaurant uses, the Shopfront Frontage Type (10-20.07.090) may be applied.

Each Dooryard shall provide access to only one ground floor entry.

The Dooryard is allowed to encroach into the front and side street setbacks in compliance with Subsection 6 of the zone.

Ramps are required to be integrated along the side of the building to connect with the Dooryard.

The Dooryard shall be designed in compliance with the
standards in Article 8 (Specific to Architectural Design) for the selected architectural style.

Setback ROW Street Setback ROW Street
ROW/ Dev't Site Line Setback Line
Key
97 Specific to Private Frontage Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.07.060: Dooryard
257
10-20.07.070 Forecourt
Example of a Forecourt with Shopfronts
Example of a Forecourt with outdoor dining
Example of Forecourt

1. Description
The main facade of the building is at or near the front development site line and a portion is set back, extending the public realm into the development site to create an entry court or shared garden space for housing, or an additional shopping or restaurant seating area within retail and service areas.

General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. 98 Specific to Private Frontage Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 258

2. Size
Width, Clear 15' min.

Depth, Clear 15' min.

Ratio, Height to Width 2:1 max.

Finish Level above Sidewalk 12" max.

Gallery frontages, awnings,
balconies and porches may
encroach into Forecourt on all
sides.

Max 1/2 width of
Forecourt

3. Miscellaneous
Forecourts may be utilized to group several entries at a common elevation in compliance with the zones' ground
floor finish level standards.

The proportions and orientation of a Forecourt shall be in compliance with the diagram below for solar orientation and user comfort.

Ramps are required to be integrated along the side of the building to connect with the Forecourt.

The Forecourt shall be designed in compliance with the
standards in Article 8 (Specific to Architectural Design) for the selected architectural style.
width (w)
h<2w
height (h)
Setback ROW Street Setback ROW Street
ROW/ Dev't Site Line Setback Line
Key
99 Specific to Private Frontage Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.07.070: Forecourt
259
10-20.07.080 Maker Shopfront
Example of a Maker Shopfront
Example of a Maker Shopfront
Example of a Maker Shopfront

1. Description
The main facade of the building is at or near the front development site line with an at-grade or elevated entrance from the sidewalk. The type is only allowed on side streets from the adjacent main street and is intended for industrial artisan businesses to show their activity to pedestrians, as well as for retail sales of products made on-site. The Maker Shopfront may include a decorative roll-down or sliding door, including glazing and an awning that overlaps the sidewalk.

General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. 100
Specific to Private Frontage Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 260

2. Size
Distance between Glazing 10' max.

Ground Floor Glazing between
Sidewalk and Finished Ceiling
Height
30% min.

Shopfront Base (if used) 48" max.

Recessed entries are allowed

3. Awning (Allowed/Not Required)
Depth 5' min.

Setback from Curb 2' min.

Height, Clear 8' min.

4. Miscellaneous
Decorative accordion-style doors/windows or other
operable windows that allow the space to open to the
street are allowed in compliance with Article 8 (Specific to Architectural Design).

The Maker Shopfront shall be designed in compliance with the standards in Article 8 (Specific to Architectural Design) for the selected architectural style.

ROW/Setback Street ROW/Setback Street
ROW/ Dev't Site Line Setback Line
Key
101
Specific to Private Frontage Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.07.080: Maker Shopfront
261
10-20.07.090 Shopfront
Example of Shopfronts
Example of a Shopfront
Example of a Shopfront

1. Description
The main facade of the building is at or near the front development site line with at-grade entrance from the
sidewalk. The type is intended for service, retail, or
restaurant use and includes substantial glazing between the Shopfront base and the ground floor ceiling. This type may include an awning that overlaps the sidewalk.

General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. 102
Specific to Private Frontage Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 262

2. Size
Distance between Glazing 2' max.

Ground Floor Glazing between
Sidewalk and Finished Ceiling
Height
75% min.

Depth of Recessed Entries 5' max.

Shopfront Base 6" min.; 24" max.

3. Awning
Depth 5' min.

Setback from Curb 2' min.

Height, Clear 8' min.

Ramps are required to be integrated along the side of the building to connect with the Shopfront.

The Shopfront shall be designed in compliance with the
standards in Article 8 (Specific to Architectural Design) for the selected architectural style.

ROW/Setback Street ROW/Setback Street
ROW/ Dev't Site Line Setback Line
Key
103
Specific to Private Frontage Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.07.090: Shopfront
263
10-20.07.100 Terrace
Example of a Terrace with low-wall seating
Example of a Terrace
Example of a residential Terrace along a courtyard

1. Description
The main facade is at or near the front development site line with steps leading to an elevated area providing pedestrian circulation along the facade. The type is used for retail, service, office uses, or housing to provide outdoor areas along the sidewalk and/or to accommodate an existing or intended grade change.

General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. 104
Specific to Private Frontage Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 264

2. Size
Depth of Terrace 8' min. residential;
12' min. non-residential
Finish Level above Sidewalk 36" max.

Distance between Stairs 25' max.

3. Miscellaneous
These standards are to be used with those for the
Shopfront Frontage Type where the zone requires the
Shopfront Frontage Type (10-20.07.090).

Where the zone requires the Shopfront Frontage Type (10-

20.07.090) and the ground floor is flush with the sidewalk, the Terrace shall be considered to be the sidewalk.

May be utilized to group several entries at a common
elevation in compliance with the zones' ground floor finish level standards.

The Terrace is allowed to encroach into the front and side street setbacks in compliance with Subsection 6 of the zone.

Ramps are required to be integrated along the side of the building to connect with the Terrace.

The Terrace shall be designed in compliance with the
standards in Article 8 (Specific to Architectural Design) for the selected architectural style.

Setback ROW Street Setback ROW Street
ROW/ Dev't Site Line Setback Line
Key
105
Specific to Private Frontage Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.07.100: Terrace
265
Source: Google Street View
10-20.07.110 Gallery
Example of a two-story Gallery with an uncovered second story.

Example of a Gallery providing covered outdoor dining
Example of a Gallery with shopfronts

1. Description
The main facade of the building is set back from the front development site line and an at-grade covered structure, articulated with colonnade or arches, overlaps the
sidewalk. The type may be one or two stories. When used in nonresidential settings, the Shopfront Type is included; when used in residential settings, Dooryards and Forecourts may be included as allowed by the zone.

General Note: Photos on this page are illustrative, not regulatory. 106
Specific to Private Frontage Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 266

2. Size
Depth, Clear 8' min.

Ground Floor Height, Clear 12' min.

Upper Floor Height, Clear 9' min.

Height 2 stories max.

Gallery Setback from Public ROW 18" min. (clear)

3. Miscellaneous
Habitable space
Galleries shall also follow the standards for the
Shopfront Frontage Type (10-20.07.090).

Galleries shall have a consistent depth across the entire front and/or side street facade.

Galleries are allowed to project over the sidewalk in the public ROW.

The second story of the Gallery may be covered.

Planting is not required. Lighting is required within the gallery in compliance with Section x.xx.xxx (Jurisdiction's OnSite Lighting Standards).

Ramps are required to be integrated along the side of the building to connect with the Gallery, where applicable.

The Gallery shall be designed in compliance with the
standards in Article 8 (Specific to Architectural Design) for the selected architectural style.

Sidewalk Sidewalk
Setback ROW Setback ROW
Street Street
ROW/ Dev't Site Line Setback Line
Key
107
Specific to Private Frontage Types
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.07.110: Gallery
267
108
Specific to Private Frontage Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 This page intentionally left blank
268
10-20.08.010 Purpose
This Article sets forth standards that supplement the zone standards to further refine the intended building form and physical character.
10-20.08.020 Applicability
Unless stated otherwise, all subsections within each architectural style ("style") identified in this Article apply to all facades of a building, including front facades, side street facades, side interior facades, and rear facades. 10-20.08.030 Architectural Design Standards
This Article contains architectural design standards for the six allowed styles. The standards for each style address a range of topics based on local architectural examples. The standards address the following aspects of individual building design: Roofs and roof pitch, eaves, cornices, walls, base of walls, dormers, openings and doors, storefronts, porches, and balconies.

1. Each building is required to be designed in compliance with one of the allowed architectural styles.

2. The architectural style standards are coordinated with the building types allowed by this FBC and the intended physical character of each zone.

3. Any facade greater than 75 feet in length along a street (public or private) or civic space shall include more than one architectural style, with a maximum 75 feet in length of any one style. 10-20.08.040 Overview of Architectural Styles
Table A (Architectural Styles Overview) provides an overview of the allowed architectural styles.

Article 8: Specific to Architectural Design
Sections:
10-20.08.010 Purpose
10-20.08.020 Applicability
10-20.08.030 Architectural Design Standards
10-20.08.040 Overview of Architectural Styles
10-20.08.050 Contemporary
10-20.08.060 Craftsman
10-20.08.070 Main Street Classical
10-20.08.080 Mediterranean
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 109 269
Contemporary 10-20.08.050
Typical Characteristics
Long, low-sloped roof forms with
simple eaves with deep overhangs
Asymmetrical facade compositions
with square and horizontal openings
often made from ganged vertical
windows
Mix of exterior materials to
differentiate massing forms, with
prevalent natural materials including
wood siding
Horizontally proportioned balconies
and terraces with minimalist vertical
supports
Applicable Standards
Wall
Building Roof
Rake
Eave
Parapet
Windows
Bay Windows
Dormers
Entry Doors
Balconies
Porches
Storefronts
Materials
Craftsman 10-20.08.060
Typical Characteristics
Low-pitched roofs with deep eaves
and exposed rafter tails
Horizontally proportioned openings
made from ganged vertical windows
Emphasis on natural materials
including wood shingles
Asymmetrical composition with wall
plane broken by projecting gable ends
Applicable Standards
Wall
Base
Building Roof
Rake
Eave
Parapet
Windows
Bay Windows
Dormers
Entry Doors
Balconies
Porches
Storefronts
Materials
Main Street Classical 10-20.08.070
Typical Characteristics
Symmetrical facade composition with
proportions that imply load-bearing
masonry structure
Prominent cornice with classical
detailing and parapet or pedimented
roof forms
Regular pattern of vertically
proportioned openings
Brick and stucco as primary facade
materials
Applicable Standards
Base
Building Roof
Parapet
Windows
Bay Windows
Entry Doors
Balconies
Porches
Storefronts
Materials
Table 10-20.08.040.A: Architectural Styles Overview
110
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.040
270
Mediterranean 10-20.08.080
Typical Characteristics
Low-pitched gabled or hipped roofs
clad in red tile with open eaves
Flat, rectilinear wall plane with
vertically proportioned punched
openings without trim
Stucco as primary facade material with
stucco or wood attached elements
Applicable Standards
Building Roof
Eave
Parapet
Windows
Bay Windows
Dormers
Entry Doors
Balconies
Porches
Storefronts
Materials
Table 10-20.08.040.A: Architectural Styles Overview (Continued) 111
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.040
271
Quick Code Guide: Specific to Architectural Design
The following graphic is intended as a summary guide. Please refer to San Anselmo's written permit procedures and application standards for all necessary information.

Before you begin
Identify your zone, building type, and detailed massing type. If you have not done this yet, go back to the Table of Contents and follow the Quick Code Guide.

Identify your architectural style Table 10-20.08.040.A (Architectural Styles Overview)
Comply with wall, base, and building
roof form standards
Dependent on zone, detailed massing type,
and architectural style
Subsections 3-8 of Architectural Style
Comply with external elements
standards and material standards
Dependent on architectural style
Subsections 13-16 of Architectural
Style
Comply with window and door
standards
Dependent on architectural style
Subsections 9-12 of Architectural
Style
Instructions Location
112
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.040
272
General note: The images above and the descriptions in Subsections 1 and 2 below are intended to provide a brief overview of the architectural style and are descriptive, not regulatory. 10-20.08.050 Contemporary

2. Typical Characteristics
Long, low-sloped roof forms with
simple eaves with deep overhangs
Asymmetrical facade compositions
with square and horizontal openings
often made from ganged vertical
windows
Mix of a limited number of exterior
materials to differentiate massing
forms, with prevalent natural materials
including wood siding
Horizontally proportioned balconies
and terraces with minimalist vertical
supports

1. Description of Style
Contemporary style buildings have a streamlined aesthetic and minimal ornamentation. This style focuses on combining simple rectilinear massing forms with changes in material and color. The use of glass and cantilevered elements imbues buildings with a sense of lightness and simplicity. This style is prevalent throughout Marin County.

Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 113 273
Elements of Contemporary Style – Multifamily Prototype
Entry Door (See
Subsection 12 for
standards)
Eave (See Subsection 7 for
standards)
Dormer (See Subsection
11 for standards)
Balcony (See Subsection
13 for standards)
Window (See Subsection 9
for standards)
Note: The image below is intended to provide a reference for architectural elements and is illustrative, not regulatory. It is not an exhaustive list of applicable standards.

Prototypical Building Elevation
114
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.050: Contemporary
274
Elements of Contemporary Style – Mixed-Use Prototype
Note: The image below is intended to provide a reference for architectural elements and is illustrative, not regulatory. It is not an exhaustive list of applicable standards.

3. Wall
Wall Inset
A wall inset from the primary facade is required for buildings greater than 75' in width.

Wall inset shall be continuous for the full height of the building.

Roof and wall projections may encroach into wall inset.

4. Base
No base is required for this style.

3. Wall (Continued)
Wall Inset Dimensions
Width 8'0" min.; 12'0" max.

Depth 6'0" min.

Prototypical Building Elevation
Prototypical Building Plan, Primary Facade
Wall
Inset
Bay Window (See Subsection
10 for standards)
115
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.050: Contemporary
275

5. Building Roof
Building Roof
Standards
Buildings with
Half-Story Heights
Buildings with
Full-Story Heights
Roof Form
Type Shed Flat
Pitch 2:12 min.;
6:12 max.

N/A
Applicable Subsections

6. Rake A N/A

7. Eave A N/A

8. Parapet N/A A

6. Rake
Standards Flush Profile Projecting
Profile
Horizontal Projection No min.;
2" max.
2'6" min.;
No max.

See Subsection 7 (Eave) for height standards.

Projecting Profile Rake Section
Open Eave Elevation
Open Eave Section
Flush Profile Rake Section
Closed Eave Elevation Closed Eave Section

7. Eave
Standards Open Closed
Height
Fascia 6" min. 6" min.

Horizontal Projection
Overall 36" min.;
No max.

N/A
Key A = Applicable N/A = Not Applicable
116
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.050: Contemporary
276

8. Parapet
Height
Projection 0" min.; 6" max.

Horizontal Projection
Overall 0" min.; 3" max.

Parapet Section Parapet Elevation
117
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.050: Contemporary
277
Ground Floor Typical Window Elevation
Upper Floor Typical Window Elevation

9. Windows
Opening
Proportion, Height to Width 1
Ground floor 2.2 min.

Upper floor 2.0 min.

Dormer See Subsection 11
(Dormers) for standards.

Typical Sizes, Width x Height
Ground Floor, Typical 3'0" x 6'0"
Ground Floor, Ganged 3'0" x 6'0"
Ground Floor, Picture 4'6" x 6'0"
Upper Floor, Typical 3'0" x 5'6"
Upper Floor, Ganged 3'0" x 5'6"
Upper Floor, Picture 4'6" x 5'6"
Privacy 2'0" x 4'6"
Shape Square
Operation Double-Hung, Single-Hung,
Awning, Casement
Window
Glazing Divisions None
Frame Width (Frame + Sash)
At Rail 2.5" min. ± 1/4"
At Stile 2.5" min. ± 1/4"
Trim Widths 2
Head 3" min.

Jamb 3" min.

Apron 3" min.

Window Frame Recess
Depth 2" min.

Sill
Depth 3" min.

Pediment
Allowed No
Mullions
Mullions required between ganged windows.
"Typical" refers to a regular recurring window (i.e., size or lite pattern) on a facade.
1 Picture windows shall be wider than typical windows and equal in height to windows on the same floor.
2 Trim required for windows only on buildings or parts of buildings with lap siding.
118
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.050: Contemporary
278
Upper Floor Ganged Window Elevation Upper Floor Picture Window Elevation Ground Floor Ganged Window Elevation Ground Floor Picture Window Elevation 119
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.050: Contemporary
279
Bay Window Elevation

11. Dormers
Roof Form
Type Shed
Pitch 2:12 min.; 6:12 max.

Window
Proportion, Height
to Width

2.0 min.

Width 3'0" min.

Dormers allowed only for buildings with half stories.

See Subsections 6 (Rake), 7 (Eave), and 9 (Windows) for additional standards.

Dormer Elevation

10. Bay Windows
Form
Type Square
Size
Height3
On buildings with
heights up to 3 stories 2 stories max.

On buildings with
heights above 3 stories
2 stories plus 1 additional
story for each building
story over 3 max.

Width 6'0" min.; 12'0" max.

Depth 1'0" min.; 3'0" max.

Additional Standards
Multi-story bay window form shall be vertically continuous.

Continuous horizontal articulation on building shall wrap bay form.
3 On buildings with heights up to 2 stories, the bottom of the bay window may not extend to the ground plane and the
top of the bay window may not extend to the top of parapet or eave.

Bay Window Plan
120
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.050: Contemporary
280
Entry Door Elevation

12. Entry Doors
Surround 4
Head Width 4" min.

Jamb Width 4" min.

Additional Elements
Transom Allowed
Pediment Not Allowed
4 Surround required for doors only on buildings or parts of buildings with lap siding.

Balcony Front Elevation

13. Balconies
Allowed Materials
Type 1 - Panel Guardrail
Post Metal
Baluster Metal panel
Handrail Metal, glass
Fascia Metal, composite wood, wood
Type 2 - Mesh Guardrail
Post and Handrail Metal
Baluster Metal mesh
Fascia Metal, composite wood, wood
Type 3 - Horizontal Guardrail
Post and Handrail Metal
Baluster Metal, steel cable
Fascia Metal, wood
Size
Overall Balcony Width 10'0" max.

Width Between Posts 3' min.

Type 1
Panel Guardrail
Type 2
Mesh Guardrail
Type 3
Horizontal Guardrail
121
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.050: Contemporary
281
Two-Story Porch Two-Story Porch with Deck Above
One-Story Porch One-Story Porch with Deck Above

14. Porches
Columns
Shape Cantilevered (no columns) or Pilotis
Diameter 4" max.

Spacing 8'0" max. on center
Entablature
Height of Entablature Supporting Deck
Overall 10" min.
122
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.050: Contemporary
282

15. Storefronts
Width
Storefront Module 10'0" min.; 15'0" max.

Display Window 3'0" min.; 4'0" max.

Distance Between
Storefront Modules
1'0" min.; 2'0" max.

Height
Overall 12'0" min.

Head Height 11'0" min.

Base 8" min.; 2'0" max.

Horizontal Recess
Depth 6" min.; 3'0" max.

Base shall be continuous, unless divided by pilaster, and align with base height of building (if any).

Storefront Elevation Storefront Section
123
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.050: Contemporary
283

16. Materials
Element Allowed Materials
Wall
Wall Cladding5 Lap siding, composite wood,
wood, fiber cement, stucco, metal
panel
Base or Foundation
Base or Foundation Brick, concrete, stucco, composite
wood, wood, fiber cement,
architectural block
Roof and Roof Elements
Roofing Asphalt shingles, wood shingles,
standing seam metal
Rake and Eave Composite wood, wood, steel
Gutter Metal box
Windows, Bay Windows, and Entry Doors
Entry Door Wood, aluminum, fiberglass,
composite wood
Window Frames Wood, aluminum clad wood,
aluminum, fiberglass
Glazing Clear glass; shall not be tinted,
mirrored, or colored
Balconies
See Subsection 13 (Balconies) for allowed materials.

Porches
Columns Composite wood, wood, fiberglass,
metal
Railing Composite wood, wood, metal
Storefronts
Storefront Composite wood, wood, metal
Storefront Base Stucco, concrete
5 Exterior cladding shall be limited to no more than 3
materials, of which 65% or more of the facade area shall be one of those materials.
124
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.050: Contemporary
284
General note: The images above and the descriptions in Subsections 1 and 2 below are intended to provide a brief overview of the architectural style and are descriptive, not regulatory. 10-20.08.060 Craftsman

2. Typical Characteristics
Low-pitched roofs with deep eaves
and exposed rafter tails
Horizontally proportioned openings
made from ganged vertical windows
Emphasis on natural materials
including wood shingles
Asymmetrical composition with wall
plane broken by projecting gable ends
Wall plane broken by projecting and/or
recessed elements

1. Description of Style
The Craftsman style emerged in the American west inspired by the English Arts and Crafts movement. The Craftsman bungalow house was prevalent from the 1900's to the 1940's. Since that time, it has adapted to multifamily and mixed-use prototypes.

Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 125 285
Elements of Craftsman Style – Multifamily Prototype

3. Wall
Trim 1
Width 4" min.
1 Trim not required on buildings or portions of buildings where stucco or shingle is the primary wall material.
2 Trim is required at openings and surrounds.

4. Base
Height 1'0" min.; 1/2 story max.

Window (See Subsection
9 for standards)
Porch (See Subsection 14
for standards)
Base (See Subsection 4 for
standards)
Entry Door (See
Subsection 12 for
standards)
Roof (See Subsection 5 for
standards)
Rake (See Subsection 6 for
standards)
Wall (See Subsection 3 for
standards)
Note: The image below is intended to provide a reference for architectural elements and is illustrative, not regulatory. It is not an exhaustive list of applicable standards.

Dormer (See Subsection
11 for standards)
Eave (See Subsection 7 for
standards)
Prototypical Building Elevation
126
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.060: Craftsman
286
Elements of Craftsman Style – Mixed-Use Prototype
Window (See
Subsection 9 for
standards)
Storefront (See
Subsection 15 for
standards)
Wall (See Subsection
3 for standards)
Base (See Subsection
4 for standards)
Roof (See Subsection
5 for standards)
Eave (See Subsection
7 for standards)
Note: The image below is intended to provide a reference for architectural elements and is illustrative, not regulatory. It is not an exhaustive list of applicable standards.

Prototypical Building Elevation
127
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.060: Craftsman
287

5. Building Roof
Building Roof Standards Sloped Roof Flat Roof
Applicable Subsections
Subsection 6 (Rake) A N/A
Subsection 7 (Eave) A N/A
Subsection 8 (Parapet) N/A A
Form
Pitch 4:12 min.;
10:12 max.

N/A

6. Rake
Height
Bracket Bracing Member 4" min.

Horizontal Projection
Projection to Fascia 1'8" min. 3'0" max;
Bracket Projection Beyond
Fascia
No min.; 1'0" max.

See Subsection 7 (Eave) for height standards.

Rake Section

7. Eave
Allowed Types
Eave Types Open
Height
Fascia 10" min.

Horizontal Projection 3
Overall 2'6" min.
3 Horizontal projection includes gutter.

Key A = Applicable N/A = Not Applicable
Eave Elevation
Eave Section
128
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.060: Craftsman
288

8. Parapet
Canopy
Parapet may include canopy.

Eave Height 6" min.

Horizontal Projection 4 3'0" min.

Required Support
Elements
Brackets
Bracket Width 4" min.

Roof Pitch 3:12 min.

Crenellation
Parapet shall be crenellated.

Crenel Height 1'0" min.

Width, from Center
Line
1'0" min.

Crenel may not occur at building corner or end bays.
4 Horizontal projection includes gutter.

Parapet Section
End Bay c
L Middle Bay cL
Parapet Elevation
129
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.060: Craftsman
289

9. Windows
Opening
Proportion, Height to Width 5
Ground Floor 2.0 min.

Upper Floor 1.75 min.

Dormer See Subsection 11
(Dormers) for standards.

Typical Sizes, Width x Height
Ground Floor, Typical 3'0" x 6'0"
Ground Floor, Ganged 2'4" x 6'0"
Ground Floor, Picture 4'6" x 6'0"
Upper Floor, Typical 3'0" x 5'6"
Upper Floor, Ganged 2'4" x 5'6"
Upper Floor, Picture 4'6" x 5'6"
Privacy 2'0" x 4'0"
Shape Square
Operation Single Hung, Double Hung,
Casement
Window
Glazing Divisions 6 over 1;
4 over 1;
10 over 1
Frame Width (Frame + Sash)
At Rail 2.5" min. ± 1/4"
At Stile 2.5" min. ± 1/4"
Trim Widths6
Head 6" min.

Jamb 4" min.

Apron 3" min.

Window Frame Recess
Depth 2" min.

Sill
Depth 3" min.

Pediment
Allowed No
Mullions
Mullions required between ganged windows.
"Typical" refers to a regular recurring window (i.e., size or lite pattern) on a facade.
5 Picture windows shall be wider than typical windows and equal in height to windows on the same floor.
6 Jamb shall be narrower than header
Ground Floor Typical Window Elevation
6 over 1
Upper Floor Typical Window Elevation
6 over 1
130
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.060: Craftsman
290
Upper Floor Ganged Window Elevation
4 over 1 and 6 over 1
Upper Floor Picture Window Elevation
10 over 1
Ground Floor Ganged Window Elevation
4 over 1 and 6 over 1
Ground Floor Picture Window Elevation
10 over 1
131
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.060: Craftsman
291
Bay Window Elevation

11. Dormers
Roof Form
Type Shed or Gable
Pitch 2:12 min.; 5:12 max.

Horizontal Projection
Eave 8" min.

Rake 8" min.

Window
Proportion, Height
to Width

1.75 min.

Width 3'0" min.

Dormers allowed only for buildings with half stories.

Pediment not allowed.

See Subsections 6 (Rake), 7 (Eave), and 9 (Windows) for additional standards.

Dormer Elevation

10. Bay Windows
Form
Type Square
Size
Height
On buildings with
heights up to 3 stories 2 stories max.

On buildings with
heights above 3 stories
2 stories plus 1 additional
story for each building
story over 3 max.

Width 6'0" min.; 12'0" max.

Depth 1'0" min.; 3'0" max.

Cornice Types
Building parapet wraps bay.

Bay stops below building eave (bay has own cornice).

Bay returns into building eave (bay never projects above the building eave).

Additional Standards
Bay depth not allowed to project beyond eave depth.

Multi-story bay window form shall be vertically continuous.

10. Bay Windows (Continued)
Continuous horizontal articulation on building shall wrap bay form.

Corner bay may be turned on side to be rotated 45 degrees from building corner.

Bay Window Plan
132
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.060: Craftsman
292
Entry Door Elevation Balcony Front Elevation

13. Balconies
Allowed Materials
Post, Baluster, Handrail,
and Fascia
Metal, composite wood,
wood
Size
Overall Balcony Width 10'0" max.

Width Between Posts 3' min.

12. Entry Doors
Door
Number of Panels 2 min.

Surround7
Head Width 6" min.

Jamb Width 4" min.

Additional Elements
Transom Allowed
Pediment Not Allowed
7 Jamb shall be narrower than header
133
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.060: Craftsman
293
Two-Story Porch
One-Story Porch
Two-Story Porch with Deck Above
One-Story Porch with Deck Above

14. Porches
Columns
Shape Square-tapered
Base Width 1'10" min.

Spacing 9'6" min.; 12' max. on center
Entablature
Height of Entablature Supporting Deck
Overall 10" min.
134
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.060: Craftsman
294
Storefront Elevation Storefront Section

15. Storefronts
Width
Storefront Module 10'0" min.; 15'0" max.

Display Window 3'0" min.; 4'0" max.

Distance Between
Storefront Modules
1'0" min.; 2'0" max.

Height
Overall 13'0" min.

Head Height 10'0" min.

Cornice 10" min.

Signage Band 1'6" min.

Base 1'0" min.; 2'0" max.

Horizontal Recess
Depth 1'0" min.; 2'0" max.

Base shall be continuous, unless divided by pilaster, and align with base height of building (if any).

Cornice shall be continuous.
135
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.060: Craftsman
295

16. Materials
Element Allowed Materials
Wall
Wall Cladding Shingle and lap siding: composite
wood, wood, fiber cement; and
stucco
Base
Base or Foundation Stone, cast stone, painted
concrete
Roof and Roof Elements
Roofing Asphalt shingles, wood shingles,
standing seam metal
Rake and Eave Composite wood, wood
Cornice Composite wood, wood
Brackets Composite wood, wood, fiberglass
Gutter Metal half-round
Windows, Bay Windows, and Entry Doors
Trim or Surround Composite wood, wood, fiber
cement
Entry Door Wood, aluminum, fiberglass,
composite
Window Frames Wood, aluminum-clad wood,
aluminum, fiberglass
Glazing Clear glass; shall not be tinted,
mirrored, or colored
Balconies
See Subsection 13 (Balconies) for allowed materials.

Porches
Columns Composite wood, wood, metal
Railing Composite wood, wood, metal
Storefronts
Columns Composite wood, wood, fiberglass,
metal
Storefront Base Wood panels, brick, stone tile,
fiber cement
136
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.060: Craftsman
296
General note: The images above and the descriptions in Subsections 1 and 2 below are intended to provide a brief overview of the architectural style and are descriptive, not regulatory. 10-20.08.070 Main Street Classical

2. Typical Characteristics
Symmetrical facade composition with
proportions that imply load-bearing
masonry structure
Prominent cornice with classical
detailing and parapet or pedimented
roof forms
Regular pattern of vertically
proportioned openings
Brick and stucco as primary facade
materials

1. Description of Style
Main Street Classical style buildings combine influences from late 19th century Classical Revival and pre-war American main street architecture. With brick as a primary facade material, facades have a tripartite composition and often introduce ornament in a prominent cornice.

Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 137 297
Elements of Main Street Classical Style – Mixed-Use Prototype

3. Wall
No wall standards apply to this style. See Subsection 16 (Materials) for materials standards.

4. Base
Height 1'0" min.; 2'0" max.

Parapet (See Subsection 8
for standards)
Window (See Subsection
9 for standards)
Entry Door (See
Subsection 12 for
standards)
Storefront (See
Subsection 15 for
standards)
Wall (See Subsection 3 for
standards)
Base (See Subsection 4 for
standards)
Note: The image below is intended to provide a reference for architectural elements and is illustrative, not regulatory. It is not an exhaustive list of applicable standards.

Prototypical Building Elevation
138
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.070: Main Street Classical
298

5. Building Roof
Form
Roof Type Flat

6. Rake
Because this style does not allow sloped roofs, rake is not regulated. For wall-roof junction standards, see Subsection 8 (Parapet).

7. Eave
Because this style does not allow sloped roofs, eave is not regulated. For wall-roof junction standards, see Subsection 8 (Parapet).

8. Parapet
Height
Overall 5'6" min.

Cornice 1'8" min.

Fascia
Overall 3'6" min.

Lower Band 1'2" min.

Horizontal Projection 1
Overall 2'6" min.

Continuous cornice required on all street facing facades.

Required Ornament
Type Dentils
Width 10" min.

Spacing 2'0" max. on center
Placement Below cornice at top of fascia
1 Horizontal projection includes gutter.

Parapet Section Parapet Elevation
139
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.070: Main Street Classical
299
Ground Floor Typical Window Elevation
6 over 9
Upper Floor Typical Window Elevation
6 over 6

9. Windows
Opening
Proportion, Height to Width 2
Ground Floor 2.0 min.

Upper Floor 1.75 min.

Typical Sizes, Width x Height
Ground Floor, Typical 3'0" x 6'6"
Ground Floor, Picture 4'6" x 6'6"
Upper Floor, Typical 3'0" x 5'6"
Upper Floor, Picture 4'6" x 5'6"
Privacy 2'0" x 4'0"
Shape Square
Operation Single Hung, Double Hung,
Casement
Window
Glazing Divisions 6 over 9;
6 over 6
Frame Width (Frame + Sash)
At Rail 2.5" min. ± 1/4"
At Stile 2.5" min. ± 1/4"
Molding Widths
Head 2" min.

Jamb 2" min.

Window Frame Recess
Depth 2" min.

Sill
Depth 3" min.

Pediment
Allowed Yes
"Typical" refers to a regular recurring window (i.e., size or lite pattern) on a facade.
2 Picture windows shall be wider than typical windows and equal in height to windows on the same floor.
140
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.070: Main Street Classical
300
Upper Floor Picture Window Elevation
Ground Floor Picture Window Elevation
141
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.070: Main Street Classical
301
Bay Window Elevation

11. Dormers
Because this style does not allow sloped roofs, dormers shall not be used.

10. Bay Windows
Form
Type Chamfered
Interior Angle 30 degrees min.;
55 degrees max.

Number of Faces 3 or 5
Size
Height
On buildings with
heights up to 3 stories 2 stories max.

On buildings with
heights above 3 stories
2 stories plus 1 additional
story for each building
story over 3 max.

Width 6'0" min.; 12'0" max.

Depth 1'0" min.; 3'0" max.

Cornice Types
Cornice wraps bay.

Bay stops below building cornice (bay has own cornice).

10. Bay Windows (Continued)
Bay returns into building cornice (bay never projects
above the building cornice).

Additional Standards
Bay depth not allowed to project beyond cornice depth.

Multi-story bay window form shall be vertically continuous.

Continuous horizontal articulation on building shall wrap bay form.

Bay Window Plan
142
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.070: Main Street Classical
302
Entry Door Elevation

12. Entry Doors
Door
Number of Panels 2 min.

Surround
Head Width 4" min.

Jamb Width 4" min.

Additional Elements
Transom Allowed
Pediment Allowed
Balcony Front Elevation

13. Balconies
Allowed Materials
Type 1 - Square Guardrail
Post, Baluster, Handrail,
Fascia, and Brackets
Metal, composite wood, wood
Type 2 - Decorative Metal Guardrail
Post, Handrail, Fascia,
and Brackets
Metal, composite wood, wood
Baluster Metal
Size
Overall Balcony Width 10'0" max.

Width Between Posts 3' min.

Type 1
Square Guardrail
Type 2
Decorative Metal Guardrail
143
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.070: Main Street Classical
303
Two-Story Porch Two-Story Porch with Deck Above
One-Story Porch One-Story Porch with Deck Above

14. Porches
Columns
Shape Clearly defined capital, base, and shaft;
shaft either turned with entasis or
square stock with optional detailing
Diameter 8" min.

Spacing 6'6" max. on center
Entablature
Height of Topmost Entablature
Overall 1'6" min.

Fascia 10" min.

Height of Floor-to-Floor Entablature
Overall 10" min.
144
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.070: Main Street Classical
304
Storefront Elevation Storefront Section

15. Storefronts
Width
Storefront Module 10'0" min.; 15'0" max.

Display Window 3'0" min.; 4'0" max.

Distance Between
Storefront Modules
1'6" min.; 2'6" max.

Height
Overall 13'0" min.

Head Height 10'0" min.

Cornice 10" min.

Signage Band 1'8" min.

Base 1'0" min.; 2'0" max.

Horizontal Recess
Depth 6" min.; 2'0" max.

Base shall be continuous, unless divided by pilaster, and align with base height of building (if any).

Cornice shall be continuous.
145
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.070: Main Street Classical
305

16. Materials
Element Allowed Materials
Wall
Wall Cladding Brick, stucco
Base
Base or Foundation Brick, stone
Windows, Bay Windows, and Entry Doors
Lintel Stone, concrete
Entry Door Wood, aluminum-clad wood,
aluminum
Window Frames Wood, aluminum clad wood,
aluminum, fiberglass
Glazing Clear glass; shall not be tinted,
mirrored, or colored
Balconies
See Subsection 13 (Balconies) for allowed materials.

Porches
Columns Composite wood, wood, cast
stone, metal
Railing Composite wood, wood, metal
Storefronts
Storefront Composite wood, wood, metal
Storefront Base Wood panels, brick, stone tile,
fiber cement
146
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.070: Main Street Classical
306
General note: The images above and the descriptions in Subsections 1 and 2 below are intended to provide a brief overview of the architectural style and are descriptive, not regulatory. 10-20.08.080 Mediterranean

2. Typical Characteristics
Low-pitched gabled or hipped roofs
clad in red tile with open eaves
Flat, rectilinear wall plane with
vertically proportioned punched
openings without trim
Stucco as primary facade material with
stucco or wood attached elements

1. Description of Style
Mediterranean style buildings in Marin County draw from Spanish Colonial, Pueblo, and Spanish Revival influences. These buildings combine austere wall planes with punched, recessed openings for windows.

Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 147 307
Elements of Mediterranean Style – Multifamily Prototype

3. Wall
No wall standards apply to this style. See Subsection 16 (Materials) for materials standards.

4. Base
None required
Window (See Subsection
9 for standards)
Balcony (See Subsection
13 for standards)
Entry Door (See
Subsection 12 for
standards)
Roof (See Subsection 5 for
standards)
Eave (See Subsection 7 for
standards)
Wall (See Subsection 3 for
standards)
Note: The image below is intended to provide a reference for architectural elements and is illustrative, not regulatory. It is not an exhaustive list of applicable standards.

Dormer (See Subsection
11 for standards)
Prototypical Building Elevation
148
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.080: Mediterranean
308
Elements of Mediterranean Style – Mixed-Use Prototype
Bay Window (See
Subsection 10 for
standards)
Window (See Subsection
9 for standards)
Storefront (See
Subsection 15 for
standards)
Wall (See Subsection 3 for
standards)
Balcony (See Subsection
13 for standards)
Roof (See Subsection 5 for
standards)
Note: The image below is intended to provide a reference for architectural elements and is illustrative, not regulatory. It is not an exhaustive list of applicable standards.

Prototypical Building Elevation
149
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.080: Mediterranean
309

5. Building Roof
Building Roof Standards Sloped Roof Flat Roof
Applicable Subsections
Subsection 6 (Rake) A N/A
Subsection 7 (Eave) A N/A
Subsection 8 (Parapet) N/A A
Form
Pitch 4:12 min.;
6:12 max.

N/A

6. Rake
No specialized rake profile
Closed Eave Section
Closed Eave Elevation

7. Eave
Standards Closed Open Returned
Height
Supporting
Element
1'0" min. 8" min. 1'0" min.

Fascia None None 6" min.

Horizontal Projection 1
Overall 1'0" min. 3'0" min. 2'6" min.
1 Horizontal projection includes gutter.

Open Eave Section Returned Eave Section
Key A = Applicable N/A = Not Applicable
Open Eave Elevation Returned Eave Elevation
150
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.080: Mediterranean
310

8. Parapet
Height
Supporting
Element
1'8" min.

Fascia 6" min.

Horizontal Projection 2
Overall 2'0" min.

Continuous cornice required on all street facing facades.

Required Ornament
Type Brackets
Width 3" min.

Spacing 24" max. on center
Placement Below fascia
2 Horizontal projection includes gutter.

Parapet Section Parapet Elevation
151
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.080: Mediterranean
311
Ground Floor Typical Window Elevation
8 parts
Upper Floor Typical Window Elevation
6 parts

9. Windows
Opening
Proportion, Height to Width 3
Ground Floor 2.0 min.

Upper Floor 1.75 min.

Dormer See Subsection 11
(Dormers) for standards.

Typical Sizes, Width x Height
Ground Floor, Typical 3'0" x 6'0"
Ground Floor, Ganged 2'4" x 6'0"
Ground Floor, Picture 4'6" x 6'0"
Upper Floor, Typical 3'0" x 5'6"
Upper Floor, Ganged 2'4" x 5'6"
Upper Floor, Picture 4'6" x 5'6"
Privacy 2'0" x 4'0"
Shape Square, arched
Operation Casement
Window
Glazing Divisions 6 parts or 8 parts
Frame Width (Frame + Sash)
At Rail 2.5" min. ± 1/4"
At Stile 2.5" min. ± 1/4"
Molding Widths
Head 2" min.

Jamb 2" min.

Apron None required
Window Frame Recess
Depth 2" min.

Sill
Depth 2" min.

Pediment
Allowed No
Mullions
Mullions required between ganged windows.
"Typical" refers to a regular recurring window (i.e., size or lite pattern) on a facade.
3 Picture windows shall be wider than typical windows and equal in height to windows on the same floor.
152
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.080: Mediterranean
312
Upper Floor Ganged Window Elevation
6 parts
Upper Floor Picture Window Elevation
Ground Floor Ganged Window Elevation
8 parts
Ground Floor Picture Window Elevation
153
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.080: Mediterranean
313
Bay Window Elevation

11. Dormers
Roof Form
Type Gable
Pitch 4:12 min.; 8:12 max.

Window
Proportion, Height
to Width

1.75 min.

Width 3'0" min.

Pediment
Allowed No
Dormers allowed for buildings with half stories.

See Subsections 6 (Rake), 7 (Eave), and 9 (Windows) for additional standards.

Dormer Elevation

10. Bay Windows
Form
Type Square
Size
Height
On buildings with
heights up to 3 stories 2 stories max.

On buildings with
heights above 3 stories
2 stories plus 1 additional
story for each building
story over 3 max.

Width 6'0" min.; 12'0" max.

Depth 1'0" min.; 3'0" max.

Cornice Types
Building eave wraps bay.

Bay stops below building eave (bay has own cornice).

Bay returns into building eave (bay never projects above the building eave).

Additional Standards
Bay depth not allowed to project beyond eave depth.

10. Bay Windows (Continued)
Multi-story bay window form shall be vertically continuous.

Continuous horizontal articulation on building shall wrap bay form.

Corner bay may be turned on side to be rotated 45 degrees from building corner.

Bay Window Plan
154
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.080: Mediterranean
314
Type 1
Square Guardrail
Type 2
Turned Guardrail
Type 3
Decorative Metal Guardrail
Entry Door Elevation

12. Entry Doors
Door
Number of Panels 2 min.

Surround
None required
Additional Elements
Transom Allowed
Pediment Not Allowed
Balcony Front Elevation

13. Balconies
Allowed Materials
Type 1 - Square Guardrail
Post, Baluster, Handrail,
Fascia, and Brackets
Metal, composite wood, wood
Type 2 - Turned Guardrail
Post, Baluster, Handrail,
Fascia, and Brackets
Metal, composite wood, wood
Type 3 - Decorative Metal Guardrail
Post, Handrail, Fascia,
and Brackets
Metal, composite wood, wood
Baluster Metal
Size
Overall Balcony Width 10'0" max.

Width Between Posts 3' min.
155
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.080: Mediterranean
315
Porch Elevation

14. Porches
Columns
Shape Square or round, with capitals or
brackets
Diameter 8" min.

Spacing 9'0" max. on center
Entablature
Overall 10" min.
156
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.080: Mediterranean
316
Storefront Elevation Storefront Section

15. Storefronts
Width
Storefront Module 10'0" min.; 15'0" max.

Display Window 3'0" min.; 4'0" max.

Distance Between
Storefront Modules
1'6" min.; 2'6" max.

Height
Head Height 11'0" min.

Cornice None
Signage Band None
Base 1'0" min.; 2'0" max.

Horizontal Recess
Depth 6" min.; 9" max.

Base shall be continuous, unless divided by pilaster, and align with base height of building (if any).
157
Specific to Architectural Design
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.08.080: Mediterranean
317

16. Materials
Element Allowed Materials
Wall
Wall Cladding Stucco
Roof and Roof Elements
Roofing Terracotta clay barrel tiles
Rake and Eave Wood, composite wood, stucco
Cornice Wood, composite wood, stucco
Brackets Composite wood, wood, or
fiberglass
Gutter Metal half-round
Windows, Bay Windows, and Entry Doors
Entry Door Wood, aluminum, fiberglass,
composite
Window Frames Wood, aluminum-clad wood,
aluminum, fiberglass
Sill Stucco, cast stone
Glazing Clear glass; shall not be tinted,
mirrored, or colored
Balconies
See Subsection 13 (Balconies) for allowed materials.

Porches
Columns Composite wood, wood, fiberglass,
metal
Railing Wood, wrought iron
Storefronts
Storefront Composite wood, wood, metal
Storefront Base Stucco, tile
158
Specific to Architectural Design
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.08.080: Mediterranean
318
10-20.09.010 Signage Standards
All signage shall comply with the standards in Title 10, Chapter 9 (Signs).

Article 9: Specific to Signage Types
Sections:
10-20.09.010 Signage Standards
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 159 319
160
Specific to Signage Types
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 This page intentionally left blank
320
10-20.10.010 Purpose
This Article establishes standards to create walkable neighborhoods.

1. Development subject to this Article is required to create and reinforce walkable neighborhoods with a mix of housing, civic, retail, and service uses within a compact, walkable, and transit-friendly environment.

2. Developments in compliance with this Section shall achieve the following goals:

A. Improve the built environment and human habitat;
B. Promote development patterns that support safe, effective, and multi-modal transportation options, including auto, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit;
C. Reduce vehicle traffic and support transit by providing for a mixture of land uses, highly interconnected block and street network, and compact community form; D. Generate or reinforce neighborhoods with a variety of housing types to serve the needs of a diverse population;
E. Promote the health benefits of walkable environments; F. Generate pedestrian-oriented and scaled neighborhoods where the automobile is accommodated but does not dominate the streetscapes;
G. Reinforce the unique identity of the Town and build upon the local context, climate, and history; H. Realize development based on the patterns of existing walkable neighborhoods; and I. Design that suits specific topographical, environmental, development site layout, and design constraints unique to the development site.

Article 10: Specific to Large Sites
Sections:
10-20.10.010 Purpose
10-20.10.020 General to Walkable Community Design
10-20.10.030 Walkable Neighborhood Plan
10-20.10.040 General to Civic Space
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 161 321
10-20.10.020 General to Walkable Community Design

1. Developments of at least three acres or at least 700 feet long or deep shall be designed per the following standards:

A. Developments of three acres or less, see Figure 1 [Walkable Neighborhood Plan Design Process Overview for Large Sites (1 to three acres)]; or
B. Developments over three acres, see Figure 2 [Walkable Neighborhood Plan Design Process Overview for Large Sites (Over three acres)]; and
C. Walkable Neighborhood Plan (WNP). Proposed development is required to include a Walkable Neighborhood Plan (WNP) in compliance with this Subsection that identifies the proposed and existing blocks, civic and open spaces, and streets within 1,500 linear feet of the proposed development.

WNPs shall include the information required in Section 10-20.10.030 (Walkable Neighborhood Plan).

2. Civic Space Required
A. Civic space shall be provided in compliance with Section 10-20.10.040 (General to Civic Space).

B. A minimum of 10 percent of the total development area, after subtracting street right-of ways, is required.

3. Streets. Streets are to be applied to create walkable neighborhoods with redundant routes for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian circulation.

A. New streets are required to meet the standards in Ross Valley Fire Department Standard 210 (Roadway and Driveway Bridges), including maximum slope.

B. Required streets, indicated on the Zone Map or a Site Development Regulating Plan may be adjusted from their identified location by up to 100 feet in either direction.

C. The WNP shall identify the proposed street and block network.

D. Streets that pass from one zone to another may transition in their streetscape along the street's edges. For example, while a street within a more intense zone (e.g., MS.S) with retail shops may have wide sidewalks with trees in grates, it may transition to a narrower sidewalk with a planting strip within a less intense zone (e.g., N.S) with lower intensity residential building types.

4. Alleys
A. Existing alleys may be removed if street access is provided to the development sites on those blocks in compliance with the access standards of the zone.

B. Alleys may be added in compliance with Ross Valley Fire Department Standard 210 (Roadway and Driveway Bridges) and in compliance with Table A (Block Size Standards).

C. Development sites adjoining an alley and/or with a slope greater than six percent may be reduced in depth by up to 10 feet of the required depth. Rear setbacks may be reduced as allowed by Section 10-20.11.030 (Adjustment to Standards). Front setbacks shall not be reduced.

5. External Connectivity
A. The arrangement of streets shall provide for the alignment and continuation of existing or proposed streets into adjoining lands where the adjoining lands are undeveloped and intended for future development, or where the adjoining lands are undeveloped and include opportunities for such connections.
162
Specific to Large Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.10.020
322
Divide development area to
create smaller blocks and a
network of interconnected
streets, see Table A (Block Size
Standards).

A. Introduce new streets in
compliance with Ross Valley
Fire Department Standard 210
(Roadway and Driveway Bridges).

B. Identify at least 10% of the
development area as new civic
space. 10% is calculated after
subtracting street ROWs.

20.10.020.7.

For each block, select at least
two building types from the
allowable building types in
Subsection 3 of each zone and
introduce development sites1
within each block based on the
required development site width
and depth.

Show the different
building types in each block, and
identify the selected
frontage types for each
development site. See
Subsection 8 of each zone and
check Section 10-20.10.030
(Walkable Neighborhood Plan)
for all standards.
4 Zones 5 Development Sites 6 Buildings
Figure 10-20.10.020.1: Walkable Neighborhood Plan Design Process Overview for Large Sites (One to Three Acres) Street Street
Street
Street
Property Boundary
Street
Street
Street
New Street
New Street
Alley
Alley Alley
Alley
Street
Street
Street
Street
New Street
New Street
Street
Street
StreetStreet
New Street
New Street
Street
Street
Street
New Street
New Street
Alley
Alley Alley
Alley
Street
Street
StreetStreet
New Street
New Street
1Development site lines may be permanently recorded by the applicant.

Neighborhood.Small
Neighborhood.Medium
Main Street.Small
House
Duplex
Multiplex
Neighborhood Courtyard
Main Street Building
Neighborhood Townhouse
163
Specific to Large Sites
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.10.020
323
A. Introduce new streets in
compliance with Ross Valley
Fire Department Standard 210
(Roadway and Driveway Bridges).

B. Identify at least 10% of the
development area as new civic
space. 10% is calculated after
subtracting street ROWs.

Divide development area to
create smaller blocks and a
network of interconnected
streets, see Table A (Block Size
Standards).

If rear vehicular access is
preferred, introduce alleys to
provide access to development
sites and maintain a continuous
streetscape without the
interruption of driveways.
1 Blocks 2 Streets/Civic Space 3 Alleys
Existing Site
Development area with existing
streets and superblocks
Figure 10-20.10.020.2: Walkable Neighborhood Plan Design Process Overview for Large Sites (Over Three Acres) Street
Street
Street
Street
Property
Boundary
Street
Street
Street
Street
New Street
New Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
New Street
New Street
Alley
Alley
Alley
164
Specific to Large Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.10.020
324
Apply zones to implement the
intended physical character, in
compliance with Subsection 10-

20.10.020.7.

Show the different
building types in each block, and
identify the selected
frontage types for each
development site. See
Subsection 8 of each zone and
check Section 10-20.10.030
(Walkable Neighborhood Plan)
for all standards.
4 Zones 5 Development Sites 6 Buildings
Figure 10-20.10.020.2: Walkable Neighborhood Plan Design Process Overview for Large Sites (Over Three Acres) (Continued)
Street
Street
Street
Street
New Street
New Street
Alley
Alley
Alley
New Street
Street
Street
New Street
New Street
Street
New Street
Street
Street
New Street
New Street
Street
1Development site lines may be permanently recorded by the applicant.

House
Duplex
Cottage Court
Neighborhood Townhouse
Main Street Building
Multiplex
Neighborhood.Small
Neighborhood.Medium
Main Street.Small
165
Specific to Large Sites
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.10.020
325
B. Street rights-of-way shall be extended to or along adjoining property boundaries to provide a roadway connection or street stub for development, in compliance with Table A (Block Size Standards), for each direction (north, south, east, and west) in which development abuts vacant land.

C. Right-of-way stubs shall be identified and include a notation that all stubs are to connect with future streets on adjoining property and be designed to transition in compliance with Ross Valley Fire Department Standard 210 (Roadway and Driveway Bridges).

D. New dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs are not allowed, except when the grade of the new street exceeds 15 percent.

6. Block Size (New Blocks and Blocks to be Modified)
A. Individual block lengths and the total block perimeter shall be in compliance with the standards in Table A (Block Size Standards).

B. If a block contains multiple zones, the most intense zone is to be used to establish the standards for block size.

C. Blocks shall be a minimum width to result in two halves of developable development sites in compliance with the development site depth standards for the allowed building types in the zone. A single half is allowed when adjoining an existing half-block.

D. Blocks shall be designed so that new streets and building sites conform with Section 10-20.04.050 (Slope Standards).

E. Blocks may be uniquely shaped in compliance with the standards in Table A (Block Size Standards), and the allowed adjustments in Table 10-20.11.030.A (Adjustments to Standards for Development Sites Less Than 6% Slope) and Table 11.030.B (Adjustments to Standards for Development Sites Over 6% Slope).

Table 10-20.10.020.A: Block Size Standards
Zone Length Passage Required1
Perimeter
Length
N.S 600' max. Yes 2,000' max.

N.M 600' max. Yes 2,000' max.

MS.S 600' max. Yes 2,000' max.
1 In compliance with the standards for a Passage in Subsection 10-20.10.040.13 (Passage) Figure 10-20.10.020.3 Block Size
Block Length
Block Half Block Half
Key
Block Perimeter Development Site
166
Specific to Large Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.10.020
326

7. Stormwater Management
A. Integrated Design
(1) Stormwater management is required through a system that is integral to the streetscapes and/ or the civic and open space(s) in the development.
(2) The WNP shall identify the area(s) being proposed for managing stormwater. These areas are required to be a combination of the following:
(a) Swale within a planted median;
(b) Swale within a continuous tree planter adjacent to the travel lane; (c) Pond or other water body; and/or
(d) Areas within an allowed civic space type.
(3) The area(s) used for stormwater management is to be designed for both seasonal temporary on-site retention of stormwater and as public open space for the neighborhood(s) accessible to the public.
(4) The stormwater management area(s) may connect with those of adjacent development(s).

Figure 10-20.10.020.4 Stormwater Management Diagram
Key
Potential Area for Stormwater Management
Planted Swale
Civic Space Graded to also Accommodate Stormwater
Flow
Directed to
Center of
Civic Space
167
Specific to Large Sites
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.10.020
327

8. Applying Zones
A. Allocation of Zones. The WNP shall map the proposed zones on the proposed blocks and any existing blocks in the development in compliance with the following:
(1) Sites less than three acres are required to apply one zone, using only the zones established in Article 3 (Zones); or
(2) Sites greater than three acres and up to 20 acres shall apply at least two zones using only the zones established in Article 3 (Zones); or
(3) Sites over 20 acres shall apply zones in compliance with the allocation mix standards in Table B (Required Allocation Mix of Zones).

B. Organization of Zones. Zones shall be organized and mapped in a manner that responds appropriately to the various development site conditions. When applying or amending zone boundaries, more intense zones (i.e., MS.S) shall be organized around a neighborhood main street, civic or open space, transit stop, or civic building locations suitable for greater intensities. These areas shall not be located on slopes greater than six percent.

C. Transition between Zones. Transitions between zones shall occur within the block or across alleys along the adjacent prevailing slope.

Table 10-20.10.020.B: Required Allocation Mix of Zones
Zone Minimum % of Land1 Maximum % of Land1
Walkable Development Total to not exceed 100%
N.S 10% 40%
N.M 25% 40%
MS.S None 25%
Walkable Development within
1,500 feet of transit stop2 Total to not exceed 100%
N.S 30% 50%
N.M 40% 70%
MS.S None 30%
1 Net area after subtracting rights-of-way for streets and open/civic space 2 A high-frequency transit stop with approximately 15-minutes between arriving buses 168
Specific to Large Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.10.020
328
10-20.10.030 Walkable Neighborhood Plan

1. Walkable Neighborhood Plan (WNP) Standards
A. Organization. Each WNP is required to:
(1) Identify the zone(s), civic space(s), street and block network, as allowed to be adjusted by Table 10-20.11.030.A (Adjustments to Standards for Development Sites Less than 6% Slope) and Table 10-20.11.030.B (Adjustments to Standards for Development Sites Over 6% Slope); and (2) Be in compliance with the design standards of Section 10-20.10.020 (General to Walkable Community Design).

2. Required Content
A. General. Each WNP shall include the following information:
(1) Boundaries of the proposed development;
(2) Existing and proposed blocks within 1,500 linear feet of the development boundaries; (3) Open space not to be developed (if any);
(4) Civic space, in compliance with Section 10-20.10.040 (General to Civic Space); and (5) Mapping of proposed zones in compliance with Subsection 10-20.10.020.8 (Applying Zones).

B. Illustrative Site Plan
(1) The proposed physical character of the WNP shall be identified on an Illustrative Plan showing, in plan view, the proposed building types and private frontage types on each block and the proposed public frontage types showing proposed trees and landscaping along streets and in civic space types.
(2) As individual needs of a development may change over time, the building types specified in the WNP may be substituted with other building types allowed by the zone in compliance with the zone standards.

3. Required Mix of Building Types and Private Frontage Types A. The WNP shall maintain a mix of at least two different building types and two different private frontage types within each block, using only the types allowed in the zone(s).

B. The WNP shall maintain a mix of at least two different architectural styles within each block.

C. The WNP shall show dimensioned block depths for both halves of each block to demonstrate compliance with the minimum development site depth required for the building types in each zone.

D. The applicant may choose to show the shortest minimum development site depth allowed in each zone with an acknowledgement that the selected depth may not accommodate the full range of building types allowed by the zone.
169
Specific to Large Sites
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.10.030
329
10-20.10.040 General to Civic Space

1. The WNP shall identify open spaces and civic space types in compliance with the following standards and the standards of Table A (Civic Space Types Overview).

2. When hillsides are within the development, the hillside ridge(s) shall be the location for civic and open space.

3. Required civic and open space identified on the Zone Map or Site Development Regulating Plan may be adjusted from its identified location by up to 100 feet in any direction.

4. Public access and visibility is required along public parks, natural open spaces, and civic uses, including creeks and drainages and stormwater management areas, and shall be fronted by:

A. Single-loaded frontage streets (those with development on one side and open space on the other); B. Bike and pedestrian paths; or
C. Other methods of frontage that provide similar access and visibility to the open space allowed in the zone. Such access may be provided through public easements or other similar methods.

5. Amount of Civic Space Required. As required by Subsection 10-20.10.020.2, development of development sites are required to set aside a minimum area of the development site as civic space. One or more civic spaces may be used to meet the required area.

6. Building Frontage Along or Adjacent to a Civic Space. The facades on building development sites attached to or across a street from a civic space shall be designed as a "front" on to the civic space, in compliance with Subsection 5 and Subsection 8 of the zone.

7. Civic Space Types Overview. This Subsection identifies the allowed civic space types and standards for improvements to existing civic spaces and for construction of new civic spaces. For each civic space type, Subsection 1 and Subsection 3 are regulatory, and Subsection 2 and Subsection 4 are non-regulatory.

Allowed civic space types are identified in Table A (Civic Space Types Overview). 170
Specific to Large Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.10.040
330
Key P = Allowed X = Not Allowed
Table 10-20.10.040.A: Civic Space Types Overview
Zones
Specific Standards N.S N.M MS.S
Greenway 10-20.10.040.8 P P X
Green 10-20.10.040.9 P P X
Plaza 10-20.10.040.10 X X P
Playground 10-20.10.040.11 P P P
Community Garden 10-20.10.040.12 P P P
Passage 10-20.10.040.13 P P P
171
Specific to Large Sites
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.10.040
331

8. Greenway

1. Description
A multiple-block long linear space for community gathering and strolling for nearby residents and employees, defined by a tree-lined street on at least one side, sometimes forming a one-way couplet on its flanks and by the fronting buildings across the street. Greenways serve an important role as a green connector between destinations.

2. General Character
Formal or informal dominated by landscaping and trees with integral stormwater management capacity Hardscape path
Spatially defined by tree-lined streets and adjacent buildings

3. Size and Location
Size 2 continuous blocks in length, min.

Width 60' min.

Shall front at least one street

4. Typical Uses
Uses as allowed by the zone
172
Specific to Large Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.10.040
332

9. Green

1. Description
A large space available for unstructured and limited amounts of structured recreation.

2. General Character
Formal or informal with integral stormwater management capacity Primarily planted areas with paths to and between recreation areas and civic buildings Spatially defined by tree-lined streets and adjacent buildings

3. Size and Location
Size 300' x 300' min.

Street required on at least one side of the Green.

Facades on development sites attached to or across a street shall "front" on to the Green.

4. Typical Uses
Uses as allowed by the zone
173
Specific to Large Sites
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.10.040
333

10. Plaza

1. Description
A community-wide focal point primarily for civic purposes and commercial activities.

2. General Character
Formal, urban
Hardscaped and planted areas in formal patterns
Spatially defined by buildings and tree-lined streets

3. Size and Location
Size 50' x 50' min.

Street required one of the Plaza's sides.

Facades on development sites attached to or across a street shall "front" on to the Plaza.

4. Typical Uses
Uses as allowed by the zone
174
Specific to Large Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.10.040
334

11. Playground

1. Description
A small-scale space designed and equipped for the recreation of children. These spaces serve as quiet, places protected from the street and in locations where children do not have to cross any major streets.

An open shelter, play structure(s), or interactive art and fountain(s) may be included. Playgrounds may be included within all other civic space types except Community Garden.

2. General Character
Play structure(s), interactive art, and/or fountain(s)
Shade and seating provided
May be fenced
Spatially defined by trees

3. Size and Location
Size 40' x 60' min.

4. Typical Uses
Uses as allowed by the zone
175
Specific to Large Sites
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.10.040
335

12. Community Garden

1. Description
A small-scale space designed as a grouping of garden plots available for small-scale cultivation.

Community gardens may be fenced and may include a small accessory structure for storage. Community Gardens may be included within all other civic space types except Playgrounds.

2. General Character
Informal or Formal, urban
Combination of planted areas and hardscape
Spatially defined by building frontages and adjacent street trees Walkways along edges or across space

3. Size and Location
Size No minimum; within any development site as allowed by the zone

4. Typical Uses
Uses as allowed by the zone
176
Specific to Large Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.10.040
336

13. Passage

1. Description
A pedestrian pathway that extends from the public sidewalk into a civic space and/or across the block to another public sidewalk. The pathway is lined by non-residential shopfronts and/or residential ground floors and pedestrian entries as required by the zone.

2. General Character
Formal, urban
No accessory structure(s)
Primarily hardscape with landscape accents
Spatially defined by building frontages
Trees and shrubs in containers and/or planters

3. Size and Location
Size 20' min. clear width between or through buildings
Ground floor facades shall be in compliance with facade zone in Subsection 5 and frontages allowed in Subsection 8 of the zone.

Dooryards, porches, patios, and sidewalk dining shall not encroach into the minimum required width.

4. Typical Uses
Uses as allowed by the zone
177
Specific to Large Sites
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.10.040
337
178
Specific to Large Sites
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 This page intentionally left blank
338
10-20.11.010 Purpose
This Article is intended to establish procedures for applications eligible for streamlined review consistent with State law (i.e., SB 35) and for reviewing applications under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). The Town is responding to State mandates and including application procedures in the FBC that are compliant with State law but reflect the unique conditions and procedures within the Town. The intent of SB 35 and the HAA is to facilitate and expedite the construction of housing through the application of objective standards and, with SB 35, ministerial and streamlined approval procedures. These procedures shall be used in conjunction with the objective standards contained in this FBC as applicable. 10-20.11.020 Procedures

1. Procedures for Applications Filed Under SB 35
A. Applicability
(1) This Section applies to housing development projects applying for approval under Government Code §65913.4 and replaces the Town's procedures for reviewing discretionary applications. (2) This Section shall remain in effect for the same period as SB 35 provisions contained in Government Code §65913.4. Unless SB 35 provisions are extended by the State Legislature, this Section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2026, and as of that date is repealed. (3) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to projects eligible under SB 35. (4) The Department of Housing and Community Development is charged with developing guidelines for implementing SB 35. These procedures may change if required by changes in those guidelines or in Government Code §65913.4.

Article 11: Administration
Sections:
10-20.11.010 Purpose
10-20.11.020 Procedures
10-20.11.030 Adjustments to Standards
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 179 339
B. Definitions. Terms defined in Government Code §65913.4 shall apply to this Section and shall control in the event of a conflict between definitions in this FBC and definitions in Government Code §65913.4.

C. Application Filing
(1) Preliminary Application Filing. An applicant shall file a notice of intent to submit an SB 35 application in the form of a preliminary application consistent with Government Code §65941.1. (a) Form. A preliminary application shall be filed on a form provided by the Town with the required fee. If the Town has not prepared a form, a preliminary application shall be filed on the standardized form adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
(b) Timeline. Within 180 calendar days after submitting a preliminary application, an applicant shall submit a full SB 35 application, provided scoping consultation has concluded consistent with Subsection (c), below.
(c) Scoping Consultation
i. Upon receipt of the preliminary application, the Town shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission for assistance in identifying any California Native American tribe that should be noticed. The Town shall provide a formal notice of the applicant's intent to submit a full application to each required California Native American tribe within 30 days of preliminary application submittal. The formal notice shall be consistent with Government Code §65913.4(b).
ii. If, within 30 days of receipt of the formal notice, any California Native American tribe that was formally noticed accepts the invitation to engage in scoping consultation, the Town shall commence scoping consultation within 30 days of receiving that response. iii. Scoping consultation shall be conducted consistent with Government Code §65913.4(b).

If, after scoping consultation is concluded, a development is not eligible for SB 35 streamlining, the Town shall provide written documentation as required by Government Code §65913.4(b) to the applicant and any California Native American tribe that is a party to that scoping consultation.
(2) Full Application. If the development remains eligible to apply under SB 35 after scoping consultation consistent with Government Code §65913.4(b) has concluded, an applicant may file a full SB 35 application on a form provided by the Town with the required fee.

D. Completeness Review. The Town shall review an application for compliance consistent with Subsection 1.E; there shall be no separate or additional timeframe for completeness review. Only the items necessary to determine compliance with the provisions contained in Government Code §65913.4(a) shall be required.
180
Administration
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.11.020
340
E. Compliance Review
(1) Scope of Review. The Planning Director's scope of review is limited to all of the provisions contained in Government Code §65913.4(a) and the objective standards in effect at the time of preliminary application submittal.
(2) Review Timeframes
(a) Consistency Review. The Planning Director shall determine if the application complies with all of the provisions contained in Government Code §65913.4(a) and applicable objective standards within the following timeframes:
i. Within 60 calendar days of application submittal for applications that include 150 or fewer housing units.
ii. Within 90 calendar days of application submittal for applications that include 151 or more housing units.
(3) Compliance Determination
(a) Compliant Application. If the application complies with all of the provisions contained in Government Code §65913.4(a) and all applicable objective standards, the Town shall complete any design review or public oversight and any subdivision approval within the timeframes listed in Subsection 1.E. Only objective design and subdivision standards may be applied. See Subsection 1.F.
(b) Non-Compliant Application. If the application does not comply with all of the provisions contained in Government Code §65913.4(a) and all applicable objective standards, the Planning Director shall make the following determination:
i. If the application does not comply with all of the provisions contained in Government Code §65913.4(a) and all applicable objective standards, the Planning Director shall provide the applicant with written documentation of which standards the development conflicts with and an explanation of the reasons the development conflicts with each standard.
ii. Resubmitted Application. If the project was found to be non-compliant, the applicant may resubmit the application for SB 35 streamlining, and the Town shall review it for compliance with all of the provisions contained in Government Code §65913.4(a) and all applicable objective standards subject to the same timelines in Subsection (2) above. iii. Project Ineligible. If the project is ineligible for SB 35 streamlined processing, the applicant may elect to submit an application for the applicable discretionary approval under the provisions of Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 7 (Zoning Implementation Procedures), Article 14 (Variance), and Article 15 (Design Review). 181
Administration
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.11.020
341
F. Decision on Project
(1) Project Approval and Findings. The Planning Director shall approve the application if the Planning Director finds that the proposed development is compliant with all of the provisions contained in Government Code §65913.4(a) and all applicable objective standards, including objective subdivision standards.
(2) Conditions of Approval. The Planning Director may impose conditions of approval provided those conditions of approval are objective and broadly applicable to development within the Town.

G. Post-decision Procedures
(1) Subsequent Permits. Any necessary subsequent permits shall be issued on a ministerial basis subject to applicable objective standards; however, a commercial use located in a qualifying mixed-use project is subject to any additional Town permitting requirements and processes. If a public improvement is necessary to implement a development subject to this Section, and that public improvement is located on land owned by the Town, the Planning Director shall process any approvals needed as required by Government Code §65913.4(h)(3). (2) Post-Approval Modifications
(a) Post-Approval Modification Request. An applicant or the Town may request a modification to an approved development if that request is made prior to the issuance of the final building permit.
(b) Applicability of Objective Standards to Modifications. The Planning Director shall only apply objective standards in effect when the original application was submitted, except that objective standards adopted after the date of original submittal may be applied in any of the following instances:
i. The total number of residential units or total square footage of construction changes by 15 percent or more; or
ii. The total number of residential units or total square footage of construction changes by five percent or more, and it is necessary to subject the development to an objective standard beyond those in effect when the application was submitted in order to mitigate or avoid a specific adverse impact upon public health of safety, for which there is no feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid. iii. Objective building standards contained in Title 24 may be applied to all modifications. (c) Post-Approval Modification Review Timeframe and Decision. The Planning Director shall determine if the modification is consistent with objective planning standards and issue a decision on the applicant’s modification request within 60 days after submittal unless design review is required, in which case a decision shall be made within 90 days. (3) Expiration. An application approved consistent with this Section shall remain valid for three years; however, an application approval shall not expire if the development includes public investment in housing affordability, beyond tax credits, where 50 percent of the units are affordable to households making at or below 80 percent of the area median income consistent with Government Code §65913.4(f).
(4) Extension. At the discretion of the Planning Director, a one-year extension may be granted consistent with Government Code §65913.4(f)(3).
182
Administration
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.11.020
342
183
Administration
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards This page intentionally left blank
343
Procedures for applications filed consistent with the HAA H. Applicability
(1) This Section applies to housing development projects as defined by Government Code §65589.5(h)(2).
(2) This Section shall remain in effect for the same period as provisions contained in the Government Code §65589.5 (HAA). Any provisions that are not extended by the State Legislature shall be repealed as of the date those provisions in the HAA are deemed null and void.

I. Definitions. Terms defined in Government Code §65589.5 shall apply to this Section and shall control in the event of a conflict between definitions in this FBC and definitions in Government Code §65589.5.

J. Application Filing
(1) Preliminary Application Filing (Optional). An applicant may file a preliminary application consistent with Government Code §65941.1.
(a) A preliminary application shall be filed on a form provided by the Town with the required fee. If the Town has not prepared a form, a preliminary application shall be filed on the standardized form adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
(b) Within 180 calendar days after submitting a preliminary application, an applicant shall submit a full application for the housing development.
(2) Full Application. An applicant may file a full application for a housing development without filing a preliminary application. The full application shall be filed on a form provided by the Town with the required fee.

K. Conflicting Procedures. This Section provides additional procedures that shall be followed for applicable projects. If conflicts occur between the Town's procedures and the procedures of this Section, this Section shall control.
184
Administration
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.11.020
344
L. Completeness Review
(1) Preliminary Application. If a preliminary application is filed, the preliminary application shall be deemed complete when the preliminary application containing all of the information listed in the preliminary application form is submitted. If all listed information is not provided, the Town shall request the missing information from the applicant.
(2) Full Application
(a) Once a full application is submitted, the Town shall inform the applicant in writing within 30 calendar days of submittal or resubmittal that the application is complete or incomplete and the additional information required consistent with Government Code §65943. Only information requested in the Town's application forms can be requested. If the Town does not provide written notification within this timeframe, the application shall be deemed complete. The Town shall review each resubmittal within the 30-day period and cannot request information that was not listed in the first incompleteness letter. (b) If an applicant receives written notification that the application is incomplete, and a preliminary application was submitted for the housing development, the applicant shall submit the information needed to complete the application within 90 calendar days of receiving the written notification of incompleteness. If the applicant does not submit this information within this timeframe, the preliminary application shall expire and have no further force or effect.
(c) If a second determination of incompleteness is provided, the applicant shall be able to appeal the decision to the Planning Commission. The Town shall make a decision on the appeal no later than 60 calendar days after receipt of the applicant’s written appeal. If the decision on the appeal is not made within this timeframe, the application shall be deemed complete.
185
Administration
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.11.020
345
M. Compliance Review
(1) Scope of Review
(a) Housing Development with a Preliminary Application Submittal. A housing development for which a preliminary application was submitted shall only be subject to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when the preliminary application is submitted, except in the following circumstances:
i. A fee, charge, or other monetary exaction increase resulting from an automatic annual adjustment based on an independently published cost index that is referenced in the ordinance or resolution establishing the fee or monetary exaction. ii. A preponderance of the evidence in the record establishes that subjecting the housing development to an ordinance, policy, or standard beyond those in effect when the preliminary application was submitted is necessary to mitigate or avoid a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible alternative method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact. iii. Subjecting the housing development to an ordinance, policy, standard, or any other measure, beyond those in effect when the preliminary application was submitted is necessary to avoid or substantially lessen an impact consistent with CEQA. iv. The housing development has not commenced construction within 2.5 years following the date of the housing development’s final approval (as defined in Government Code §65589.5(o)(1)(D)).
v. The number of residential units or square footage of construction proposed changes by 20 percent or more, exclusive of any increase resulting from a density bonus, incentive, concession, waiver, or similar provision.
(b) Housing Development without a Preliminary Application Submittal. A housing development shall be subject to objective standards in effect when the application was deemed complete.
186
Administration
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.11.020
346
(2) Review Timeframes
(a) Applications for housing development containing 150 or fewer units shall be reviewed for compliance with applicable objective standards within 30 calendar days of being deemed complete.
(b) Applications for housing development containing more than 150 units shall be reviewed for compliance with applicable objective standards within 60 calendar days of being deemed complete.
(3) Review Authority. The Planning Director shall be the Review Authority consistent with the Town's procedures for the full application for the application type(s) set forth in Title 10, Chapter 3, Articles 7 through 16; however, if the Planning Director is not the Review Authority, the Planning Director may serve as the Review Authority, if necessary, to comply with Review Timelines described in Subsection 2.F.
(4) Compliance Determination
(a) The Planning Director shall identify the specific standard(s) that the project does not comply with and provide an explanation of the reason(s) why the housing development is considered to be inconsistent or non-compliant with identified provisions and shall provide the written determination to the applicant.
(b) A housing development is considered in compliance with this FBC, and shall not require a Zoning Map Amendment, if the housing development complies with objective General Plan standards but the zoning for the housing development site is inconsistent with the General Plan.
(5) Limited Hearings/Meetings. If a housing development complies with applicable objective standards, the Town shall not conduct more than five public hearings (including continuances), workshops, or similar meetings after the full application is complete in connection with the approval of the housing development consistent with Government Code §65905.5. Meetings required by CEQA are exempt from the limit.
187
Administration
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.11.020
347
N. Findings and Decision
(1) Findings
(a) If the proposed housing development complies with applicable objective General Plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, the Planning Director may only deny the housing development or conditionally approve the housing development at a lower density if the Planning Director makes written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record that:
i. The housing development would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the housing development is denied or conditionally approved at a lower density. A "specific, adverse impact" means a "significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date that the project was deemed complete"; and
ii. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact other than the denial of the housing development or conditional approval of the housing development at a lower density.
(b) If the housing development includes 20 percent of units affordable to very low or lowincome households, 100 percent of units affordable or moderate or middle income households, or an emergency shelter, the Planning Director shall approve the housing development unless the Planning Director makes written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence in the record, as to at least one of the findings in Government Code §65589.5(d).
(2) Decision Timeframes. The Planning Director shall approve or deny the housing development within the following applicable period:
(a) 90 days from Environmental Impact Report certification; (b) 60 days from Environmental Impact Report certification for an affordable housing development consistent with Government Code §65950(a)(3); (c) 60 days from adoption of a Negative Declaration; or (d) 60 days from determination of CEQA exemption.

O. Post-Decision Procedures. Post-decision procedures for the required permit (full application) shall be followed provided those procedures do not conflict with applicable Government Code sections for housing developments (i.e., HAA, Government Code §65589.5). 188
Administration
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.11.020
348
189
Administration
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards This page intentionally left blank
349
Figure 10-20.11.020.1: Process for Developments Eligible for SB 35 Streamlining with 150 units or Fewer (Government Code §65913.4)
Does the development have 150 units or fewer?
An applicant electing to use SB 35 streamlining submits a preliminary application.

Yes No
Consistency Review
Staff to determine if development complies with
Gov Code §65913.4(a) and objective standards in
effect at time of preliminary application submittal.
60-day timeframe from application submittal
Design Review or Public Oversight
Planning Director to determine if development
complies with Gov Code §65913.4(a) and objective
standards in effect at time of preliminary
application submittal. 90-day timeframe from
application submittal
Development does NOT comply with
Gov Code §65913.4(a) and/or objective
standards
Development complies with Gov Code
§65913.4(a) and objective standards
See Figure 10-20.11.020.2
Written explanation of standards
that aren’t complied with (within
required timeframe)
Development is
approved
Applicant may correct
noncompliant items
and resubmit under SB
35 subject to the same
timelines above
Applicant may resubmit
new application under
other local process
Scoping consultation conducted per Gov Code §65913.4(b).

After scoping consultation, if development is eligible for SB 35 streamlining, applicant submits a full application within 180 days from preliminary application submittal.

After scoping consultation, if
development is not eligible for SB 35
streamlining, applicant may resubmit
under other local process
190
Administration
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.11.020
350
Figure 10-20.11.020.2: Process for Developments Eligible for SB 35 Streamlining with 151 units or More (Government Code §65913.4)
An applicant electing to use SB 35 streamlining submits a preliminary application.

Consistency Review
Staff to determine if development complies with
Gov Code §65913.4(a) and objective standards in
effect at time of preliminary application submittal.
90-day timeframe from application submittal
Design Review or Public Oversight
Planning Director to determine if development
complies with Gov Code §65913.4(a) and objective
standards in effect at time of preliminary
application submittal. 180-day timeframe from
application submittal
Development does NOT comply with
Gov Code §65913.4(a) and/or objective
standards
Development complies with Gov Code
§65913.4(a) and objective standards
Written explanation of standards that
aren’t complied with (within required
timeframe)
Development is
approved
Applicant may correct
noncompliant items
and resubmit under SB
35 subject to the same
timelines above
Applicant may resubmit
new application under SB
35 (or other local process)
Does the development have 151 units or more?
Yes No See Figure 10-20.11.020.1
Scoping consultation conducted per Gov Code §65913.4(b).

After scoping consultation, if development is eligible for SB 35 streamlining, applicant submits a full application within 180 days from preliminary application submittal.

After scoping consultation, if
development is not eligible for SB 35
streamlining, applicant may resubmit
under other local process
191
Administration
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.11.020
351
Figure 10-20.11.020.3: Process for Developments Eligible for Housing Accountability Act (HAA) Protection (Government Code §65589.5)
Is it a preliminary application (per Gov Code
§65941.1)?
An applicant submits a development application eligible for protection under the HAA.

Yes No
Development shall be subject
to objective standards in effect
when application deemed
complete
Development shall only be
subject to objective standards
in effect at time of complete
preliminary application
submittal
Applicant submit a full application
within 180 days from preliminary
application submittal
Jurisdiction has 30 days to
review for completeness. Is it a
complete application per Gov
Code §65943?
Application deemed complete Yes No
Jurisdiction does NOT provide
completeness letter within 30 days
Jurisdiction provides completeness
letter within 30 days
Does the
development have
150 units or fewer?
Yes No
Applicant submits specific
information requested
Jurisdiction has 30 days from
deemed complete to review for
compliance
Jurisdiction has 60 days from
deemed complete to review for
compliance
If a preliminary application
was submitted, and applicant
does NOT submit required
information within 90 days of
receipt of completeness letter,
preliminary application expires
Upon a second incompleteness
determination, applicant may
appeal. Decision on appeal
If in compliance, OR if within 60 days
review NOT completed with
timeframe, development
deemed in compliance
No more than five hearings/
meetings may be held before
decision
Final decision within 60 days of CEQA
exemption determination, MND adoption,
or EIR certification for affordable housing
developments; 90 days after EIR certification
for all other residential developments
If not in
compliance,
jurisdiction
identifies
and explains
reason(s) for noncompliance in
writing. Applicant
resubmits.
192
Administration
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.11.020
352
10-20.11.030 Adjustments to Standards

1. Purpose. This Section is intended to allow for minor deviations from certain standards in this Title for specific situations that make compliance not possible because of the prescriptive nature of the standards.

2. Applicability. This Section applies to developments subject to Section 10-20.11.020 (Procedures). The Planning Director may grant an Adjustment for only the standards identified as follows:

A. Development sites less than 6% slope. See Table A (Adjustments to Standards for Development Sites Less Than 6% Slope).

B. Development sites over 6% slope. See Table B (Adjustments to Standards for Development Sites Over 6% Slope).

3. Procedures. Adjustment requests shall be reviewed and processed as follows:

A. The Adjustment shall be processed concurrently with the development involving the request(s) for adjustment(s). The adjustment request(s) shall be processed in compliance with the applicable procedures in Section 10-20.11.020 (Procedures); or
B. If the development for which an Adjustment is requested is beyond what is authorized in Table A (Adjustments to Standards for Development Sites Less Than 6% Slope) and/or Table B (Adjustments to Standards for Development Sites Over 6% Slope), the adjustment will be processed only up to the amount authorized in these Tables.

C. Adjustment requests that involve any of the following features (i.e., historic building/feature, tree, rock outcrop, and/or utility infastructure) shall be accompanied by existing documentation identifying the feature(s).

D. Depending on the unique characteristics and dimensions of an individual parcel, it is possible that the full develoment potential of the zone may not be achieveable even after applying the allowed adjustments oin the Section.
193
Administration
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.11.030
353
Table 10-20.11.030.A: Adjustments to Standards for Development Sites Less Than 6% Slope Administrative Relief Type Required Findings
Allowed Administrative
Relief
Reference to
Standard

1. Development Site Dimensions
a. Depth or Width
Decrease in the minimum
required or maximum
allowed
i. An existing historic building/feature,
tree, rock outcrop, and/or utility
infrastructure prevents compliance with
the standard.

Up to 10% of the
standard
Subsection 3 of
the zone

2. Building Setbacks
a. Front1, Side Street1,
Side or Rear
Increase or decrease in
the minimum to maximum
required setback for a
primary building and/or
wing(s)
i. An existing historic building/feature,
tree, rock outcrop, and/or utility
infrastructure prevents compliance with
the standard.

Up to 25% of the
standard
Subsection 5 of
the zone
ii. The existing lot is 80' or less in depth,
preventing compliance with the rear
setback standard.
b. Facade within Facade Zone
Reduction of the minimum
amount of facade required
within or abutting the facade
zone
i. An existing historic building/feature,
tree, rock outcrop, and/or utility
infrastructure prevents compliance with
the standard.

Up to 25% of the
standard
Subsection 5 of
the zone
ii. The horizontal unbuilt area resulting
from this adjustment is landscaped per
the standards in Section 10-20.05.030
(Landscaping and Lighting).
1 Standards for private frontage still apply [See Article 7 (Specific to Private Frontages)], and any adjustment shall not preclude the application of a private frontage type.
194
Administration
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.11.030
354
Table 10-20.11.030.A: Adjustments to Standards for Development Sites Less Than 6% Slope (Continued) Administrative Relief Type Required Findings
Allowed Administrative
Relief
Reference to
Standard

3. Building Footprint
a. Size of Main Body1 or
Wing(s)
Increase in the allowed width
or length
i. An existing historic building/feature,
tree, rock outcrop, and/or utility
infrastructure prevents compliance with
the standard.

Up to 10% of the
standard
Subsection 3 of
the building type
ii. The wing(s) is one-story less in height
than the main body.
iii. The building complies with the setbacks
of the zone or as allowed to be adjusted
by this Section.

4. Parking Location
a. Front or Side Street
Setback
Reduction in the required
parking setback
i. An existing historic building/feature,
tree, rock outcrop, and/or utility
infrastructure prevents compliance with
the standard.

Up to 10% of the
standard when the
required setback is 20' or
more.

Subsection 7 of
the zone
ii. The driveway is in compliance with the
zone standards.

Up to 20% of the
standard when the
required setback is less
than 20'.
iii. The ground floor space remains
habitable in compliance with the zone
standards, as allowed to be adjusted by
this Section.

Subsection 3 of
the Zone
1 Standards for private frontage still apply [See Article 7 (Specific to Private Frontages)], and any adjustment shall not preclude the application of a private frontage type.
195
Administration
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.11.030
355
1 Standards for private frontage still apply [See Article 7 (Specific to Private Frontages)], and any adjustment shall not preclude the application of a private frontage type.

Table 10-20.11.030.B: Adjustments to Standards for Development Sites Over 6% Slope Administrative Relief Type Required Findings
Allowed Administrative
Relief
Reference to
Standard

1. Development Site Dimensions
a. Depth
Increase or decrease in
minimum to maximum
development site depth
i. Existing slope exceeds 15% grade for at
least 50% of development site depth.
20% max. of the standard
If an adjustment is granted
for an increase in the Main
Body and Rear wing resulting
in the need to change the
development site depth, the
development site depth may
increase as allowed in this
Section.

Subsection 3 of
the zone
b. Width
Increase or decrease in
minimum to maximum
development site width
i. Existing slope exceeds 15% grade for at
least 25% of development site width.
10% max. of the standard
If an adjustment granted
for an increase in the main
body and rear wing results
in needing to change the
development site depth by
up to 25%
Subsection 3 of
the zone

2. Building Setbacks
a. Front1,Side Street1, Side
or Rear
Increase or decrease in
minimum to maximum
required setback areas for
primary building and/or
wing(s)
i. Existing slope exceeds 15% grade within
at least the first 30' of development site
depth.

Reduction in the minimum
setback to within 5’ of the
development site line. Where
side street setback is 5’
minimum, reduction in the
minimum setback to within 3’
of the development site line.

Subsection 5 of
the zone
ii. An existing historic building/feature,
tree, rock outcrop, and/or utility
infrastructure prevents compliance with
the standard.
iii. The existing lot depth is less than 80'.
196
Administration
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.11.030
356
Standards for private frontage stillapply [See Article 7 (Specific to Private Frontages)], and any adjustment shall not preclude the application of a private frontage type.

Table 10-20.11.030.B: Adjustments to Standards for Development Sites Over 6% Slope (Continued) Administrative Relief Type Required Findings
Allowed Administrative
Relief
Reference to
Standard

3. Building Footprint
a. Size of Main Body1 or
Wing(s)
Increase in the allowed
width or length
i. Existing slope exceeds 15% grade for at
least 50% of the development site width
or depth.

Up to 25% of the standard Subsection 3
of the building
type
ii. The building is in compliance with the
setbacks of the zone or as allowed to be
adjusted by this Section.

4. Site Grading
a. Retaining Wall (Height)
Increase in maximum
retaining wall height or
length
i. Existing slopes exceed 15% grade for at
least 50% of development site width or
depth.

Increase in retaining wall
height up to 10' along rear
and/or side development site
line(s); Increase in retaining
wall height up to 20' within
the building footprint
Subsection
10-20.05.050.5
ii. The retaining wall or series of retaining
walls cannot be seen from the adjacent
public sidewalk or adjacent property.
iii. Retaining walls not within the building
footprint are less than 50' in total
length along the rear development site
line or any development site line.

5. Block Face and Perimeter
a. Increase in maximum
length of new or
modified block
i. Existing slope along at least one side of
the block exceeds 15% grade, resulting
in new street(s) that exceed maximum
allowed grade, preventing compliance
with the standards.

Up to 25% of the standard Table
10-20.10.020.A
(Block Size
Standards)
ii. The subject block(s) include a Passage
in compliance with Subsection 10-

20.10.040.13 (Passage).
iii. The block(s) is in compliance with Ross
Valley Fire Department Standard 210
(Roadway and Driveway Bridges).
197
Administration
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.11.030
357
Standards for private frontage still apply [See Article 7 (Specific to Private Frontages)], and any adjustment shall not preclude the application of a private frontage type.

Table 10-20.11.030.B: Adjustments to Standards for Development Sites Over 6% Slope (Continued) Administrative Relief Type Required Findings
Allowed Administrative
Relief
Reference to
Standard

6. Parking Location Setbacks
a. Front or Side Street
Reduction in a required
parking setback.

One or more of the following techniques
are applied, as allowed by this Section:
i. Existing lot depth that is less than 80'
preventing compliance with the parking
setbacks location.

Front Setback: The parking
location setbacks standards
do not apply. Only one row
of parking spaces allowed in
the front setback for up to
75% of the parcel width.

Subsection 7 of
the zone;
Subsection 4 of
the zone
ii. The average slope of the parcel from
the front to the rear exceeds 15%
iii. Surface: Parking is uncovered and
located between the building and the
street
iv. Podium: Parking under primary building
is enclosed and access is only from
one side of the development site
for development sites 150' or less in
width. Habitable space, in compliance
with Subsection 4 of the zone or as
allowed to be reduced by this Section,
is between the front of the building and
the parking spaces. The parking garage
access is not greater than 10' in width.

Front Setback: Reduction
to 18' behind the primary
building facade.

Side Street Setback:

Reduction to 5' behind the
primary building facade.

Habitable Space: Reduction
in the minimum depth to 15'.
v. Tandem Parking: Tandem parking
spaces may be arranged in a series of
up to 6 total parking spaces, but only
up to 2 side-by-side, from the front
development site line.

Existing lot up to 100' wide:

Allowed in front setback up to
75% of existing lot width.

Existing lot up to 150' wide:

Allowed in front setback up to
50% of existing lot width.

Existing lot up over 150' wide:

Allowed in front setback up to
20% of existing lot width or 50'
whichever is less.
vi. Subterranean Parking: Parking spaces
are located below the adjacent finished
grade of the building to the zone's
building setbacks.

All Setbacks: Reduced to
match the building setbacks
of the zone or as allowed to
be reduced by this Section.
vii. Stacked Parking System: Parking spaces
are arranged in a system that provides
up to 3 spaces in the horizontal area
of one space. The garage access is not
greater than 10' in width.

Front and/or Side Street
Setback: Reduced to be the
same as the primary building
setback.

Reduction in the minimum
habitable space depth to 18'.
198
Administration
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.11.030
358
10-20.12.010 Purpose
This Article provides descriptions of specialized terms, phrases, and methods for measurements used in this Title.
10-20.12.020 Definitions
For specialized terms and phrases used in this Title, refer to the definitions in Title 10, Chapter 3, Article 17 (Definitions).
10-20.12.030 Measurement Methods

1. Sloped and Steeply Sloped Development Sites
A. Applicability. The standards of Section 10-20.05.050 (Slope Standards) apply to sloped and steeply sloped development sites. Slope is measured by taking the vertical distance, or "rise", over the horizontal distance, or "run." The resulting fraction, or percentage, is the "slope" of the land. Sloped and steeply sloped development sites are those areas of land that exhibit slopes of six percent or greater.

Article 12: Definitions
Sections:
10-20.12.010 Purpose
10-20.12.020 Definitions
10-20.12.030 Measurement Methods
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 199 359
B. Methodology. The following methodology shall be used to identify steep slopes protected in compliance with this Article. An example of the methodology is shown in Figure 1 (Example for Defining Sloped and Steeply Sloped Development Sites).
(1) Steep Slope Determination. To qualify as a steep slope, the slope shall be at least six percent with a 10-foot vertical drop over a 100-foot horizontal distance parallel to at least one common contour line. The horizontal measurement shall cross property lines to establish if a steep slope may exist on a development site (i.e., the 100-foot minimum width calculation shall cross a property line if necessary to achieve this minimum width).

Figure 10-20.12.030.1: Example for Defining Sloped and Steeply Sloped Development Sites
400
390
380
370
410
Key
Vertical Distance
Horizontal Distance
Development Site Line
Topography Line
Topography Analysis
(2) Area Calculation. Steep slope areas are calculated based on the square feet of qualifying steep slope on the development site as determined in Subsection 1 above. There is no minimum square footage for each slope area.
(a) First, calculate the square footage of slopes 30 percent and greater. Determine the square footage of each area as well as the sum of these areas for the total site. (b) Second, calculate the square footage of slopes between 29 and 25 percent. Determine the square footage of each area as well as the sum of these areas for the total site. (c) Third, calculate the square footage of slopes between 24 and 20 percent. Determine the square footage of each area as well as the sum of these areas for the total site. (d) Fourth, calculate the square footage of slopes between 15 percent and 19 percent.

Determine the square footage of each area as well as the sum of these areas for the total site.
(e) Fifth, calculate the square footage of slopes between 10 and 14 percent. Determine the square footage of each area as well as the sum of these areas for the total site. (f) Last, calculate the square footage of slopes between 6 and 9 percent. Determine the square footage of each area as well as the sum of these areas for the total site. 200
Definitions
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.12.030
360
(3) Steep Slope Resource Area. Based on the area calculations in Subsection 2, above, Table 10-

20.05.050.A (Amount of Sloped Areas Allowed to be Developed) identifies the percentage of sloped area that is developable. Figures 2 and 3 illustrate examples of the calculated slopes and the corresponding percentage allowed for development.
(4) Sloping Development Site Height. Development sites with slopes of six percent or more shall measure the maximum height of structures as set forth in the zone and measured vertically from ground level at the front setback line, or if no setback is required, at the center of the development site.

Figure 10-20.12.030.2: Example for a Sloped Development Site (<3 acres) Front Street
Key Existing Slope Developable Area1
0-5.99% 100% max.
6-9.99% 100% max.
10-14.99% 100% max.
15-19.99% 100% max.
20-29.99% 50% max.
>30% 0% max.

Development Site Line
Slope Designations
Figure 10-20.12.030.3: Example for a Sloped Development Site (>3 acres) Front Street
Key Existing Slope Developable Area1
0-5.99% 100% max.
6-9.99% 70% max.
10-14.99% 25% max.
15-19.99% 5% max.
20-29.99% 0% max.
>30% 0% max.

Development Site Line
Slope Designation
1 In compliance with the setbacks of the zone, required on-site open space, this Section, and the maximum building footprint standards in Article 6 (Building Type Standards). 201
Definitions
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.12.030
361
C. Average Slope. The result of dividing the length of a slope by the difference in elevation at the top and bottom of the slope.
(1) Development Sites with Even Slope. Average slope for development sites with relatively even slope across the site and small development sites is determined by using the following formula:
(a) S = ((T - B) ÷ run) × 100
(b) S = average slope
(c) T = elevation at top of slope
(d) B = elevation at bottom of slope
(e) Run = horizontal distance between the top and bottom elevations (2) Development Sites with Uneven Slope. Average slope of development sites with an uneven slope across the site before grading is determined by using the following formula:
(a) S = (1.0029 × I × L) ÷ A
(b) S = average slope
(c) I = contour interval in feet
(d) L = summation of length of the contour lines in scale feet (e) A = area of the development site in acres
202
Definitions
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.12.030
362

2. Facade Zone Defined by Primary Building/Frontage Type(s) A. Applicability. The facade zone standards apply to new primary buildings and their additions along the front and side street of a development site.

B. Methodology. The required amount is expressed in the zone standards as a percentage. The percentage is calculated as follows through an example for the front facade zone. The same approach is to be applied to the side street, using the minimum front and rear building setbacks. (1) Identify the width of development site (e.g., 50 feet) and apply required side building setbacks (e.g., 5 feet and 5 feet).
(2) Subtract the horizontal length between each side setback and the adjacent side development site line from the total width of the development site. The result is the net buildable width of the development site (e.g., 40 feet).
(3) Multiply the required minimum percentage in the zone standards (e.g., 50 percent) by the net buildable width of the development site (e.g., 50 feet). (4) The result is the minimum length, in feet, of building facade and frontage type(s) that is required in or abutting the facade zone (e.g., 20 feet).
(5) See Figure 5 (Applying the Required Amount to the Facade Zone) for examples that are consistent with the intent of this standard.

Figure 10-20.12.030.4: Determining the Required Amount Subject to the Facade Zone Example Calculation
50' Development Site Width
- 5' Side Setback
- 5' Side Setback
= 40' Net Buildable Width
40' Net Buildable Width
x Zone Standard (e.g., 50%)
= 20' Required In or Abutting the Facade Zone
Key
Width of Development Site
Depth of Development Site
Setback to be Subtracted from Development Site Width
Setback to be Subtracted from Development Site Depth Side Street Front Street
203
Definitions
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.12.030
363
Figure 10-20.12.030.5: Applying the Required Amount to the Facade Zone A. Abutting Facade Only B. Within Facade Zone Only
C. Abutting and Within Facade Zone D. For Zones with 0' minimum Setbacks Key
Front Street Side Street
Facade Zone 50% min.1 50% min.1
Buildable Area
for Building and
Frontage Type(s)
1 This is an example. See Subsection 5 of the zone for the required percentage. Side Street Front Street
Side Street
Front Street
Side Street
Front Street
Side Street
Front Street
204
Definitions
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.12.030
364

3. Measuring Building Types
A. Methodology. Measurement of width, depth, and height. (1) Main Body. The width and depth of the main body shall be measured as follows:
(a) The width shall be parallel to the front.
(b) The depth shall be perpendicular to the front.

Figure 10-20.12.030.6:

Main Body
Key
Width
Depth
BUILDING TYPE: DUPLEX, STACKED
Side Street
Front Street
(2) Wings and Ancillary Structures. The width and depth of wings and ancillary structures, shall be measured as follows:
(a) The width shall be the greater of the two dimensions of the footprint. (b) The depth shall be the lesser of the two dimensions of the footprint.

STACKED
Side Street
Front Street
Figure 10-20.12.030.7:

Wings and Ancillary Structures
Key
Width
Depth
205
Definitions
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.12.030
365
(3) Open Space(s). The width and depth of open spaces shall be measured as follows:
(a) The width shall be parallel to the front
(b) The depth shall be perpendicular to the front.

X, STACKED
Side Street
Front Street
Figure 10-20.12.030.8:

Open Space(s)
Key
Width
Depth
(4) Courtyard(s). The width and depth of courtyards shall be measured as follows:
(a) The width shall be parallel to the front; unless the courtyard is a secondary courtyard accessed directly from a side street.
(b) If a secondary courtyard is accessed directly from the side street, the width shall be parallel to the side street.
(c) The depth shall be perpendicular to the width.

Figure 10-20.12.030.9:

Courtyard(s)
Key
Width
Depth
Front Street

URTYARD APARTMENT, LARGE
206
Definitions
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.12.030
366
(5) Width-to-Height Ratio. Measurement of width-to-height ratio and depth-to-height ratio of forecourts.
(a) The width and depth of forecourts shall be measured per Figure 10 (Width-to-Height Ratio). (b) The height of forecourts shall be a measurement of the vertical plane of the building that defines the forecourt.

Figure 10-20.12.030.10:

Width-to-Height Ratio
Key
Width
Height
h < 2w
(6) Highest Eave/Top of Parapet.
(a) Height, Overall. The vertical distance between adjacent finished grade and the highest part of the structure directly above.
(b) Height, Top of Parapet. The vertical distance between adjacent finished grade and the top of the parapet of the primary building.
(c) Height, Highest Eave. The vertical distance between adjacent finished grade and the highest eave of the primary building.
(d) Highest Eave Measurement. The measurement is to bottom of the eave assembly. (e) Eave. The edge of the roof that overhangs the face of the adjoining wall. The bottom of the eave can range from exposed rafters to a finished horizontal surface. 207
Definitions
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.12.030
367
Parapet
Figure 10-20.12.030.14: Section Detail of Highest Eave for Pitched Roof Figure 10-20.12.030.11: Top of Parapet and Flat Roof Figure 10-20.12.030.12: Section Detail of Top of Parapet and Flat Roof Figure 10-20.12.030.13: Highest Eave for Pitched Roof
See Figure 14
(Section Detail)
See Figure 12
(Section Detail)
Key
Height, Overall
Top of Parapet
Roof Structure
Highest Eave Measurement
Eave Assembly
Dormer
208
Definitions
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.12.030
368
Key
Required Massing Proportions and Number of Bays

4. Measuring Bays
A. Applicability. All buildings, with or without wings must have defined bays, as specified in Subsection 10-20.06.140.1 (Bay Composition).

B. Bay Measurement.
(1) Boundaries of each bay shall extend vertically from the lower boundary of the main body or wing to the upper boundary of the same division and shall not intersect any opening. (2) Boundary is considered to lie at the midpoint between successive openings unless marked by an expression of vertical structure on the façade. Bay width shall be measured horizontally from one boundary to the next.

C. Building Types and Bays. Bays shall be placed according to the following methodology. An example of the methodology is shown in Figure 15 (Example of Massing Type and Bays). (1) Select main body massing type from Subsection 3 (Building Size and Massing) of the selected building type (e.g., Gable L ). See Figure 10-20.12.030.15A (Select Main Body Massing Composition).
(2) Within each volume/facade of the main body massing, identify and apply a number of bays within the allowed range. See Figure 10-20.12.030.15B (Identify the Required Number or Range of Bays).
(3) See Figure 10-20.12.030.15C (Examples of Bay Compostions in Compliance with Required Massing Proportions) for examples that are consistent with the intent of this standard.

Figure 10-20.12.030.15: Example of Massing Type and Bays A. Select Main Body Massing Composition
Gable L Twin Gable Gabled Front Courtyard
2/5
3/5
209
Definitions
Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards 10-20.12.030
369
Key
Ground Floor
B. Identify the Allowed Range of Bays by Volume/Facade for Selected Massing Type Gable L: 1-5 Bays + 1-7 Bays Twin Gable: 1-7 Bays + 1-5 Bays + 1-7 Bays
Gabled Courtyard: 1-5 Bays +
1-7 Bays + 1-5 Bays
C. Examples of Bay Compositions in Compliance with Required Massing Proportions 5-Bay Composition (2 + 3) 3-Bay Composition (1 + 1 + 1) 6-Bay Composition (2 + 2 + 2) 3-Bay Composition (1 + 2) 6-Bay Composition (2 + 2 + 2) 3-Bay Composition (1 + 1 + 1) 1-5
1-7
1-7
1-5
1-7 1-5
1-7
1-5
210
Definitions
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Public Review Draft – April 14, 2023 10-20.12.030
370
San Anselmo Ave
Sir Francis Drake Blvd
Timothy Ave
Sequoia
Dr
Morningside Dr
Island D
Mad
r
rone Ave
Butterfield Rd
Scenic Ave
Forrest Ave
Oak Knoll Ave
Morton Ln
AshAve
The Alameda
BarberAve
Hilldale
Dr
Cordone
Dr
Angela Ave
Kensington Rd
Jordan Ave
Terrace Ave
Ross Ave
Creek Rd
Humboldt Ave
Santa Barbara Ave
San Francisco Blvd
Brookside Dr LincolnPark
Magnolia Ave
Valley
Rd
SeminaryRd
Hillcrest
Ct
TomahawkDr
Millbrae
Ave
BrookmeadPl
Tamalpais Ave
OakAve
Spring GroveAve
Los Angeles Blvd
Greenfield Ave
Laurel Ave
Alderney Rd
Berkeley Ave
BridgeAve
Ancho VistaAve
VineyardAve
Meadowcroft Dr
Calu
metAve
Sunnyside
Ave
MountainView Ave
Idalia Rd
Cedar St
Fern Ln
FloribelAve
Center Blvd
RaymondAve
Yolanda Dr
Fernwood Dr
Lansdale Ave
MelvilleAve
SunviewAve
Mariposa Ave
Indian RockRd
Red Hill Ave
Prospect Ave
Ivy Ln
RedwoodRd
Woodside Dr
EssexSt
Forbes
Ave
SierraAve
Carlson Ave
Hazel Ave
LomaRobles Dr
Encina Pl
Karl Ave
Kientz Ln
San Rafael Ave
Arroyo Ave
Park Way
Oak Springs Dr
Sais Ave
Myrtle Ln
Agatha Ct
Crescent Ln
Suffield Ave
Richmond Rd
Berlin Ave
VineAve
Luna Ln
Woodland Ave
CrescentRd
Woodside Ct
Rutherford Ave
Caleta Ave
SkylineRd
Herrera Ct
Blackhawk Dr
AlderAve
Kenrick Dr
Avenue del Norte
Rosemont Ave
W HillsideAve
IndianRock Ct
Carolina Ave
Oakwood Ct
Southview Ter
FoothillRd
Medway Rd
SpruceAve
Pine St
Elkhorn Wa
R
y
idge Rd
Grove Hill Ave S
Cherne Ln
Shaw Dr
Bel al Vista Ave
Florence Ave
Chipman Pl
Miracle Mile
Longview Ave
Al yl n Ave
Hillside Ave
LaurelFireRd
S
OakAve
Oakland Ave
Sunny Hills Dr
Summit Rd
HolsteinRd
Key
Neighborhood.Small (N.S) (2.5 stories, 30ft max.)
Neighborhood.Medium (N.M) (3.0 stories, 35ft max.)
Main Street.Small (MS.S) (3.0 stories, 35ft max.)
Hwy 101
RedwoodHwy Wornum
Dr
Wornum
Dr
Sanford St
Casa Buena Dr
Paradise Dr
Tamalpais Dr
Tamal Vista Blvd
Mader a Blvd
Meadowsweet Dr
F ifer Ave
Koch Rd
Lucky Dr
SanC el mente Dr
T4 SN.S
T4 CN.M
Open
Limited
T4 SMS.S
Open Sub-zone
Neighborhood.Small 15’ Front Setback Overlay
Historic Core (2 stories, 30ft max.)
N
Scale 1" = 1500'
0 1500' 3000'
Town of San Anselmo Objective Design and Development Standards Zones T4 Neighborhood Medium (3 stories)
Main Street.Small (2.5 stories)
Neighborhood.Small (2.5 stories)
Open Sub-Zone (Allows non-res uses within the same form) 15’ Front Setback
Key
San Anselmo Ave
Bolinas Rd
Greenfield
A
ve
Sequoia Dr
Broadmoor Ave
Dominga Ave
4th St
Frustu ck Ave
Forrest Ave
Hillda le Dr
Scenic Rd
BothinRd
Ross Ave
Forbes Ave
Hum boldtAv e
Bolina s Ave
San Francisco Blvd
Spr uce Rd
Olema Rd
Meerna a Ave
Saunders Ave
Broadway
Austin
Ave
5th Ave
Red Hill
Ave
Oak
Knoll Dr
Marin Rd
Santa
Barbara Ave
Nova Albion Way
Porteous Ave
Kensingto n Rd
Man o Rr d
Cedar St
Angela Ave
Hickory Rd
Woodside Dr
Cascade Dr
Sir Francis Drake Blvd
Madrone Ave
Creek Rd
Center Blvd
Scenic Ave
Forbes Ave
ButterfieldRd
2nd St
Miwok Dr
Sc enicAve
Oak Manor Dr
Racquet Club Dr
Arroyo
Ave
Elizabeth Way
Oak Springs D r
Gold en Hinde Blvd
The Alameda
San Anselmo Ave
Suffield Ave
Los Ra
nchitos Rd
Sa n Gabriel Dr
Upper
Rd
West End Ave
O ak Ave
Marin da Dr
San Anselmo Ave
Rutherford Ave
Caleta Ave
Manor Rd
Red Hill Ave
Blac khawk
Dr
Sunnysi de Av e
a
P sadena
Ave
Tamalpais Ave
Hillsid eDr
Willow Ave
Cypress Dr
India n RockRd
Miracle Mile
Item # 2A- Attachment 4
Item # 2A- Attachment 4
371
Item #: 3A

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item # 3A
MEETING DATE: April 25, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Amending the Master Fee Schedule for the Town of San Anselmo
FROM: Jeff Zuba, Finance & Admin Services Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Town Council conduct a public hearing and adopt the attached Resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule effective July 1, 2023.

SUMMARY
On December 11, 2018, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 4258 to approve The Town of San Anselmo User Fee Study Report by Willdan Financial Services, dated October 2018 (“Fee Study”) and to adopt the updated Town of San Anselmo User Fee Schedule. Resolution No. 4258 directed the Town Manager or his designee to conduct an annual internal review of the Master Fee Schedule and to permit the automatic adjustment of fees based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California (“CPI”). Under the resolution and state law, the Town Council must review and approve the annual automatic adjustment by resolution.

BACKGROUND
As required in Resolution No. 4258, the Town Manager and Town Finance & Administrative Services Director have conducted an annual internal review of the User Fee Schedule and prepared a revised fee schedule to reflect the automatically adjusted schedule of user and regulatory fees, based on the CPI. This year marks the fourth annual adjustment. The amended fee schedule in the attached Resolution reflects the

4.9% increase in CPI for the period from December 2021 to December 2022. The CPI increases over the previous three fiscal years were 2.5%, 2.0%, and 4.2%.

A. Planning Department Fees. The Planning Department proposes restructuring its fees to better align with the cost recovery methodology used by the Building Department. Cost recovery is determined by determining the estimated amount of time each staff position (in increments of minutes or hours) spends to render a service rather 372
Item #: 3A
than charging a flat fee that may not cover staff time or overcharges the applicant. Staff use an electronic time record system to track time spent on each task. Under these Planning Department fees, the Town will collect a deposit based on the estimated time to complete the task and will return any unused funds.

B. Police Department Fines. The Police fee schedule has had consistent fees over the past four years with no changes based on CPI. California Vehicle Code Section 40203.5.(a) stipulates: “To the extent possible, issuing agencies within the same county shall standardize parking penalties.” Staff researched other jurisdictions websites and reached out to several other Finance Director’s but were only able to secure a couple of responses to compare against the Town’s current parking penalties. Several of the Town’s parking violation fines are lower than the Town of Ross Parking Fees (Attachment 2) and City of San Rafael Parking Fees (Attachment 3). Staff are proposing adjusting those rates to be more in line with the other jurisdictions as noted in the table below.

San Anselmo
Current
San Anselmo
Proposed
Town of Ross City of San
Rafael
Improper
Parking or No
Parking
$40 $45 $47 $65
No parking red
zone
$55 $65 $104 $65
Blue Zone –
Handicapped
Only
$290 $304 $344 $275
Expired Tags $84 $90 $117 $93
The Town has other Police department fees that are in line with the other jurisdictions and have been increased by 4.9% CPI.

C. Miscellaneous fees.

Town staff has included a general appeal fee, which was inadvertently left out of the fee schedule. This fee is the same amount as the appeal of a Planning Appeal and will cover the cost of preparing for and conducting an appeal hearing before the Town Council. The information contained in the 2018 fee study report to establish the Planning Appeal fee also supports a general appeal fee, as the procedure and staff time required are the same for both proceedings.

Town staff has also included in the fee schedule the parklet fees that were adopted by the Council at its April 11, 2023, meeting.

Following review and approval by the Council, the amended fee schedule will become effective on July 1, 2023.
373
Item #: 3A

FISCAL IMPACT
Assuming fee-related activity remains relatively stable, the proposed fee changes are anticipated to generate roughly $70,000 in additional annual revenues.

It is important to note that while adjusting fees will provide a fiscal impact in the form of additional revenue, the revenue is not intended to be used to fund new services. Rather the revenue is intended to offset the costs of providing existing services that are recoverable from fees. Consequently, while fees may rise annually, typically labor and service costs (the primary drivers of fee-related costs) also rise annually. Recalibration of these fees simply provides an offset of existing expenditures/needs rather than a source of funding for expanded service levels.

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Not applicable.

CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
Adoption of the attached Resolution is statutorily and categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(8) and CEQA Guidelines section 15273, because it involves approval of charges by the Town which the Town finds are for the purpose of meeting operating expenses, as demonstrated by the Fee Study completed in October 2018.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Resolution Amending Fee Schedule
Exhibit A: Fee Schedule FY2023-2024
Attachment 2: Town of Ross Fee Schedule - Police
Attachment 3: City of San Rafael Parking Fees
374
ITEM 3A – ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 3A – ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX

RESOLUTION OF THE SAN ANSELMO TOWN COUNCIL

AMENDING CERTAIN USER FEES FOR TOWN SERVICES
WHEREAS, state law permits the Town to impose service fees for certain Town services, as long as those fees do not exceed the estimated reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is intended; and
WHEREAS, on December 11, 2018, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 4258 to approve the Town of San Anselmo User Fee Study Report by Willdan Financial Servcies, dated October 2018 (“Fee Study”) and to adopt the Town of San Anselmo User Fee Schedule; and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 4258 directed the Town Manager or designee to conduct an annual internal review of the Master Fee Schedule to permit the automatic adjustment of various fees based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, California (“CPI”); and
WHEREAS, the Town Manager and Town Finance & Administrative Services Director conducted the annual internal review of the User Fee Schedule and calculated the adjustment to the fees based on the CPI, as reflected in Exhibit “A” to this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Town has followed all notice and hearing requirements set forth in state law for considering an adjustment to these fees.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE TOWN COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. Environment Review
The charges authorized by this resolution are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity authorized herein may have a significant effect on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3)).

More specifically, adopting the resolution is statutorily and categorically exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(8) and CEQA Guidelines section 15273, because it involves approval of charges by the Town which the Town Council finds are for the purpose of meeting operating expenses, as demonstrated by the Fee Study approved by the Town Council on December 11, 2018, in Resolution No. 4258.

Section 2. Adoption of Amended Master Fee Schedule
The Town Council hereby adopts the amended Town of San Anselmo Schedule of User Fees attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference (“Master Fee Schedule”). Unless otherwise specified in the Master Fee Schedule, all user fees shall be paid to the Town prior to the Town’s performance of requested services. Pursuant to Resolution No. 4197, fees may be paid by credit card, debit card, or electronic fund transfer.
375
ITEM 3A – ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM 3A – ATTACHMENT 1
Section 3. Effective Date of Fees
The fees listed on the Master Fee Schedule at Exhibit A will take effect on July 1, 2023. The Master Fee Schedule at Exhibit A will replace the Town’s existing Master Fee Schedule adopted by Resolution No. 4421.

Section 4. Severability
The Town Council hereby declares every section, paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this Resolution is severable. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity, or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases.

RESOLUTION PASSED AND ADOPTED, at the regular meeting of the San Anselmo Town Council on the 25th day of April, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmember:

NOES: Councilmember:

ABSENT: Councilmember:

ABSTAIN: Councilmember:

____________________________

STEVE BURDO
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________

SERGE AVILA

TOWN CLERK

EXHIBITS
A. FEE SCHEDULE FY23-24
376
Schedule of User Fees
Effective July 1, 2023
ITEM 3A - Exhibit
A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit
A
1 377
Table of Contents

1. Finance & Administrative Fees 3 - 5

2. Public Works Fees 6 - 9

3. Library Fees 10

4. Building Fees 11 - 15

5. Planning Fees 16 - 19

6. Recreation Fees 20 - 21

7. Police Fees 22 - 23

8. Fully Burdened Hourly Rate 24
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 2
378
Finance & Administration
# Description Current Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
1 Photocopies $0.20 $0.20 Per page Fee Document with State requirements are charged per State Mandate
2 Returned check charge $25.00 $25.00 Per incident Regulated 3 Certification $20.00 $20.00 Per
certification Fee
4 Appeals - Planning Applicant $2,724.00 $2,858.00 Per appeal Fee 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
5 Appeals - Non-Applicant $873.00 $916.00 Per appeal Fee 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
6 Appeals - General $916.00 Per Appeal Fee
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
7 Proof of Residency/Living Certification $15.00 $15.00 Per request Fee 8 Business License Fees:
9 Transfer Fee $20.00 $20.00 Per transfer Fee
10 Business License Penalty 10% 10% Per month Penalty Max. 50% 11 Duplicate Business License $15.00 $15.00 Per copy Fee 12 Gross receipts:
13 $0 - $7,500 $15.00 $15.00 Tax
14 $7,501 - $15,000 $30.00 $30.00 Tax
15 $15,001 - $25,000 $45.00 $45.00 Tax
16 $25,001 - $50,000 $60.00 $60.00 Tax
17 $50,001 - $100,000 $100.00 $100.00 Tax
18 $100,001 - $250,000 $150.00 $150.00 Tax
19 $250,001 - $500,000 $300.00 $300.00 Tax
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 3
379
Finance & Administration
# Description Current Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
20 $500,001 - $750,000 $450.00 $450.00 Tax
21 $750,001 - $1,000,000 $600.00 $600.00 Tax
22 $1,000,001 - $2,000,000 $800.00 $800.00 Tax
23 $2,000,001 - $3,000,000 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 Tax
24 $3,000,001 - $4,000,000 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Tax
25 $4,000,001 - $5,000,000 $2,100.00 $2,100.00 Tax
26 $5,000,001 - $10,000,000 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 Tax
27 $10,000,001 - $25,000,000 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 Tax
28 $25,000,000 - and over $4500 + .01% $4500 + .01% Tax 29 Hotels/Motels/Inns $17.00 $17.00 Per unit Tax
30 Rental of one or more dwelling units or guest rooms within a rooming house, boarding house, single family dwelling,
apartment, condominium, houseboat, or other residential structure containing guest rooms or dwelling units
$17.00 $17.00 Per unit Tax
31 General contractors and subcontractors $30.00 $30.00 Per quarter Tax 32 General contractors and subcontractors $100.00 $100.00 Per year Tax 33 Auctioneers $50.00 $50.00 Per day Tax
34 Peddlers, solicitors $25.00 $25.00 Per day Tax
35 Peddlers, solicitors $150.00 $150.00 Per quarter Tax 36 Peddlers, solicitors $500.00 $500.00 Per year Tax
37 Circuses or carnivals $400.00 $400.00 First day Tax
38 Circuses or carnivals $300.00 $300.00 Per additional day Tax
39 Commercial & still film permits (public property) : 1-3 persons
$100.00 $100.00 Per day Tax
40 Commercial & still film permits (public property) : 4-6 persons
$200.00 $200.00 Per day Tax
41 Commercial & still film permits (public property) : 7-9 persons
$300.00 $300.00 Per day Tax
42 Commercial & still film permits (public property) : 10 + persons
$400.00 $400.00 Per day Tax
43 Commercial & still film permits (private property): 1-3 persons
$50.00 $50.00 Per day Tax
44 Commercial & still film permits (private property): 4-6 persons
$100.00 $100.00 Per day Tax
45 Commercial & still film permits (private property): 7-9 persons
$150.00 $150.00 Per day Tax
46 Commercial & still film permits (private property): 10+ persons
$200.00 $200.00 Per day Tax
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 4
380
Finance & Administration
# Description Current Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
47 Taxicabs $60.00 $60.00 Per vehicle Tax
48 Trucks/vans/delivery vehicles - less than 1/2 ton capacity $22.50 $22.50 Per vehicle Tax 49 Trucks/vans/delivery vehicles - not exceeding 1 ton capacity $37.50 $37.50 Per vehicle Tax 50 Trucks/vans/delivery vehicles - not exceeding 1-1/2 ton capacity $75.00 $75.00 Per vehicle Tax
51 Trucks/vans/delivery vehicles - not exceeding 2 ton capacity $112.50 $112.50 Per vehicle Tax 52 Trucks/vans/delivery vehicles - not exceeding 3 ton capacity $150.00 $150.00 Per vehicle Tax 53 Trucks/vans/delivery vehicles - over 3 ton capacity $225.00 $225.00 Per vehicle Tax 54 Christmas tree lots $45.00 $45.00 Per year Tax
55 Commercial leased property $0.02 $0.02 Per sq ft. Tax $50 minimum, $220 Maximum 56 Business located out of San Anselmo but use San Anselmo P.O. Box for business $50.00 $50.00 Per year Tax
57 Real estate broker in San Anselmo $100.00 $100.00 Per year Tax Plus $10 per desk 58 Real estate broker in San Anselmo $10.00 $10.00 Per desk Tax 59 Real estate broker out of San Anselmo $150.00 $150.00 Per year Tax 60 Omnibus (all other categories) $50.00 $50.00 Per year Tax 61 Business License List $1.00 $1.00 Per page Tax
62 Tobacco Retailer License $50.00 $50.00 Per year Fee
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 5
381
Public Works
Miscellaneous Items
# Description Current Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
1 Road Impact Fee 1.5% value of project 1.5% value of
project Percentage Fee
2 Tree Removal Fees:
3 Heritage Tree &/or Undeveloped Parcel Tree $256 for 1st hour and hourly rate thereafter
$268 for 1st hour
and hourly rate
thereafter
Per permit Fee
For dead, dying or dangerous trees fee may be
waived. Replacement trees may required for each
tree removed.
4 Street Tree $129.00 $136.00 Per permit Fee This is the cost for both removal and planting of street trees
5 After the fact - Tree or Heritage Tree Removal Fine $2,137.00 $2,242.00 Per tree Penalty $2,050 Maximum as determined by the Public Works Director
6 Encroachment Permit Fees:
7 Minor work $161.00 $169.00 Per project Fee
7-1.03 - Permit for curb cut for driveway entrance or
approach (Street Superintendent)
7-1.08 – Adjustment and variance from driveway
standards (City Engineer)
7-3.02 – Street cut or excavation permits (Public
Works)
7-4.02 - Temporary street obstruction permits
7-5.09 - Permits to construct sidewalk, walkway,
and/or driveway from curb to property line (Public
Works)
8 Major work (over $2,500)
4% value of project or as
Determined by Public Works
Director per Town Code
4% value of project
or as Determined by
Public Works
Director per Town
Code
Percentage Fee
7-1.03 - Permit for curb cut for driveway entrance or
approach
7-1.08 – Adjustment and variance from driveway
standards
7-3.02 – Street cut or excavation permits
7-4.02 - Temporary street obstruction permits
7-5.09 - Permits to construct sidewalk, walkway,
and/or driveway from curb to property line
Major Work Fees vary depending on time to review
and inspect during the course of the project
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 6
382
Public Works
Miscellaneous Items
# Description Current Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
9 Sidewalks/Driveways - new & repair; debris or storage box $111.00 $117.00 Per project Fee 10 Revocable Encroachment Permit for structures in town rightof-way $329.00 $346.00 Per project Fee 11 Revocable Encroachment Permit for temporary use of town right-of-way (restaurant outdoor seating) $139.00 $146.00 Per project Fee 7-5.11-permit for mailbox inright of way 12 Plan Check-when applicable Hourly Staff Rate Hourly Staff Rate Per hour Fee Rate depends on actual Staff rate 13 Private Parklet Application $950.00 Per Application Fee 13 Private Parklet $2,520.00 Per space Fee
13 Fence Permit Fees:
14 Fences within setbacks abutting street $104.00 $110.00 Per project Fee 15 Stop Work Fee for working without a permit Up to 3 times value of Public Works Permit Fee
Up to 3 times value
of Public Works
Permit Fee
Per project Penalty
Determined by the Public Works Director. 0-3 times
based on stop work circumstances. If unpermitted
work is identified by the Town and the owner
addresses issues promptly, fee may be waived or 1
times the permit fee. However, if unpermitted work
is not addressed and owner is uncooperative, fee
may be up to 3 times the permit fee.
16 Plan Check-when applicable $147.00 $155.00 Per hour Fee 17 Grading Permit Fees: UBC Appendix Chapter 33 Table A-33B 18 100cy or less $123.00 $130.00 100 cy or less Fee
19 101cy to 1,000cy $123.00 $130.00 First 100 cy Fee Plus $17.85 for each add'l 100 cy 20 1,001cy to 10,000cy $381.00 $400.00 First 1,000 cy Fee Plus $14.80 for each add'l 1,000cy 21 10,001cy to 100,000cy $381.00 $400.00 First 10,000 cy Fee Plus $67.50 for each add'l 10,000cy 22 100,001 and above $1,270.00 $1,333.00 First 100,000 cy Fee Plus $37.00 for each add'l 100,000cy 23 Grading Plan Review Fees: UBC Appendix Chapter 33 Table A-33A 24 100cy or less $123.00 $130.00 100 cy or less Fee
25 101cy to 1,000cy $246.00 $259.00 First 100 cy Fee
26 1,001cy to 10,000cy $329.00 $346.00 First 1,000 cy Fee 27 10,001cy or more $329.00 $346.00 First 10,000 cy Fee $25.00 each add'l 10,000cy 28 Grading permit fee for work without a permit 3 times value of Public Works Permit Fee
3 times value of
Public Works Permit
Fee
Per project Penalty $500 minimum- determined by PW Director 29 Water Wells - potable and landscape wells $187.00 $197.00 Per well Fee 30 Grading Permit Extension Fee $165.00 $174.00 Per permit Fee ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 7
383
Public Works
Miscellaneous Items
# Description Current Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
31 Sidewalk Maintenance Program - Administration Fees
32 First $200 $49.00 $52.00 Fee
33 $201 - $500 $47 plus 15% of amount over $200
($100 Max)
$49 plus 15% of
amount over $200
($100 Max)
Fee $100 Max
34 $501 - $1,500 $79 plus 10% of amount over $500
($200 Max)
$83 plus 10% of
amount over $500
($200 Max)
Fee $200 Max
35 Over $1,500 $183 plus 5% of amount over
$1,500
$192 plus 5% of
amount over $1,500 Fee No Max
36 Arborist Site Visit and Arborist Report $225.00 $237.00 Per hour Fee 37 Street Cut Inspection $219.00 $230.00 Per hour Fee
38 Street Crew Cost (Red Curb Painting) Fees Waived Fees Waived Per project Fee 39 Temporary Trailer Fee Fees Waived Fees Waived Per Trailer Fee Permit for temporary trailers for habitation during construction and after disasters
40 Abandonment $1,000 min + # hours of consultant
time
$1,000 min + #
hours of consultant
time
Per hour Fee $1,000 minimum to be billed hourly
41 Penalty fee for After The Fact permits
3xpermit cost or $500 min.

Determined by building official or
DPW director
3xpermit cost or
$500 min.

Determined by
building official or
DPW director
Per project Penalty
42 DPW- RED TAG FEE
3xpermit cost or $500 min.

Determined by building official or
DPW director
3xpermit cost or
$500 min.

Determined by
building official or
DPW director
Per project Penalty
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 8
384
Public Works
Miscellaneous Items
# Description Current Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
43 Encroachment permit extension fee $83.00 $88.00 Per project Fee 44 Charging Interest on Abatements 1% Monthly 1% Monthly Per project Fee 45 Oversize Vehicle Permit - Single $18.00 $19.00 Per trip Fee $92 - Annual 46 Street Light Shield $274.00 $288.00 Per shield Fee
47 Stormwater Violation Fees $100-1ST VIOLATION / $200-2ND / $500-3RD, 4TH, ETC
$100-1ST
VIOLATION / $200-
2ND / $500-3RD,
4TH, ETC
Per occurrence Fee
48 Block Party Fee Fees Waived Fees Waived Per occurrence Fee 49 Extension Fee- For Permits Excluding Encroachment $83.00 $88.00 Per project Fee 50 Reactivation Fee $111.00 $117.00 Per project Fee
51 Flatwork Permit - Small/Medium less than 1000 sq ft $111.00 $117.00 Per project Fee 52 Flatwork Permit - Large Over 1000 sq ft $329.00 $346.00 Per project Fee 53 Floodplain Development Permit $100 deposit + hourly $100 deposit + hourly Per hour Fee
7-11.403 Special flood hazard area development
permit 7-11.402 – Review of required certifications
for floodplain Development permits:
(1) Certification required by Section 7-

11.501(c)(1) and Section 7-11.504 (lowest floor
elevations);
(2) Certification required by Section 7-

11.501(c)(2) (elevation or floodproofing of
nonresidential structures);
(3) Certification required by Section 7-

11.501(c)(3) (wet floodproofing standard);
(4) Certification of elevation required by Section 7-

11.503(a)(3) (subdivisions and other proposed
development standards);
(5) Certification required by Section 7-11.506(b)
(floodway encroachments);
(6) "NON-CONVERSION AGREEMENT FOR
CONSTRUCTION WITHIN FLOOD HAZARD AREAS"
recorded deed restriction, review by town attorney
54 Permit to place newsrack on public property $100 deposit + hourly $100 deposit + hourly Per rack Fee
55 Frontage Improvement Fees At Cost of Requirement At Cost of Requirement Per project Fee or work in lieu of
Public Works reviews frontage improvement
requirements based on the code requirements in
the right of way related to ADA, drainage,
emergency vehicle access etc.

ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 9
385
Library
Miscellaneous Items
# Description Current Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
1 Print Materials
2 Books lost or damaged beyond use Actual Cost Actual Cost Fee 3 Processing Fee $5.00 $5.00 Per incident Fee
4 Audio Visual Materials
5 A-V materials lost or damaged beyond use Actual Cost Actual Cost Per Item Fee 6 Inter-Library Loan Fees:
7 Link + $0.00 $0.00 Per day Fee $115 Replacement
8 ILL - Other $5.00 $5.00 Per request Fee Postage may apply 9 Other Fees
10 Photocopies/Computer Printing Black and White $0.20 $0.20 Per page Fee 11 Photocopies/Computer Printing Color $0.75 $0.75 Per page Fee 12 Take & Make Kits, Memory Kits, lost or damaged beyond use Actual Cost Actual Cost Per Item Fee $50 Fee if item is returned to other library
13 Museum Passes $0.00 $0.00 Per day Fee
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A
ITEM 3A - Exhibit A 10
386
Building
# Description Current Fee/Charge
Proposed
Fee/Charge Unit Type Notes
1 PreApplication Meeting - Non-commercial uses (Building) $210.00 $220.00 Flat fee Fee Plus applicant pays $100 to Ross Valley Fire Department
2 PreApplication Meeting - Commercial Uses (Building) $0.00 $0.00 Flat fee Fee 3 Fee for Building Permit Plan-Check
65% of permit fee-Building Valuation
table will increase 2.5% for all base
rates
65% of permit feeBuilding Valuation
table will increase

San Anselmo City CouncilApril 25, 2023

San Anselmo City Council
April 25, 2023