Agenda packet — San Anselmo City Council, May 23, 2023 (part 2 of 3)

ORDINANCE NO.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO AMENDING TITLE 10 “PLANNING AND ZONING” OF THE SAN ANSELMO MUNICPAL CODE TO ADD CHAPTER 21 “AFFORDABLE HOUSING”
WHEREAS, all communities in the State of California, including the Town of San Anselmo, face a housing crisis that includes the lack of access to affordable housing, which has a direct negative impact on the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of San Anselmo; and WHEREAS, inclusionary housing policies, and related affordable housing in-lieu and nonresidential/commercial linkage fees, are tools that help jurisdictions increase the supply of affordable housing units; and
WHEREAS, the provision of safe and stable housing for households at all income levels is in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65580 provides that the availability of housing is of vital Statewide importance and that local governments have a responsibility to use their powers to facilitate the development of housing and make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community; and
WHEREAS, the Town of San Anselmo was awarded funding pursuant to a State Grant established by California Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) for actions to increase housing, and a portion of this money was utilized in collaboration with other Marin jurisdictions to formulate inclusionary housing policies and supporting fee studies; and
WHEREAS, all California jurisdictions receive a target number of homes for which they must plan at various income levels called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and the RHNA number for the Town of San Anselmo’s 2023-2031 Housing Element cycle has increased to 833 units up from the previous 106 units; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of inclusionary housing policies is critical for the Town in reaching its RHNA housing requirements for very low, low, and moderate income households; and WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance Amendment adds Chapter 21 “Affordable Housing” to Title 10 “Planning and Zoning” of the San Anselmo Municipal Code, which would provide for inclusionary housing requirements, establish an affordable housing fund, and authorize affordable housing in-lieu fees and non-residential/commercial linkage fees “(Ordinance Amendment”); and
WHEREAS, using the SB 2 funding, the Town of San Anselmo collaborated with several Marin jurisdictions lead by Strategic Economics, Inc. and Vernazza Wolf Associates (Consultants) on the development of a common inclusionary housing policy; and 267

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, Consultants completed an In-Lieu Housing Fee Study and a NonResidential/Commercial Linkage Fee Study (Fee Study Reports), which studies support the adoption of said fees; and
WHEREAS, Consultants used appropriate, best-practices methodology to determine the maximum amount of said fees to mitigate the burdens created by residential and nonresidential/commercial development, and demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for affordable housing and the impacts of the development described in the Fee Study Reports for which the corresponding fee is charged, and that there is also a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development for which the fee is charged; and
WHEREAS, the Fee Study Reports include an economic feasibility analysis that determined the fees as recommended would be feasible; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602), Government Code section 66000, to ensure that the fractionable affordable housing in-lieu fee and non-residential commercial linkage fee recommended herein does not exceed the actual affordable housing impacts attributable to the development projects on which the fee is imposed, the Town Council will consider the Fee Study Reports; and
WHEREAS, based on the findings above, the Town desires to further the public health, safety, and welfare by requiring residential and non-residential/commercial projects in the Town to mitigate their impact on the need for affordable housing in San Anselmo; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 15, 2023 to consider recommendation of said Amendments to the Town Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, on May 15, 2023, the Planning Commission of the Town of San Anselmo adopted Resolution No. 2023-08 to recommend Town Council approval of the Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulations; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the Town Council hearing to consider the Ordinance Amendment was published in the Marin Independent Journal on May 11, 2023; and WHEREAS, the Town Council held a public hearing on May 23, 2023, to consider the Planning Commission recommendation and introduce the draft Ordinance.

WHEREAS, the Ordinance Amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Amendment will have a significant effect on the environment; the Amendment will make no changes to land uses, development intensities, or the rate at which development is expected to occur, and is therefore will have no significant environmental effect; and
268

Page 3 ends

WHEREAS, the adoption of the proposed Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the Town’s current and draft Housing Element, both of which contain policies to adopt inclusionary housing policies and related fees to be deposited into an affordable housing fund; and

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

SECTION 1: Environmental Review. The Ordinance Amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Amendment will have a significant effect on the environment. The Amendment will make no changes to land uses, development intensities, or the rate at which development is expected to occur and therefore will have no significant environmental effect.

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

SECTION 3: Ordinance Amendment. Chapter 21 “Affordable Housing” is hereby added to Title 10 “Planning and Zoning” of the San Anselmo Municipal Code as follows:
10-21-010 Purpose and Intent.
a. The purpose of this Chapter is to ensure that new residential and non-residential development projects contribute to the availability and attainment of decent, affordable housing to a broad range of households with varying income levels throughout the Town of San Anselmo. b. These requirements implement the Town’s Housing Element by assisting in meeting the Town’s Regional Housing Needs obligations, providing funding to facilitate affordable housing development, and affirmatively furthering fair housing by ensuring that affordable housing is constructed in all parts of the Town.
c. The Town Council desires to provide and maintain affordable housing opportunities through an affordable housing in-lieu fee, the funds of which will be deposited into the Affordable Housing Fund to be used in the development of affordable housing and related programs in the Town. The non-residential/commercial linkage fee requirements will assist in alleviating the impacts of the demand for new affordable housing created by new nonresidential development. 10-21-020 Definitions. For the purposes of this Chapter, the following definitions apply:
a. “Affordable housing fund” means the fund established pursuant to Section 10-21.050 of this Chapter.
b. “Affordable housing unit” means a dwelling unit that shall be offered at an affordable rent or affordable ownership cost to very low-, low- or moderate-income households. c. “Common ownership or control” means property owned or controlled by the same person, persons, or entity, or by separate entities in which any shareholder, partner, member, 269

Page 4 ends

or family member of an investor of the entity owns ten percent or more of the interest in the property.
d. “Housing in-lieu fee” means the applicable fee established pursuant to Section 10-

21.060 of this Chapter.
e. “Low income households” or “low income” means households with incomes no greater than the maximum income for low income households for Marin County as published annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in California Code of Regulations Title 25, Section 6932 (or successor provision). f. “Moderate income households” or “moderate income” means households with incomes no greater than the maximum income for moderate income households for Marin County, as published annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in California Code of Regulations Title 25, Section 6932 (or successor provision). g. “Non-residential development project” means an application for a planning permit or building permit that includes the new construction of gross square feet of non-residential space or the conversion of a residential use to a non-residential use. h. “Non-residential/commercial linkage fee” means the applicable fee established pursuant to Section 10-21.060 of this Chapter.
i. “Rental unit” means a dwelling unit that is intended to be offered for rent or lease and that cannot be sold individually in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act. j. “Residential development project” means a project at one location to create one or more additional dwelling units, convert nonresidential uses to dwelling units, subdivide a parcel to create one or more separately transferrable parcels intended for residential development, or implement a condominium conversion, including development constructed at one time and in phases. “One location” shall include all adjacent parcels of land under common ownership or control with contiguous property lines at any point, or the property lines of which are separated by a public or private street, road, or public or private right-of-way. k. “Very low income households” or “very low income” means households with incomes no greater than the maximum income for very low-income households for Marin County, as published annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in California Code of Regulations Title 25, Section 6932 (or successor provision). 10-21-030 Affordable Housing Requirements.
a. Residential Development Projects – General Requirements. Any new residential development project shall be developed to provide affordable housing units to very low, low, moderate, and above moderate-income households in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and applicable Town policies.
b. Affordable Housing Units—Percentage Required, In-Lieu Fees, Target Incomes.

Residential development projects shall provide affordable housing units and/or pay housing in-lieu fees in accordance with the policies and procedures specified in the Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulations, as adopted, and amended from time to time by Town Council Resolution.
c. Exemptions. The requirements of this Chapter do not apply to:

1. Projects where a building permit application has been accepted as complete by the 270

Page 5 ends

Town prior to the effective date of this Chapter; provided however that any extension or modification of such a permit shall not be exempt.

2. Any structure proposed to repair or replace a building that was damaged or destroyed by fire or other calamity so long as the total number of units, square footage, and land use of the building remains the same and construction of the replacement building begins within one (1) year of the damage’s occurrence.

3. Single-family structure.

4. Any Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling unit approved by the Town.

5. Any residential development project exempted by State law as may be amended from time to time.
d. Density Bonus. An applicant may submit a separate application for a housing density bonus pursuant to applicable State law and San Anselmo Municipal Code Title 10, Chapter 11 “Density Bonus”, if eligible.
e. Enforcement.

1. The Town Attorney is authorized to abate violations and to enforce the provisions of this Chapter and all implementing regulations and resale controls placed on affordable housing units, by civil action, injunctive relief, and/or any other proceeding permitted by law including without limitation foreclosure.

2. It shall be unlawful, a public nuisance, and a misdemeanor for any person/entity to sell or rent an affordable unit at a price or rent exceeding the maximum allowed under this Chapter and implementing regulations, or to a household not qualified hereunder, and such person/entity shall be subject to a fine of five hundred dollars ($500) per month plus restitution of the amount charged that exceeded the maximum allowed under this Chapter from the date of original noncompliance until the affordable unit is in compliance with this Chapter and implementing regulations. Fine monies collected that exceed the cost of enforcement shall be deposited into the Affordable Housing Fund.

3. The remedies provided herein nonexclusive and cumulative and shall not preclude the Town from any other remedy or relief to which it is entitled under law or equity. 10-21-040 Administration. The Town Council shall adopt and may amend from time to time by Resolution, implementing Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulations consistent with the provisions of this Chapter and the Housing Element for the purpose of carrying out the administration of this Chapter. A copy of the Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulations shall be on file with the Town Clerk’s Office and made available for public examination and posted on the Town’s website. The Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulations shall set forth affordable housing requirements, affordable housing in-lieu fee requirements, and non-residential/commercial fee requirements. The Planning Director or designee is responsible for administering this Chapter. As part of this administration, the Director may perform the following tasks including, but not limited to interpret the provisions of this Chapter and the Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulation and establish operational and procedural requirements such as tenant eligibility, application processes, waitlist management, and income verification requirements. 271

Page 6 ends

10-21-050 Affordable Housing Fund. An Affordable Housing Fund is established to receive all housing impact and other applicable fees and funds.
a. All applicable affordable housing in-lieu fees and non-residential/commercial linkage fees collected shall be deposited into the Affordable Housing Fund. The monies deposited in the Affordable Housing Fund, with any interest earned, shall be used solely to increase, and improve the supply of housing affordable to moderate, low, and very low-income households, consistent with the goals and policies contained in the Town’s Housing Element and affordable housing requirements and policies.
b. The Affordable Housing Fund shall be administered by the Planning Director who may develop procedures to implement said fund consistent with the requirements of this Chapter and subject to any adopted budget of the Town and generally acceptable accounting and procurement processes.
10-21-060 Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees and Non-Residential/Commercial Linkage Fees. a. Affordable housing in-lieu fees and non-residential/commercial linkage fees (fees) are hereby established for residential development projects and non-residential/commercial development projects. The amount of said fees shall be established by Town Council Resolution, as may be amended from time to time. The amount of fees shall not exceed the cost of mitigating the impact residential or non-residential/commercial development projects on the need for affordable housing in the Town of San Anselmo.
b. All such fees shall be deposited in the Affordable Housing Fund described in Section 10- 21-040 herein.
c. Payment of fees shall be due at the issuance of the building permit for the project. Fees shall be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued, unless State law specifies that the Town must use a fee schedule in effect at an earlier date.

SECTION 5: Severability. The Town Council hereby declares every section, paragraph, sentence, clause, and phrase is severable. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of these ordinance amendments are 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 6: 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.

INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED AT A PUBLIC HEARING at a regular meeting of the San Anselmo Town Council on _____________________ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:
272

Page 7 ends

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

RECUSED:

APPROVED:___________________________
Steve Burdo, Mayor
ATTEST:_______________________________
Serge Avila, Town Clerk
273
Item # 2.1- Attachment 2
Item # 2.1- Attachment 2

SAN ANSELMO TOWN COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO ADOPTING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS AND PROGRAM REGULATIONS WHEREAS, all communities in the State of California, including the Town of San Anselmo, face a housing crisis that includes the lack of access to affordable housing, which has a direct negative impact on the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of San Anselmo; and WHEREAS, inclusionary housing policies, and related affordable housing in-lieu and nonresidential/commercial linkage fees, are tools that help jurisdictions increase the supply of affordable housing units; and
WHEREAS, the provision of safe and stable housing for households at all income levels is in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65580 provides that the availability of housing is of vital Statewide importance and that local governments have a responsibility to use their powers to facilitate the development of housing and make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community; and
WHEREAS, all California jurisdictions receive a target number of homes for which they must plan at various income levels called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and the RHNA number for the Town of San Anselmo’s 2023-2031 Housing Element cycle has increased to 833 units up from the previous 106 units; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of inclusionary housing policies, including affordable housing in-lieu fees and non-residential/commercial linkage fees, is critical for the Town in reaching its RHNA housing requirements for very low, low, and moderate income households; and WHEREAS, the Town of San Anselmo was awarded funding pursuant to a State Grant established by California Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) for actions to increase housing, and a portion of this money was utilized in collaboration with other Marin jurisdictions to formulate inclusionary housing policies and supporting fee studies; and
WHEREAS, using the SB 2 grant funding, the Town of San Anselmo collaborated with 5 other Marin jurisdictions lead by Strategic Economics, Inc. and Vernazza Wolf Associates (Consultants) on the development of common inclusionary housing policies and related fees; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has adopted an Ordinance Amendment adding Chapter 21 “Affordable Housing” to Title 10 “Planning and Zoning”, Chapter “Zoning”, adopting inclusionary housing requirements and authorizing the Town Council to establish by Resolution Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulations; and
274
Item # 2.1- Attachment 2
Item # 2.1- Attachment 2
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2023, the Planning Commission of the Town of San Anselmo voted to recommend Town Council approval of the Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulations; and
WHEREAS, a duly and properly noticed public hearing regarding the Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulations proposed in this Resolution was conducted by the Town Council on May 23, 2023; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of San Anselmo hereby adopts the Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulations as set forth in Exhibit “A”.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Amendment will have a significant effect on the environment. The Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulations set forth in this Resolution will make no changes to land uses, development intensities, or the rate at which development is expected to occur, and is therefore will have no significant environmental effect.

INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED AT A PUBLIC HEARING at a regular meeting of the San Anselmo Town Council on ____________ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

RECUSED:

APPROVED:___________________________
Steve Burdo, Mayor
ATTEST:_______________________________
Serge Avila, Town Clerk
275
Item # 2.1- Attachment 2
Item # 2.1- Attachment 2
EXHIBIT “A”
Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulations The following Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulations (“Regulations”) are adopted pursuant to, and for the implementation of, San Anselmo Municipal Code Chapter 10.21 “Affordable Housing”. The purpose of these Regulations is to ensure that new residential development projects and commercial/non-residential development projects contribute to the attainment of affordable housing goals by the construction of affordable units, payment of inlieu fees, and/or alternative equivalent actions.

A. Definitions. The definitions in San Anselmo Municipal Code Chapter 10-21 apply to these Regulations.

B. Affordable Housing Requirements.

1. Multiple Dwellings Rental Residential Development. Requirements for residential development projects consisting of multiple dwellings. i. Residential development projects consisting of multiple dwellings (rental units) shall provide on-site affordable housing units as part of the proposed project and/or affordable housing in-lieu fees in accordance with either Table A or Table B, as selected by the developer. Any fractional units resulting from calculating the required affordable unit set aside may either be: 1) rounded up to the next whole number, or 2) an in-lieu fee may be paid equal to the calculated fractional unit.
ii. In-Lieu Fee. The in-lieu fee for the construction of one affordable unit shall be $362,817 ($362,817). The in-lieu fee shall be increased or decreased in accordance with the year over year increase or decrease in the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) as measured from December to December. The first adjustment to the Town’s in-lieu fee shall be made on January 1, 2023, and thereafter shall be adjusted on each January 1 by the Planning Director. For each residential development project, the in-lieu fee, when applicable, shall be calculated and paid on the date a building permit is issued for such project.

The developer may select one of the two following options, which include different percentages for the provision of affordable units.

Table A: Rental Projects (Developer Option 1)
Project Size Required Affordable Unit Set Aside and In-Lieu Fee Very Low Low Moderate In-Lieu Fee
2-10 units 10% 10%
11-29 units 10% 10%
30 or more units 15% 5%
276
Item # 2.1- Attachment 2
Item # 2.1- Attachment 2
Table B: Rental Projects (Developer Option 2)
Project Size Required Affordable Unit Set Aside and In-Lieu Fee Very Low Low Moderate In-Lieu Fee
2-10 units 15% 5%
11-29 units 15% 5%
30 or more units 10% 5% 5%

2. For-Sale Residential Development. Requirements for for-sale residential development projects consisting of single-family detached subdivision and multiple houses. i. Residential development projects consisting of single-family detached subdivisions (forsale dwelling units) or multiple houses (for-sale dwelling units) shall provide affordable housing units on-site as part of the proposed project and/or affordable housing in-lieu fees in accordance with Table C. Any fractional units resulting from calculating the required affordable unit set aside may either be: 1) rounded up to the next whole number, or 2) an in-lieu fee may be paid equal to the calculated fractional unit. ii. In-Lieu Fee (single-family detached subdivision). The in-lieu fee for the construction of one affordable unit shall be $289,905 ($362,817). The in-lieu fee shall be increased or decreased in accordance with the year over year increase or decrease in the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) as measured from December to December. The first adjustment to the Town’s in-lieu fee shall be made on January 1, 2023, and thereafter shall be adjusted on each January 1 by the Planning Director. For each residential development project, the in-lieu fee, when applicable, shall be calculated and paid on the date a building permit is issued for such project.
iii. In-Lieu Fee (multiple houses). The in-lieu fee for the construction of one affordable unit shall be $362,817. The in-lieu fee shall be increased or decreased in accordance with the year over year increase or decrease in the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) as measured from December to December. The first adjustment to the Town’s in-lieu fee shall be made on January 1, 2023, and thereafter shall be adjusted on each January 1 by the Planning Director. For each residential development project, the in-lieu fee, when applicable, shall be calculated and paid on the date a building permit is issued for such project.

Table C: For-Sale Projects
Project Size Required Affordable Unit Set Aside
Low Moderate Above Moderate
2-4 units 20%
5-29 units 5% 5% 10%
30 or more units 5% 10% 5%

277
Item # 2.1- Attachment 2
Item # 2.1- Attachment 2
C. Maximum Rent and Sale Price.
i. The maximum rent charged for an affordable unit constructed pursuant to the requirements in paragraph B(a) above shall be equal to 30% of the area median income (AMI) for the applicable unit-type as shown in Table D, adjusted for household size pursuant to California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) guidelines. Such maximum rent shall be inclusive of utility charges. ii. The maximum sales price for an affordable unit constructed pursuant to the requirements applicable to for-sale projects shall be equal to 35% of the area median income (AMI) for the applicable unit-type as shown in Table D, adjusted for household size pursuant to Marin Housing Authority (MHA) guidelines. The maximum sales price shall be consistent with other MHA guidelines provided that the maximum sales price permitted by this paragraph is not exceeded.

Table D: Target AMIs for Maximum Rent and Sales Prices.

Unit Type Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
Target AMI 50% 65% 100% 135%
D. Location and Type of Affordable Housing Units. Affordable housing units shall be dispersed throughout a residential development project and be of a similar mix and type to that of the residential development project as a whole, including, but not limited to: 1) The same or substantially similar mix of unit size (e.g., number of bedrooms, square footage); and 2) compatibility with the design, materials, amenities, and appearance of the other developed units.

E. Access to Amenities. Residents and tenants of affordable units shall be provided the same rights and access to common amenities in the development project as residents and tenants occupying market rate units.

F. Timing of Construction. All affordable housing must be constructed and occupied concurrently with or prior to the construction and occupancy of market rate units, unless the Town Council, in its sole discretion, determines an alternative construction schedule will further the goal of affordable housing in the Town. In phased developments, affordable units may be constructed and occupied in proportion to the number of units in each phase of the project.

G. Duration of Affordability. Prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy or approval of the final inspection for the affordable units, regulatory agreement and, if the affordable units are owner-occupied, resale restrictions, deeds of trust and/or other documents, all of which must be acceptable to the Planning Director and consistent with the requirements of this Chapter, shall be recorded against the parcels having such affordable units and shall be effective in perpetuity; unless reduced by the Town Council in its discretion based on findings including financial need, 278
Item # 2.1- Attachment 2
Item # 2.1- Attachment 2
infeasibility, or as necessary to meet the requirements of financing institution or subsidy program.

H. Alternative Means of Compliance. A developer may propose to meet the requirements of these Regulations and San Anselmo Municipal Code Chapter 10.21 subject to the review and approval by the Planning Director in his/her/their its sole discretion. Applicants proposing to use an alternative means of compliance shall demonstrate how the alternative will further affordable housing opportunities in the Town to an equal to or greater extent than compliance with the express terms of these Regulations and San Anselmo Municipal Code Chapter 10.21.

1. Donation of Land to the Nonprofit. Donation of land to a nonprofit housing developer in place of actual construction of the required affordable units, which land must be zoned to allow residential use; free of toxic substances and/or contaminated soils; of sufficient size to accommodate the required units; and fully improved with access infrastructure, adjacent utilities, and grading.

2. Construction of Off-Site Units. Construction of allocated units off-site. Off-site units must be located within one-half mile of the market-rate development that is the subject of the inclusionary housing requirement; shall not create an over-concentration of deed-restricted affordable dwelling units in any one neighborhood; building design, quality, and maintenance standards shall be of good quality
I. Administration. On an annual basis, the Planning Director shall make available to the Town Council a report on the effectiveness of the affordable housing requirements set forth in San Anselmo Municipal Code Chapter 10.21 and these Regulations. Measures of effectiveness include, but are not limited to, pending or proposed housing development projects; number of units affordable at various affordable income levels; amounts of affordable housing in-lieu fees and non-residential/commercial linkage fees that have been deposited into the affordable housing fund and any Town actions taken with said funds. 279
Item # 2.1- Attachment 3
Item # 2.1- Attachment 3

SAN ANSELMO TOWN COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO ADOPTING

AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN-LIEU FEES AND COMMERCIAL/NON-RESIDENTIAL LINKAGE FEES IN

THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, all communities in the State of California, including the Town of San Anselmo, face a housing crisis that includes the lack of access to affordable housing, which has a direct negative impact on the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of San Anselmo; and WHEREAS, inclusionary housing policies, and related affordable housing in-lieu and nonresidential/commercial linkage fees, are tools that help jurisdictions increase the supply of affordable housing units; and
WHEREAS, the provision of safe and stable housing for households at all income levels is in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65580 provides that the availability of housing is of vital Statewide importance and that local governments have a responsibility to use their powers to facilitate the development of housing and make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community; and
WHEREAS, all California jurisdictions receive a target number of homes for which they must plan at various income levels called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and the RHNA number for the Town of San Anselmo’s 2023-2031 Housing Element cycle has increased to 833 units up from the previous 106 units; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of inclusionary housing policies, including affordable housing in-lieu fees and commercial linkage fees, is critical for the Town in reaching its RHNA housing requirements for very low, low, and moderate income households; and
WHEREAS, the Town of San Anselmo was awarded funding pursuant to a State Grant established by California Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) for actions to increase housing, and a portion of this money was utilized in collaboration with other Marin jurisdictions to formulate inclusionary housing policies and supporting fee studies; and
WHEREAS, using the SB 2 funding, the Town of San Anselmo collaborated with several Marin jurisdictions lead by Strategic Economics, Inc. and Vernazza Wolf Associates (Consultants) on the development of a common inclusionary housing policy; and WHEREAS, Consultants also completed an In-Lieu Housing Fee Study and a Commercial Linkage Fee Study (Fee Study Reports), which studies support the adoption of said fees; and 280
Item # 2.1- Attachment 3
Item # 2.1- Attachment 3
WHEREAS, the Town Council has adopted an Ordinance Amendment adding Chapter 21 “Affordable Housing” to Title 10 “Planning and Zoning” of the San Anselmo Municipal Code adding inclusionary housing requirements and authorizing the Town Council to establish by Resolution affordable housing in-lieu fees and non-residential/commercial linkage fees based on the Fee Study Reports; and
WHEREAS, to ensure that the affordable housing in-lieu fees and the non-residential/commercial linkage fees set forth in this Resolution do not exceed the actual affordable housing impacts attributable to the development projects on which the fees are imposed, the Town Council has received and considered the Fee Study Reports, which demonstrate that said fees do not exceed the affordable housing impacts attributable to the development projects on which the fees are imposed; and
WHEREAS, at least ten (10) days prior to the date this Resolution is being heard, data was made available to the public indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the affordable housing for which the fee is being levied and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the affordable housing, in accordance with Government Code section 66019; and WHEREAS, notice of the hearing on the proposed fees was published twice in a newspaper of general circulation in the manner set forth in Government Code section 6062(a), in accordance with Government Code sections 66004 and 66018; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2023, the Planning Commission of the Town of San Anselmo voted to recommend Town Council approval of the proposed Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees and Commercial/Non-Residential Linkage Fees; and
WHEREAS, a duly and properly noticed public hearing regarding the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees and Commercial/Non-Residential Linkage Fees proposed in this Resolution was conducted by the Town Council on May 23, 2023; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of San Anselmo hereby adopts the Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees and Commercial/Non-Residential Linkage Fees as set forth in Exhibit “A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and directs that these fees be incorporated into the Town’s Master Fee Schedule.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall go into full force and effect sixty (60) days from its adoption.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the facts set forth in the recitals in this Resolution are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference. The recitals constitute findings in this matter and, together with the staff report, other written reports, oral staff presentation, public testimony, and other information contained in the record, are an adequate and appropriate evidentiary basis for the actions taken in this Resolution.
281
Item # 2.1- Attachment 3
Item # 2.1- Attachment 3
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Amendment will have a significant effect on the environment; and because it is not a “project” under CEQA since a project does not include the creation of a governmental funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific project (CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), and this Resolution commits no fees to any specific project.

INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED AT A PUBLIC HEARING at a regular meeting of the San Anselmo Town Council on ____________ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

RECUSED:

APPROVED:___________________________
Steve Burdo, Mayor
ATTEST:_______________________________
Serge Avila, Town Clerk
282
Item # 2.1- Attachment 3
Item # 2.1- Attachment 3
EXHIBIT “A”
Fees for Residential Development Projects
In Lieu of Provision of On-Site Inclusionary Units
The following fees apply to Rental Residential Development Projects in-lieu of the provision of on-site affordable inclusionary units.

A. Rental Residential Development. The in-lieu fee for the construction of one affordable unit shall be $362,817. The amount of the in-lieu fee will be calculated based on the percentage of the fractional unit. The developer may select one of the two following options, which include different percentages for the provision of affordable units.

Table A: Rental Projects (Developer Option 1)
Project Size Required Affordable Unit Set Aside and In-Lieu Fee Very Low Low Moderate In-Lieu Fee
2-10 units 10% 10%
11-29 units 10% 10%
30 or more units 15% 5%
Table B: Rental Projects (Developer Option 2)
Project Size Required Affordable Unit Set Aside and In-Lieu Fee Very Low Low Moderate In-Lieu Fee
2-10 units 15% 5%
11-29 units 15% 5%
30 or more units 10% 5% 5%
B. For-Sale Residential Development.

1. Single-Family Detached Subdivision. The in-lieu fee for the construction of one affordable unit shall be $362,817. The amount of the in-lieu fee will be calculated based on the percentage of the fractional unit.

2. Condominium Town Homes. The in-lieu fee for the construction of one affordable unit shall be $362,817.

3. Multiple Houses. The in-lieu fee for the construction of one affordable unit shall be $362,817. The amount of the in-lieu fee will be calculated based on the percentage of the fractional unit.
283
Item # 2.1- Attachment 3
Item # 2.1- Attachment 3
Table C: For-Sale Projects
Project Size Required Affordable Unit Set Aside
Low Moderate Above Moderate
2-4 units 20%
5-29 units 5% 5% 10%
30 or more units 5% 10% 5%
C. Comments.

1. Application. Fee applies to residential components of mixed-use projects.

2. Annual Fee Adjustment. Fee amounts shall be adjusted annually by the Planning Director in accordance with the year over year increase or decrease in the California Construction Cost Index (CCCI) as measured from December to December. The first adjustment shall be made on January 1, 2023 and thereafter on January 1.

3. Time of Payment. All in-lieu fees shall be calculated and paid at issuance of the building permit for the project.

4. Density Bonus. For projects that are granted a density bonus pursuant to California Government Code section 65915 et seq., and San Anselmo Municipal Code Title 10, Chapter 11 “Density Bonus” (collectively, Density Bonus Law), the in-lieu fee shall apply to all market-rate units, including any additional market-rate units provided under Density Bonus Law.

5. Exempted Units. The following units are exempt from in-lieu fees: a) units that are affordable to moderate, low, very low, or extremely low-income households based on current Marin County affordability levels by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; b) Accessory Dwelling Units; c) Junior Accessory Dwelling Units; and d) units created pursuant to Government Code section 65852.21 (“SB 9”). 284
Item # 2.1- Attachment 3
Item # 2.1- Attachment 3
EXHIBIT “B”
Affordable Housing Linkage Fee for Commercial/Non-Residential Development Projects The following fees apply to Commercial/Non-Residential Development Projects in-lieu of the provision of on-site affordable inclusionary units.

Type of Project Fee per Square Foot of Net New
Gross Floor Area
Office $10
Retail/Restaurant $8 up to 2500 square feet
$10 for over 2500 square feet
Hotel $5
Other Fees Calculated using Excel-Based Fee
Calculator.

Comments.

1. Application. Fee applies to commercial/non-residential components of mixed-use projects.

3. Time of Payment. All in-lieu fees shall be calculated and paid at issuance of the building permit for the project.

4. Use of Excel-Based Fee Calculator. For uses where a fee is not prescribed, the Town will utilize an Excel-Based Fee Calculator that will calculate a fee based on the net new gross building (floor) area (GBA) area relative to the jobs associated with the use. The Calculator contains a table of the affordability gap by income group calculated by the Excel model prepared by Strategic Economics.
285

Page 1 ends

SAN ANSELMO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-08

RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISISON OF THE TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO

RECOMMENDING TOWN COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ADDING CHAPTER 21 “AFFORDABLE HOUSING” TO TITLE 10 “PLANNING AND ZONING” OF THE SAN

ANSELMO MUNICPAL CODE
WHEREAS, all communities in the State of California, including the Town of San Anselmo, face a housing crisis that includes the lack of access to affordable housing, which has a direct negative impact on the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of San Anselmo; and WHEREAS, inclusionary housing policies, and related affordable housing in-lieu and nonresidential/commercial linkage fees, are tools that help jurisdictions increase the supply of affordable housing units; and
WHEREAS, the provision of safe and stable housing for households at all income levels is in the public interest; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65580 provides that the availability of housing is of vital Statewide importance and that local governments have a responsibility to use their powers to facilitate the development of housing and make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community; and
WHEREAS, the Town of San Anselmo was awarded funding pursuant to a State Grant established by California Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) for actions to increase housing, and a portion of this money was utilized in collaboration with other Marin jurisdictions to formulate inclusionary housing policies and supporting fee studies; and
WHEREAS, all California jurisdictions receive a target number of homes for which they must plan at various income levels called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and the RHNA number for the Town of San Anselmo’s 2023-2031 Housing Element cycle has increased to 833 units up from the previous 106 units; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of inclusionary housing policies is critical for the Town in reaching its RHNA housing requirements for very low, low, and moderate income households; and WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance Amendment adds Chapter 21 “Affordable Housing” to Title 10 “Planning and Zoning” of the San Anselmo Municipal Code, which would provide for inclusionary housing requirements, establish an affordable housing fund, and authorize affordable housing in-lieu fees and non-residential/commercial linkage fees “(Ordinance Amendment”); and
Item # 2.1- Attachment 4 Item # 2.1- Attachment 4
286

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, using the SB 2 funding, the Town of San Anselmo collaborated with several Marin jurisdictions lead by Strategic Economics, Inc. and Vernazza Wolf Associates (Consultants) on the development of a common inclusionary housing policy; and WHEREAS, Consultants completed an In-Lieu Housing Fee Study and a NonResidential/Commercial Linkage Fee Study (Fee Study Reports), which studies support the adoption of said fees; and
WHEREAS, Consultants used appropriate, best-practices methodology to determine the maximum amount of said fees to mitigate the burdens created by residential and nonresidential/commercial development, and demonstrate that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for affordable housing and the impacts of the development described in the Fee Study Reports for which the corresponding fee is charged, and that there is also a reasonable relationship between the fee’s use and the type of development for which the fee is charged; and
WHEREAS, the Fee Study Reports include an economic feasibility analysis that determined the fees as recommended would be feasible; and
WHEREAS, in compliance with Assembly Bill 602 (AB 602), Government Code section 66000, to ensure that the fractionable affordable housing in-lieu fee and non-residential commercial linkage fee recommended herein does not exceed the actual affordable housing impacts attributable to the development projects on which the fee is imposed, the Town Council will consider the Fee Study Reports; and
WHEREAS, based on the findings above, the Town desires to further the public health, safety, and welfare by requiring residential and non-residential/commercial projects in the Town to mitigate their impact on the need for affordable housing in San Anselmo; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is responsible for providing recommendations to the Town Council for proposed amendments to the Town’s Zoning Code pursuant to Government Code section 65853 et seq.; and
WHEREAS, the Ordinance Amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Amendment will have a significant effect on the environment; the Amendment will make no changes to land uses, development intensities, or the rate at which development is expected to occur, and is therefore will have no significant environmental effect; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of the proposed Ordinance Amendment is consistent with the Town’s current and draft Housing Element, both of which contain policies to adopt inclusionary housing policies and related fees to be deposited into an affordable housing fund; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on May 15, 2023 to consider recommendation of said Amendments to the Town Municipal Code; and Item # 2.1- Attachment 4
Item # 2.1- Attachment 4
287

Page 3 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated as findings herein.

2. The Planning Commission of the Town of San Anselmo does hereby recommend that the Town Council adopt the proposed Ordinance as set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto.

RESOLUTION PASSED AND ADOPTED, at the regular meeting of the San Anselmo Planning Commission on the 15th day of May, 2023 by the following vote:

AYES: Koblick de Leon, Smith, Heiman, Asselstine, Chair Tunny NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: Pipkin and Strauss
RECUSED: None

Heidi Scoble, AICP
Secretary to the Planning Commission
Item # 2.1- Attachment 4
Item # 2.1- Attachment 4
288

Page 4 ends

EXHIBIT “A”
SECTION 1: Environmental Review. The Ordinance Amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Amendment will have a significant effect on the environment. The Amendment will make no changes to land uses, development intensities, or the rate at which development is expected to occur and is therefore will have no significant environmental effect.

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

21.060 of this Chapter.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 4
Item # 2.1- Attachment 4
289

Page 5 ends

e. “Low income households” or “low income” means households with incomes no greater than the maximum income for low income households for Marin County as published annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in California Code of Regulations Title 25, Section 6932 (or successor provision). f. “Moderate income households” or “moderate income” means households with incomes no greater than the maximum income for moderate income households for Marin County, as published annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in California Code of Regulations Title 25, Section 6932 (or successor provision). g. “Non-residential development project” means an application for a planning permit or building permit that includes the new construction of gross square feet of non-residential space or the conversion of a residential use to a non-residential use. h. “Non-residential/commercial linkage fee” means the applicable fee established pursuant to Section 10-21.060 of this Chapter.
i. “Rental unit” means a dwelling unit that is intended to be offered for rent or lease and that cannot be sold individually in conformance with the Subdivision Map Act. j. “Residential development project” means a project at one location to create one or more additional dwelling units, convert nonresidential uses to dwelling units, subdivide a parcel to create one or more separately transferrable parcels intended for residential development, or implement a condominium conversion, including development constructed at one time and in phases. “One location” shall include all adjacent parcels of land under common ownership or control with contiguous property lines at any point, or the property lines of which are separated by a public or private street, road, or public or private right-of-way. k. “Very low income households” or “very low income” means households with incomes no greater than the maximum income for very low-income households for Marin County, as published annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in California Code of Regulations Title 25, Section 6932 (or successor provision). 10-21-030 Affordable Housing Requirements.
a. Residential Development Projects – General Requirements. Any new residential development project shall be developed to provide affordable housing units to very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income households in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter and applicable Town policies.
b. Affordable Housing Units—Percentage Required, In-Lieu Fees, Target Incomes.

Residential development projects shall provide affordable housing units and/or pay housing in-lieu fees in accordance with the policies and procedures specified in the Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulations, as adopted and amended from time to time by Town Council Resolution.
c. Exemptions. The requirements of this Chapter do not apply to:

1. Projects where a building permit application has been accepted as complete by the Town prior to the effective date of this Chapter; provided however that any extension or modification of such a permit shall not be exempt.

2. Any structure proposed to repair or replace a building that was damaged or destroyed by fire or other calamity so long as the total number of units, square footage, and land use of the building remains the same and construction of the replacement building Item # 2.1- Attachment 4
Item # 2.1- Attachment 4
290

Page 6 ends

begins within one (1) year of the damage’s occurrence.

3. Single-family structure.

4. Any Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling unit approved by the Town.

3. The remedies provided herein nonexclusive and cumulative and shall not preclude the Town from any other remedy or relief to which it is entitled under law or equity. 10-21-040 Administration. The Town Council shall adopt and may amend from time to time by Resolution, implementing Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulations consistent with the provisions of this Chapter and the Housing Element for the purpose of carrying out the administration of this Chapter. A copy of the Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulations shall be on file with the Town Clerk’s Office and made available for public examination and posted on the Town’s website. The Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulations shall set forth affordable housing requirements, affordable housing in-lieu fee requirements, and non-residential/commercial fee requirements. The Planning Director or designee is responsible for administering this Chapter. As part of this administration, the Director may perform the following tasks including, but not limited to:
interpret the provisions of this Chapter and the Affordable Housing Requirements and Program Regulation and establish operational and procedural requirements such as tenant eligibility, application processes, waitlist management, and income verification requirements. 10-21-050 Affordable Housing Fund. An Affordable Housing Fund is established to receive all housing impact and other applicable fees and funds.
a. All applicable affordable housing in-lieu fees and non-residential/commercial linkage fees collected shall be deposited into the Affordable Housing Fund. The monies deposited in the Affordable Housing Fund, with any interest earned, shall be used solely to increase and improve the supply of housing affordable to moderate, low, and very low income households, consistent Item # 2.1- Attachment 4
Item # 2.1- Attachment 4
291

Page 7 ends

with the goals and policies contained in the Town’s Housing Element and affordable housing requirements and policies.
b. The Affordable Housing Fund shall be administered by the Planning Director who may develop procedures to implement said fund consistent with the requirements of this Chapter and subject to any adopted budget of the Town and generally acceptable accounting and procurement processes.
10-21-060 Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fees and Non-Residential/Commercial Linkage Fees. a. Affordable housing in-lieu fees and non-residential/commercial linkage fees (fees) are hereby established for residential development projects and non-residential/commercial development projects. The amount of said fees shall be established by Town Council Resolution, as may be amended from time to time. The amount of fees shall not exceed the cost of mitigating the impact residential or non-residential/commercial development projects on the need for affordable housing in the Town of San Anselmo.
b. All such fees shall be deposited in the Affordable Housing Fund described in Section 10- 21-040 herein.
c. Payment of fees shall be due at the issuance of the building permit for the project. Fees shall be calculated based on the fee schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued, unless State law specifies that the Town must use a fee schedule in effect at an earlier date.

SECTION 5: Severability. The Town Council hereby declares every section, paragraph, sentence, clause, and phrase is severable. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of these ordinance amendments are 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 6: 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.

INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED AT A PUBLIC HEARING at a regular meeting of the San Anselmo Town Council on _____________________ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

RECUSED:

APPROVED:___________________________
Steve Burdo, Mayor
ATTEST:_______________________________
Serge Avila, Town Clerk
Item # 2.1- Attachment 4
Item # 2.1- Attachment 4
292

Page 8 ends

Item # 2.1- Attachment 4
Item # 2.1- Attachment 4
293
2991 SHATTUCK AVENUE #2 03 | BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94705 | P: 510.647.5291 | F: 510.647.5295 | STRATEGICECONOMICS.COM

MEMORANDUM
To:

From:

Date:

Heidi Scoble, Town of San Anselmo
Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates
February 10, 2023
Project: Marin Inclusionary Study
Subject: Inclusionary Program and In-Lieu Fee Study for San Anselmo Purpose and Background
The County of Marin, Town of San Anselmo, and five other jurisdictions within Marin County are collaborating on a regional effort to implement or update existing affordable housing policy tools, namely inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage fees. Some of the jurisdictions currently have inclusionary zoning and/or commercial linkage fee programs they intend to review and update as necessary, while others are establishing new programs. Together, the seven jurisdictions have retained Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates (the Consultant Team) to study and offer recommendations for both these policies.

This memo report provides an assessment of the existing inclusionary housing programs, summarizes best practices for setting inclusionary housing requirements, including on-site affordable units and fees in-lieu of providing affordable units on-site. The report provides an updated calculation of in-lieu fees for all the jurisdictions participating in this study. The maximum in-lieu fees were calculated for three different housing product types – single-family subdivisions, townhomes/condominiums, and rental apartments.

This report also includes an analysis of key policy considerations and recommendations to guide San Anselmo’s decision-makers on potential changes to the inclusionary housing requirements and associated in-lieu fees.

The memo is organized into the following sections:

I. Analysis of Existing Inclusionary Policies
II. Best Practices for Inclusionary Policies
III. Affordability Gap/In-lieu Fee Calculation
IV. Policy Considerations and Recommendations
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
294
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 2 I. Analysis of Existing Inclusionary Policies
Some of the communities in Marin County have a relatively long history with inclusionary zoning.

Of the seven jurisdictions participating in this study, five already have inclusionary policies, some of which have existed in some form since the 1980s. Sausalito adopted its policy in 2019, while the communities of San Anselmo and Fairfax have not yet adopted a policy. Concurrent to the preparation of this memo, San Rafael adopted a significantly modified inclusionary policy; both the current policy and the newly adopted versions are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Inclusionary programs typically have a specific onsite requirement to designate a portion of the project for affordable units (see Figure 1 for a comparison of onsite requirements for the seven jurisdictions) as well as alternative means of compliance with the policy, such as the payment of in-lieu fees or land dedication (Figure 2). Below are some key observations of the policy elements across the jurisdictions:
• All jurisdictions apply an inclusionary requirement to both rental and for-sale projects.

Fairfax and San Anselmo do not have existing inclusionary housing ordinances. • The policies for rental projects tend to target lower income households (very low- and lowincome households) while the policies for for-sale projects tend to target a combination of low- and moderate-income households. Exceptions to this include Corte Madera and San Rafael, which have identical affordability targets for both rental and for-sale projects, and Unincorporated Marin County, which has unusually low-income targets: 60 percent of area median income (AMI) for for-sale and 50 percent of AMI for rental developments. • The percentage affordable requirement ranges from ten percent to 25 percent. Some jurisdictions require smaller percentages for smaller projects: Larkspur has a lower requirement for projects less than twenty units in size, while both San Rafael’s current and newly adopted policies include a modified requirement for larger projects. Sausalito requires a higher percentage (with deeper affordability) for projects in commercial districts. • The inclusionary policies generally have a relatively low unit threshold. The unit thresholds (minimum number of units in a project for the policy to be applicable) range from 1 or more units in Corte Madera to 5 or more units in Larkspur. The relatively low unit thresholds reflect the smaller multifamily and subdivision developments characteristic of Marin. • San Rafael recently modified its policy by relaxing the onsite inclusionary requirement, adding flexibility, and shifting the targeted income groups slightly higher. • The jurisdictions take a mix of approaches to alternative means of compliance, but, overall, the alternatives are structured to encourage developers to build units onsite. Jurisdictions either disallow the payment of in-lieu fees in all circumstances (Sausalito), or disallow them in some circumstances (Corte Madera, Larkspur, San Rafael), or allow the payment of inlieu fees on fractional units (Larkspur, Unincorporated Marin County). Land dedication or the provision of offsite units is generally allowed under special circumstances.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
295
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 3 FIGURE 1: ONSITE INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS BY JURISDICTION Percentage Affordable by
Project Size
Minimum Size
Threshold
Affordability Target
Rental For-Sale
Corte Madera All projects: 25% 1 unit 5% Very Low-Income; 10% Low-Income; 10% Moderate-Income
Sausalito
Commercial Districts 1-5 units: 1 unit;
6+ units: 20% 1 unit Low-income Moderate-income
Other Areas 15% 4 units Moderate-income
Larkspur 5-19 units: 15%
20+ units: 20% 5 units 50% Very Low-Income;
50% Low-Income
50% Low-Income;
50% Moderate-Income
Unincorporated Marin County 2+ units or lots: 20% 2 units or lots Very Low-Income (50% AMI) Low-Income (60% AMI)
San Rafael
Current Policy
2-10 units: 10%
11-20 units: 15%
21+ units: 20%
2 units 50% Very Low-Income;
50% Low-Income
50% Low-Income;
50% Moderate-Income
New Policy (Approved by City Council 2/21/2021)
Primary Requirement 2-15 units: 10%
16+ units: 5% 2 units Low-Income
Secondary Requirement (in addition to the
primary requirement for 16+ unit projects)
16+ units: Additional 5% or
10% 16 units 5% additional set-aside: Low-Income;
10% additional set-aside: Moderate-Income
Fairfax No Policy
San Anselmo No Policy
Source: Staff from Jurisdictions, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
296
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 4 FIGURE 2: INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENT ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE BY JURISDICTION Alternative Means of Compliance
Corte Madera 1-9 unit projects can pay in lieu fee. 10+ unit projects must incorporate units on-site.

Sausalito
Commercial Districts Applicants can propose land dedication or off-site units if on-site units are not possible, though there is no in-lieu fee option.

Other Areas Applicants can propose land dedication or off-site units if on-site units are not possible, though there is no in-lieu fee option.

Larkspur
Land donation, transfer of inclusionary credits, second dwelling units; In-lieu fee available for 5-14 unit projects and for fractional units (Rental: $213,267, For-Sale: $338,126).

Unincorporated Marin County 2+ unit projects and subdivisions: In-lieu fee available for fractional units ($329,485 per unit).

San Rafael
Former Policy In-lieu fee for fractional units ($343,969 per unit).

New Policy (Approved by City Council 2/21/2021)
Primary Requirement None (must be on-site)
Secondary Requirement In-lieu fee, off-site units located within 1/2 mile of project, or land donation.

Fairfax No Policy
San Anselmo No Policy

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
297
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 5

EFFECTIVENESS OF INCLUSIONARY POLICIES
The Consultant Team surveyed the five participating jurisdictions that currently have policies, including questions about the units produced by their policy, the means of production, and fee revenues collected. The Team also held meetings with market-rate developers, affordable housing providers, and other stakeholders (see Appendix A) to gain their perspective regarding the policies.

To summarize the results of the inclusionary policies, the Consultant Team summarized the number of units produced and the revenues generated from 2016 to 2020, shown in Figure 3. To provide more context on housing product, a summary of allocated and permitted units in the 2015-2023 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) cycle is shown in Figure 4. The effectiveness of the inclusionary policies as a tool for affordable housing production is discussed below.

The jurisdictions in this study produced 58 affordable units through their inclusionary programs over a five-year period. In the last five years, the five jurisdictions with inclusionary policies produced a total of 41 affordable rental units, 17 affordable for-sale units, and approximately $4 million for affordable housing development. San Rafael constituted most of the activity, with all 41 rental units produced there, 13 for-sale units produced, and $3.6 million generated from a single development, the 81-unit Village at Loch Lomond Marina project.1
Inclusionary programs accounted for about 14 percent of affordable housing production in the seven participating jurisdictions. According to the RHNA progress report shown in Figure 4, the participating jurisdictions permitted a total 414 affordable units and 700 market-rate units from 2015 to 2020.

This indicates that the majority of below-market rate housing development has been implemented through 100 percent affordable projects. The jurisdictions are on track to meet their market-rate (over 120% AMI) and low-income (80% AMI) housing allocations. However, they are less likely to meet the target for producing very-low income (50% AMI) and moderate-income (120%) units.

The inclusionary programs have not resulted in significant production of new affordable units in part because of the complexity of residential development in the county. Residential developers participating in this study cited many factors contributing to the complexity of housing development in Marin, including long and unpredictable approvals processes, opposition from some community members, lack of available sites, especially those that are zoned for multi-family housing, high land and construction costs, and inadequate or expensive infrastructure.

Inclusionary requirements can be a secondary factor impacting the viability of new development in Marin, mainly in instances where the requirement is poorly matched to market conditions. Market rate developers participating this study believed that new development projects can support inclusionary requirements for lower income households. However, some noted that the percentage requirement had been increased over time in many cities, without consideration of the relative market strengths of different locations in the county. For example, some jurisdictions have targeted very low-income households for for-sale projects, which requires a deeper subsidy than low- and moderate-income households.

The conversion of off-site units as an alternative means of compliance with the inclusionary requirement can fall short of the communities’ goals for affordable housing. Allowing developers to convert existing units to deed-restricted affordable units can be problematic. First, unlike the 1 The $3.6 million generated from the Loch Lomond Marina project were not from in-lieu fees but rather a “buyout” of a portion of the BMR requirement.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
298
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 6 construction of new units, the conversion of existing units fails to expand the overall supply of housing in the county, trading a market rate unit for one below market rate unit rather than expanding the overall supply. Second, converted units are often of lower quality than new units, and may come with hidden costs, such as additional maintenance costs.

In Marin County, the current inclusionary requirement appears to encourage developers to reduce the scale of projects to allow for the payment of in-lieu fees rather than providing on-site units. The County’s policy targets very low-income households: 50 percent of Area Median Income for rental developments and 60 percent for for-sale. These income targets are lower than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area. Projects with two units or more must provide units onsite, with the payment of in-lieu fees allowed only on fractional units. According to County staff, some development projects have reduced the scale of their projects to enable the payment of in-lieu fees rather than providing units onsite.

The variation in inclusionary requirements from jurisdiction to jurisdiction can create confusion and unnecessary complexity for developers. Because each jurisdiction in Marin County has set its inclusionary requirements in an uncoordinated way, the finer details of the many different policies can be difficult for developers to navigate. A more standardized approach that is closely tied to market conditions, rather than jurisdictional boundaries, would help to rationalize the process for developers.

FIGURE 3: AFFORDABLE UNITS PRODUCED AND FEE REVENUES COLLECTED, BY JURISDICTION, 2016-2020.

Jurisdiction Rental Units For-sale Units Fee Revenues
Corte Madera 0 3 $379,478
Fairfax [a] n/a n/a n/a
Larkspur 0 0 0
Unincorporated Marin County 0 1 [d] $213,603
San Anselmo [b] n/a n/a n/a
San Rafael 41 13 $3,600,000 [e]
Sausalito [c] 0 0 0
Total 41 17 $4,193,081 [a] Fairfax does not currently have an inclusionary program. [b] San Anselmo does not currently have an inclusionary program. [c] Sausalito adopted an inclusionary program in 2019. [d] Produced through a shared agreement with Mill Valley. [e] Revenues collected from a buy-out of six Below Market Rate units.

Source: Reported by each jurisdiction, 2016-2020.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
299
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 7 FIGURE 4. RHNA FIFTH CYCLE ALLOCATION AND PERMITTED UNITS BY AFFORDABILITY LEVEL ACROSS JURISDICTIONS, AS OF 2020 Corte Madera Fairfax Larkspur San Anselmo San Rafael Sausalito Unincorporated
Marin County Total
Very Low Income (50% AMI)
RHNA 22 16 40 33 240 26 55 432
Permitted Units 16 13 6 15 5 12 26 93
% Complete 73% 81% 15% 45% 2% 46% 47% 22%
Low Income (80% AMI)
RHNA 13 11 20 17 148 14 32 255
Permitted Units 13 60 11 21 79 20 27 231
% Complete 100% 545% 55% 124% 53% 143% 84% 91%
Moderate Income (120% AMI)
RHNA 13 11 21 19 181 16 37 298
Permitted Units 8 4 9 23 12 6 28 90
% Complete 62% 36% 43% 121% 7% 38% 76% 30%
Market-Rate (>120% AMI)
RHNA 24 23 51 37 438 23 61 657
Permitted Units 179 10 90 39 201 7 174 700
% Complete 746% 43% 176% 105% 46% 30% 285% 107%
Permitted Units Summary
Total Affordable Units (<120% AMI) 37 77 26 59 96 38 81 414 Total Market Rate Units (>120% AMI) 179 10 90 39 201 7 174 700 Affordable Units as Share of Total 17% 89% 22% 60% 32% 84% 32% 37% Source: HCD, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
300
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 8 II. Best Practices for Inclusionary Policies
This section provides a discussion of key policy issues for jurisdictions to consider as they introduce a new inclusionary program or modify an existing program, and provides recommendations based on best practices. To identify best practices, the Consultant Team reviewed reports from the UC Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation, Grounded Solutions Network, and the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. To guide the recommendations for best practices, the Consultant Team first designated market area zones. Following that, the policy elements discussed in this section include:
• Considering market factors when setting inclusionary requirements • The income groups targeted in inclusionary requirements • The minimum applicable development size
• Setting in-lieu fees as an alternative to on-site or off-site units, and • Other alternative means of compliance.

MARKET CONDITIONS
It is important to consider market conditions when setting an inclusionary housing requirement to ensure that the policy can be tailored to the unique context of each jurisdiction, and that the policy does not constrain the development of new housing. Jurisdictions that have stronger housing markets can establish higher inclusionary requirements than those with less established or weaker markets.

Based on Zillow home sale data and interviews with residential developers with experience working in Marin County (see Appendix A), the Consultant Team identified three market areas for for-sale housing across the participating jurisdictions in the County. Figures 5 and 6 show Zillow home value indices for both overall home sales and condominium sales.

As shown in Figure 5 , home values are highest in South Marin, which offer the best access to San Francisco via the Golden Gate Bridge and ferries. Home values are slightly lower in Central Marin, and drop in North/ West Marin areas, which are comparatively less accessible.

The market for rental housing is different from for-sale housing in Marin County. The rental housing market is strongest in the more urbanized areas that offer access to transportation infrastructure, jobs, and amenities. Most of the recent market-rate rental development activity has occurred in urban San Rafael. Tam Ridge is another significant rental project which was completed in Corte Madera in 2017.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
301
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 9 FIGURE 5: ZILLOW HOME VALUE INDEX FOR MARIN COMMUNITIES Source: Zillow, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.

FIGURE 6: ZILLOW HOME VALUE INDEX FOR CONDO/COOPS IN MARIN COMMUNITIES Source: Zillow, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
$4,000,000
$4,500,000
North/West Central South
$00K
$200K
$400K
$600K
$800K
$1,000K
$1,200K
San Rafael Fairfax San Anselmo Larkspur Corte Madera Sausalito North
Central
South
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
302
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 10

PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENTS
Figure 7 and Figure 8 illustrate the income targets and percentage requirements for the jurisdictions that currently have inclusionary programs. Figure 7 plots the current onsite requirements for rental units, with the percent set-aside on the x-axis and average Area Median Income2 targeted by the policy on the y-axis. Figure 8 shows the same information for for-sale units. Policies that appear toward the lower right of the plots have a higher percentage requirement and deeper affordability, while those toward the upper left have a relatively lower percentage requirement and less affordability.

Five of the seven participating jurisdictions already have inclusionary policies in place requiring affordable units onsite. The percentage of units varies by jurisdiction, ranging from 10 percent (San Rafael) to 25 percent (Corte Madera). Most of the jurisdictions have similar percentage requirements for for-sale and rental development, but the income targeted is typically lower for rental than for forsale housing.

The percentage of affordable housing required in a project should be set at an economically feasible level so that the inclusionary requirement does not create an impediment to housing development.3 According to market-rate housing developers, the market context for inclusionary requirements is particularly important in Marin. Development projects in the southern and central portions of the county, such as Corte Madera, Larkspur, Sausalito and parts of Unincorporated Marin, can more feasibly accommodate a higher percentage of inclusionary and/or a deeper level of affordability, compared to communities located in northern and western portions of the county.

Setting a high inclusionary requirement could be prohibitive for new rental projects in Marin County.

San Rafael recently relaxed its inclusionary requirement to encourage new development, despite being the most active rental market in the county. Because rental developments tend to serve a lower income market segment than for-sale developments, the inclusionary requirement for rentals is sometimes slightly lower than that for for-sale developments. Local jurisdictions can make up that gap by providing zoning incentives to reduce development costs for rental projects. 2 For example, San Rafael requires at least 50 percent of its BMR units to be targeted to very low-income households (maximum income: 50 percent of AMI) and the remainder to be targeted to low-income households (maximum income: 80 percent of AMI). Therefore, the average AMI target for San Rafael is .50*.50 + .50*.80 = 65 percent of AMI. 3 AB1505, also known as the “Palmer Fix” permits California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to review inclusionary zoning ordinances adopted or amended after September 15, 2017 if it requires more than 15% of the units to be affordable to lower income households and if the locality has failed to meet 75% of its share of the above moderate RHNA. HCD can request localities to provide an “economic feasibility study” to demonstrate that the higher inclusionary requirement will not impede development activity.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
303
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 11 FIGURE 7: AVERAGE AMI TARGETS AND PERCENT ONSITE REQUIREMENT FOR RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS * Assumes the developer selects the 10% / moderate-income option for the secondary requirement.

Source: Participating jurisdictions, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.

FIGURE 8: AVERAGE AMI TARGETS AND PERCENT SET-ASIDE FOR FOR-SALE DEVELOPMENTS * Assumes the developer selects the 10% / moderate-income option for the secondary requirement.

Source: Participating jurisdictions, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.

Corte Madera
Sausalito
Sausalito (commercial
districts)
Larkspur (5-14 units)
Larkspur (15+ units)
Unincorp. Marin
San Rafael (2-15 units)
San Rafael (16+ units) *
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Average AMI Target
Percent On-site Requirement
Corte Madera
Sausalito
Sausalito (commercial
districts)
Larkspur (5-14 units)
Larkspur (15+ units)
Unincorp. Marin
San Rafael (2-15 units)
San Rafael (16+ units) *
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Average AMI Target
Percent On-site Requirement
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
304
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 12

INCOME TARGETS
There is a wide range in the income targets for inclusionary programs among the participating jurisdictions, as shown in Figures 7 and 8. It is common practice for jurisdictions to target lower-income households for renter housing than for ownership housing. This is because it is generally easier for low- and moderate-income households to meet typical lending requirements.

Larkspur, Sausalito, and Unincorporated Marin County target lower-income households for rental units compared to for-sale units. San Rafael and Corte Madera target moderate-income for both rental and for-sale housing.

RENTAL
The income targets for rental units among the jurisdictions vary widely (Figure 7). Unincorporated Marin targets very low-income households, while Larkspur targets a mix of very low- and low-income households. The other jurisdictions have higher income targets overall, including targeting to some moderate-income households.

Currently, the most active rental market in Marin is San Rafael, which, of the jurisdictions in this study, produced the only affordable rental units in the last five years (Figure 3). These units were produced under the city’s previous policy, which targeted low- and very low-income households. San Rafael has relaxed this requirement with its new ordinance, which is designed to further promote new development. Among other changes, the new ordinance eliminates targeting for very low-income households.

FOR-SALE
In comparison to rentals, the income targets for for-sale development are overall more uniform across jurisdictions. The targeted income groups tend to consist of a mix of low- and moderate-income households.

The exception to this pattern is Unincorporated Marin County, which requires a significantly deeper level of affordability (60 percent of AMI) on for-sale projects. This policy can pose a challenge in two ways. First, it can make the County uncompetitive for development with its neighbors. Further, the lower-then-average income targets in Marin County’s policy was identified by developers as being a financial burden on projects such that many do not pencil. As mentioned in Section I, County staff reports that developers tend to reduce the size of their projects in order to build fewer onsite BMR units than otherwise would have been required, preferring to pay the in-lieu fee on fractional units to the greatest extent possible.

UNIT THRESHOLDS
One important element of an inclusionary policy is the minimum size of development (the threshold number of dwelling units) for which the policy will apply. Because smaller scale projects are often more complex and less efficient than larger projects, many inclusionary programs around the country have exemptions or lower requirements on small projects. According to Grounded Solutions Network, California jurisdictions typically set the minimum threshold for an inclusionary requirement at between Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
305
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 13 two to five units.4 This is consistent with the policies of the jurisdictions in this study, where the the minimum threshold ranges between one unit and five units.

Because a significant share of new development projects in Marin County’s jurisdictions are quite small, it is it is important that all projects be required to provide affordable units. However, for smaller projects that have more challenging development feasibility, the percentage set-aside required could be lower, or the income group targeted could be set higher. In San Rafael projects with 5 to 15 units have a set-aside requirement of 10 percent, compared to 15 percent for larger projects. Similarly, Larkspur’s ordinance requires 15 percent affordable units for projects with less than 15 units, compared to 20 percent for larger projects. San Francisco has a lower percentage requirement on projects between 10 to 24 units of 12 percent, compared to approximately 21 percent for larger projects.

SETTING IN-LIEU FEES
A jurisdiction’s approach to setting in-lieu fees should consider a number of factors. The first consideration is to compare the in-lieu fee option with the provision of onsite units – which of these options does the jurisdiction wish to encourage? In many California communities, collecting in-lieu fees and leveraging funding from other sources can allow them to build 100 percent affordable housing projects for extremely-low, very-low, and low-income households. However, this approach requires administrative capacity on behalf of city and county staff, capacity from local affordable housing developers, and access to other funding sources. It can also take a significant amount of time to acquire sites and secure funding to build 100 percent affordable projects.

For many of the above reasons, most of the jurisdictions participating in this study would prefer to incentivize on-site production rather than off-site units. Inclusionary housing is an important tool to promote mixed-income housing and to help correct historical patterns of economic and racial segregation. Setting the in-lieu fee at the maximum level can encourage more developers to provide units onsite. When the in-lieu fee option is available, developers are more likely to pay the fee when constructing high value or luxury units, because the revenue sacrificed from building units onsite is higher. (The potential value of luxury units is high, which means the developer must forgo more revenue for each unit that is designated affordable.)
Another consideration for in-lieu fees is the basis of the fee. Is the fee charged on the basis of dwelling units or square feet of residential area? While communities in Marin generally charge on a per unit basis, charging on the fee on a per-square-foot basis can encourage the development of smaller units, like studios and one-bedrooms. As an example, San Francisco’s affordable housing in-lieu fee is charged on a per-square-foot basis.

It is recommended that fees be implemented with a schedule for annual adjustments. As economic factors, such as construction costs, change over time, the affordability gap will also change. Fees should be adjusted based on a regularly published cost index.

Further considerations for setting in-lieu fees on the basis of the affordability gap analysis are examined in Section IV.
4 Jacobus, Rick. “Inclusionary Housing: Creating and Maintaining Equitable Communities,” Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 2015.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
306
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 14

ALTERNATIVE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE
Because circumstances surrounding each project are different, it is important for an inclusionary program to provide alternative ways of meeting the inclusionary requirement other than with the provision of onsite units. Marin County has successfully used alternative means to produce new affordable units and raise revenue for housing; these alternative means include the provision of offsite units, land dedication, and partnerships with affordable housing developers. The option to construct units offsite is typically met with a higher percentage than what would be required onsite.

Market rate developers stress that flexibility in the inclusionary policy is a key determinant of the production of new housing. For some projects, the dedication of land to a jurisdiction or an affordable developer can result in the construction of a greater number of units for lower income households than the provision of on-site inclusionary units.

As mentioned in Section I, some developers may propose to fulfill an inclusionary requirement, not through the construction of new units offsite, but through the conversion of offsite market rate units to deed-restricted affordable units. However, this approach has some disadvantages. First, it does not result in net new housing units. Second, the off-site unit does not create a mixed-income development project. Finally, the conversion of units can sometimes result in affordable housing units that are of lower quality than new construction. If the off-site provision of units is offered as a means of compliance, it is important for the jurisdiction to ensure that the offsite units are of equivalent quality and within close proximity to the market-rate development project. Other best practices are to require that the value of the off-site contribution is equivalent or greater than the value of the in-lieu fees.

BEST PRACTICES FOR SMALL LOT SUBDIVISIONS
Recent state legislation (AB 1315 [2019-2020]) sets forth rules for small lot subdivisions to encourage affordable housing in areas zoned for multifamily development. The law allows developers to subdivide parcels into smaller lots for the construction of small, individual units with limited parking. For the purposes of applying an inclusionary policy, it is advisable to treat a small lot subdivision as if it were a new construction project of the same number of units.

As there may be a significant period of time between the subdivision and when new construction occurs, jurisdictions should clarify for developers the point in time when the inclusionary policy is applied and, for example, any applicable in-lieu fees are paid. Ordinarily, it is the developer entitling the construction of the residential units, and not the developer performing the land division, who will be responsible for fulfilling whatever inclusionary policy is in effect at that time, and paying any applicable fees.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
307
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 15 III. Calculation of In-Lieu Fee
Inclusionary zoning requires that new developments provide affordable housing along with marketrate housing units, either on-site or off-site, or comply with alternative measures such as payment of fees “in-lieu” of providing affordable units. The in-lieu fee is calculated based on the housing affordability gap – the difference between what households at various income levels can pay for housing and the cost of developing market rate housing. If this is for-sale housing, then the gap is based on the difference between annual mortgage costs and affordable monthly housing payments, and for rental housing, it is the difference between market rate rents and affordable rents. Once the total gap is calculated, the actual fee that is adopted depends on financial feasibility of the costs of the fee on prototypical residential developments.

For the purposes of this study, the in-lieu fees were calculated for Marin County and participating jurisdictions for three development types:
• For-sale single-family subdivisions
• For-sale condominium townhomes
• Rental apartments
While the study presents the total affordability gap, the actual fee that is adopted in each jurisdiction depends on policy considerations, which are outlined in Section IV of this report.

METHODOLOGY
The affordability gap is defined as the difference between what very low-, low- and moderate-income households can afford to pay for housing and the cost of developing new housing. Because it measures this shortfall that must be made up by a developer offering Below Market Rate units, the affordability gap is useful for setting in-lieu fees as an alternative to producing units directly through the inclusionary program.

The following steps illustrate the methodology used for calculating the affordability gap:

1. Estimate affordable rents and housing prices for households in target groups.

2. Estimate development costs of building new housing units, based on current cost and market data;

3. Calculate the difference between what renters and homeowners can afford to pay for housing, and the cost of developing those rental and for-sale units Because California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) define the ability to pay for housing at the county level, the affordability gap is calculated on the same income categories for the entire county.

The calculated in-lieu fees are valid for all of the jurisdictions participating in this study.

RESIDENTIAL PROTOTYPES
The Consultant Team established three housing prototypes that represent the types of development likely to occur in Marin County. The prototypes are informed by recently built and proposed development projects in Marin as well as conversations with developers with experience in Marin County. Example projects that represent the types of development likely to occur in Marin County are Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
308
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 16 shown in Figures 9 and 10. All five projects are in either San Rafael or Corte Madera, which have attracted most of the recent development activity among the participating jurisdictions.

FIGURE 9. MARIN PROJECTS THAT INFORMED PROTOTYPES 1 AND 2 (FOR-SALE PROTOTYPES) Project The Strand Enclave 350 Merrydale Rd.

Building Type Detached single-family and
townhomes Townhomes Townhomes, plus flats
Jurisdiction San Rafael Corte Madera San Rafael
Status Built in 2015 Built in 2019 Proposed
Units 34 detached, 42 townhomes 16 townhomes 41 townhomes, 4 flats Site Size (acres) 8.5 (approximate) 1.3 2.28
Units Per Acre 9 12 20
Unit Size Sq. Ft.
(Approximate)
Townhome: 1,650-1,900 Sq. Ft;
Detached: 1,950-3,300 Sq. Ft. 2,020 Sq. Ft. Townhome: 1,450-2,100 Sq. Ft.; Flat: 800 Sq. Ft.

Parking 2 car garage per unit plus visitor
surface parking
2 car garage per
unit plus visitor
surface parking
2 car garage per townhome
unit; 1 car garage per flat unit;
Surface visitor parking.

Source: Costar, 2021; Various marketing materials for, and articles about projects; Interviews with developers; Strategic Economics, 2021.

FIGURE 10. MARIN PROJECTS THAT INFORMED PROTOTYPE 3 (RENTAL PROTOTYPE) Project Tam Ridge 703 Third St.

Building Type Wood-frame apartment flats over podium,
plus townhomes
Wood-frame apartment flats over
podium, using density bonus, near
SMART station
Jurisdiction Corte Madera San Rafael
Status Built in 2017 Proposed
Units 154 flats, 25 townhomes 120 flats
Site Size (acres) 4.5 0.63
Unit Density 40 190
Unit Size Sq. Ft.

Range (Approximate)
Flats: 750-1,100 Sq. Ft.; Townhome: 1,300
Sq. Ft. 450-900 Sq. Ft.

Parking 1.6 spaces per unit (tenant parking in
podium garage plus visitor surface parking)
1 space per unit in podium
(incorporates mechanical lifts)
Source: Costar, 2021; Various marketing materials for, and articles about projects; Interviews with developers; Strategic Economics, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
309
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 17 The prototypes are generally based on developments built recently or proposed. Some communities in Marin typically see much smaller projects and are unlikely to see new projects of this scale. However, the per-unit cost of development is unlikely to be significantly different even for smaller and lower density projects, because the reductions in construction costs would be counterbalanced with the higher cost of land per unit.

The prototypes developed for the analysis are summarized below and further details are shown in Figure 11.

Prototype 1: Single-Family Subdivision
The single-family subdivision prototype has 14 detached for-sale units at a density of seven units per acre, making it typical for a “small-lot” subdivision. The units, which are two stories, are a mix of three and four-bedrooms and average 2,200 square feet.

Prototype 2: Condominium Townhome
The condominium townhome prototype includes 30 attached for-sale units at a density of 15 units per acre. Two-thirds of the units have three bedrooms while one-third have four bedrooms. The units are three stories with tuck-under garages on the ground level, and the average unit size is 1,800 square feet.

Prototype 3: Rental Apartments
The rental apartment prototype is a 100-unit apartment building. It has a density of 50 units per acre and is five stories. The building is a “Five-over-one” construction type, which means the first floor is a “Type I” concrete podium to accommodate parking, with four stories of “Type V” wood-frame construction for the residential area above. Typical of rental projects, the units in this prototype are a mix of studios, one-bedrooms, and two-bedrooms. The average unit size is 800 square feet.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
310
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 18 FIGURE 11. SUMMARY OF PROTOTYPES
Prototype 1:

Single-Family
Subdivision
Prototype 2:

Condominium
Townhome
Prototype 3:

Rental Apartments
Tenure For-Sale For-Sale Rental
Unit Mix 3, 4 bedrooms 3, 4 bedrooms Studios, 1, 2
bedrooms
Construction Type Wood-frame Wood-frame Type V over 1
Residential Stories 2 3 5
Number of Units 14 30 100
Parcel Size (Acres) 2 2 2
Parcel Size (Sq. Ft.) 87,120 87,120 87,120
Dwelling Units Per Acre 7 15 50
Unit Mix 7 3-Bedrooms;
7 4-Bedrooms
20 3-Bedrooms;
10 4-Bedrooms
10 Studios;
50 1-Bedrooms;
40 2-Bedrooms
Average Unit Size 2,200 1,800 800
Net Residential Sq. Ft. 30,800 54,000 80,000
Efficiency Ratio (a) 100% 100% 90%
Gross Residential Sq. Ft. 30,800 54,000 88,889
Parking Type 2-car garage plus
surface
2-car garage plus
surface Podium
Parking Ratio (Per Unit) (b) 2.50 2.25 1.25
Total Parking Spaces 35 68 125
Garage Parking Sq. Ft. (c) 9,800 21,000 43,750
Floor-Area Ratio (Residential Only) 0.35 0.62 1.02
Floor-Area Ratio (Including Structured
Parking) 0.47 0.86 1.52
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

Notes:
(a) Sq. Ft. associated with residential units divided by total interior square feet of building, (excludes space associated with parking). (b) The urban design specifications of these three prototypes, such as their parking ratios, may vary from the building typologies suggested in Opticos’ Objective Design and Development Standards study, currently in process. The parking ratios, as well as other metrics displayed here, are market-based, informed by conversation with residential developers familiar with Marin. (c) Based on “350 sq. ft. per parking space” standard industry assumption, which incorporates circulation.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
311
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 19

ESTIMATING AFFORDABLE RENTS AND HOUSING PRICES
Affordable rents and housing prices were identified based on resources from public agencies, such as HUD and HCD, which set income levels and maximum housing costs for federal and state-funded affordable housing programs. The Marin Housing Authority then provided the specific approach for calculating affordable sales prices, which currently vary across jurisdictions because of the different income levels that jurisdictions target as a part of their inclusionary programs.

The Consultant Team identified the affordability targets that would be tested in collaboration with the County of Marin, set at a level typical of existing inclusionary policies among participating jurisdictions.

The affordable targets are shown below in Figure 12. Consistent with best practices from other inclusionary housing programs, the affordability gap for both rental and for-sale units was calculated for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households,.5 In consultation with the client, the Consultant Team identified specific AMI levels to reflect the average incomes of households that these units would serve, with for-sale units typically targeting households with incomes that are slightly higher than rental units within the income categories. The income levels tested for the for-sale prototypes are generally higher than for the rental prototypes because for-sale affordable housing programs tend to serve households at the higher end of the income target ranges.

FIGURE 12. HOUSEHOLD INCOME TARGETS FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS BY TENURE For-sale Housing Rental Housing
Very Low-income 50% AMI 50% AMI
Low-income 70% AMI 65% AMI
Moderate Income 110% AMI 90% AMI
Source: County of Marin; Strategic Economics, 2021.

Figure 13 below shows the maximum affordable monthly rents for rental housing. The household sizes shown are for one, two, and three persons per household, reflecting the typical occupancy of studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units, respectively, in Prototype 3.

Based on HCD guidelines, the affordable rent is calculated as 30 percent of a household’s gross monthly income, minus a deduction for utilities. The utility deduction includes costs that are usually passed onto the tenant, such as heating, water heating, cooking, and electricity. Natural gas is assumed for heating and water heating. (Water, sewer, and trash removal costs are typically covered by the property owner and excluded from the utility deduction.) 5 Households that fall between 30-50% AMI are considered very low-income; households that fall within 50-80% AMI are considered Lowincome; households that fall between 80-120% AMI are considered moderate income.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
312
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 20 FIGURE 13. MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE RENT ASSUMPTIONS FOR VERY LOW, LOW, AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS Very Low-income (50%) Household Size
1 2 3
Maximum Annual Household Income $50,075 $57,250 $64,400 Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $1,252 $1,431 $1,610
Unit Type
Studio 1-BR 2-BR
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $1,252 $1,431 $1,610
Utility Allowance (b) $43 $52 $71
Maximum Rent $1,209 $1,379 $1,539
Low-income (65%) Household Size
1 2 3
Maximum Annual Household Income $65,098 $74,425 $83,720 Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $1,627 $1,861 $2,093
Unit Type
Studio 1-BR 2-BR
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (b) $1,627 $1,861 $2,093
Utility Allowance (c) $43 $52 $71
Maximum Rent $1,584 $1,809 $2,022
Moderate Income (90%) Household Size
1 2 3
Maximum Annual Household Income $90,135 $103,050 $115,920 Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (c) $2,253 $2,576 $2,898
Unit Type
Studio 1-BR 2-BR
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $2,253 $2,576 $2,898
Utility Allowance (b) $43 $52 $71
Maximum Rent $2,210 $2,524 $2,827
Sources: Marin Housing Authority, 2020; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2020.

Notes:
(a) 30 percent of maximum monthly household income.
(b) The maximum monthly cost for each unit type is associated with households that have one more person than bedroom. (Ex: Maximum costs for studios are associated with affordability for one-person households; One-bedroom costs are associated with 2-person households; Two-bedroom costs are associated with 3-person households). (c) Utilities for rentals include an allowance for cooking (natural gas), heating (natural gas), water heating (natural gas), and "other electric" utility usage. Assumes water, sewer, and trash charges are included in the rent.

Figures 14 and 15 shows the calculations of affordable sales prices for for-sale housing. The calculations are based on the following assumptions:
• Based on the anticipated households that would occupy the 3- and 4-bedroom units in the two for-sale prototypes (prototypes 1 and 2), it is assumed that, on average, 6-person households Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
313
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 21 would occupy 4-bedroom units, while an even mix of 4- and 5-person households would occupy 3-bedroom units.
• Based on the Marin Housing Authority’s approach for calculating affordable sales prices, homeowners were assumed to pay no more than 33 percent of their gross monthly income on housing costs.
• The maximum affordable sales price is determined by the total monthly mortgage payment that a homeowner could afford, which incorporates standard assumptions related to the mortgage terms and other monthly housing costs associated with homeownership. o The mortgage is assumed to be 30-year fixed rate, with an interest rate of 3.8 percent, which is a typical rate at the time of research (December 2020). The owner is assumed to put down a 5 percent down payment, which is standard for conventional and CalFHA loans.
o Other monthly housing costs include homeowners’ association dues, property taxes, homeowners’ insurance, interior property insurance, and premiums for private mortgage insurance required on home purchases with a down payment of less than 20 percent. Note there is no utility deduction, in accordance with MHA’s approach. • Other monthly housing costs overall are assumed to be slightly greater for condominium housing types than for single-family detached housing types, which is driven by different assumptions on monthly homeowner’s association costs. The homeowner’s association costs are expected to be higher on a per-unit basis for condominium units than for detached singlefamily units, which decreases the household budget available for a mortgage. (On the other hand, detached single-family homeowners are responsible for more costs that are not included in Figure 14.)
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
314
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 22 FIGURE 14. MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE SALES PRICES FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED SUBDIVISION (PROTOTYPE 1) Household Size (Persons per HH) 4.5 6
Very Low Income (50% AMI)
Annual Household Income at 50% AMI $74,413 $83,000
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $2,046 $2,283
Monthly Deductions (b) $1,074 $1,218
HOA Dues (c) $500 $600
Property Taxes and Insurance (d) $574 $618
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage Payment (e) $973 $1,064 Maximum Mortgage Amount (f) $208,728 $228,378
Maximum Affordable Sales Price (g) $219,714 $240,398
Low Income (70%)
Annual Household Income at 70% AMI $104,178 $116,200
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $2,865 $3,196
Monthly Deductions (b) $1,342 $1,518
HOA Dues (c) $500 $600
Property Taxes and Insurance (d) $842 $918
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage Payment (e) $1,523 $1,678 Maximum Mortgage Amount (f) $326,872 $360,209
Maximum Affordable Sales Price (g) $344,076 $379,167
Moderate Income (110%)
Annual Household Income at 110% AMI $163,708 $182,600
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $4,502 $5,022
Monthly Deductions (b) $1,892 $2,131
HOA Dues (c) $500 $600
Property Taxes and Insurance (d) $1,392 $1,531
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage Payment (e) $2,610 $2,891 Maximum Mortgage Amount (f) $560,102 $620,390
Maximum Affordable Sales Price (g) $589,581 $653,042
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

Notes:
(a) 33 percent of maximum monthly household income.
(b) Unlike for rentals, monthly deductions for for-sale units do not include utility costs. (c) Homeowners Association dues are assuming to average $0.25 per square foot. (d) Assumes annual effective property tax rate of 1.50% percent of sales price, after exemptions; annual private mortgage insurance premium rate of 0.85 percent of mortgage amount.
(e) Maximum monthly housing cost minus deductions.
(f) Assumes 3.8 percent interest rate and 30-year loan term. Interest rate is based on correspondence with Marin Housing Authority. (g) Assumes 5 percent down payment (95 percent loan-to-value ratio).

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
315
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 23 FIGURE 15. MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE SALES PRICES FOR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOME (PROTOTYPE 2) Household Size (Persons per HH) 4.5 6
Very Low Income (50% AMI)
Annual Household Income at 50% AMI $74,413 $83,000
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $2,046 $2,283
Monthly Deductions (b)
HOA Dues (c) $613 $665
Property Taxes and Insurance (d) $537 $597
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage Payment (e) $897 $1,020 Maximum Mortgage Amount (f) $192,493 $218,997
Maximum Affordable Sales Price (g) $202,624 $230,523
Low Income (70%)
Annual Household Income at 70% AMI $104,178 $116,200
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $2,865 $3,196
Monthly Deductions (b) $1,418 $1,561
HOA Dues (c) $613 $665
Property Taxes and Insurance (d) $805 $896
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage Payment (e) $1,447 $1,635 Maximum Mortgage Amount (f) $310,637 $350,829
Maximum Affordable Sales Price (g) $326,986 $369,293
Moderate Income (110%)
Annual Household Income at 110% AMI $163,708 $182,600
Maximum Monthly Housing Cost (a) $4,502 $5,022
Monthly Deductions (b) $1,967 $2,175
HOA Dues (c) $613 $665
Property Taxes and Insurance (d) $1,355 $1,510
Monthly Income Available for Mortgage Payment (e) $2,535 $2,847 Maximum Mortgage Amount (f) $543,953 $611,059
Maximum Affordable Sales Price (g) $572,582 $643,220
Source: Strategic Economics, 2020.

Notes:
(a) 33 percent of maximum monthly household income.
(b) Unlike for rentals, monthly deductions for for-sale units do not include utility costs. (c) Homeowners Association dues are assuming to average $0.35 per square foot. (d) Assumes annual effective property tax rate of 1.50% percent of sales price, after exemptions; annual private mortgage insurance premium rate of 0.85 percent of mortgage amount.
(e) Maximum monthly housing cost minus deductions.
(f) Assumes 3.8 percent interest rate and 30-year loan term. Interest rate is based on correspondence with Marin Housing Authority. (g) Assumes 5 percent down payment (95 percent loan-to-value ratio).

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
316
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 24

MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE RENTS AND SALES PRICES
Figures 16 and 17 provide summaries for the maximum affordable rents and sales prices respectively for the various prototypes that were tested.

FIGURE 16. SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE RENTS
Income Level Studio 1-BR 2-BR
Very Low-income (50%) $1,209 $1,379 $1,539
Low-income (65%) $1,584 $1,809 $2,022
Moderate Income (90%) $2,210 $2,524 $2,827
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

FIGURE 17. SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE SALES PRICES
Single-Family Subdivision Condominium Townhome
3-BR 4-BR 3-BR 4-BR
Very Low Income (50% AMI) $219,714 $240,398 $202,624 $230,523 Low Income (70%) $344,076 $379,167 $326,986 $369,293
Moderate Income (110%) $589,581 $653,042 $572,582 $643,220 Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

ESTIMATING DEVELOPMENT COSTS
The second step in the affordability gap analysis is to estimate development costs for the three prototypes. Development costs include land costs, direct or “hard” construction costs, indirect or “soft” costs, as well as financing costs, a developer fee, and a contingency for overruns.

Because multi-unit residential projects are relatively rare in Marin, the Consultant Team collected available data on the few recent comparable development projects and land sales and supplemented the data with feedback from local developers (see Appendix A), other available studies of costs in the Bay Area, and past experience with pro forma studies.

The development cost assumptions are shown below in Figure 18, and a chart that summarizes the breakdown of overall development costs for the prototypes is shown in Figure 19.

The development costs for for-sale housing are based on interviews with developers and homebuilders experienced with single-family and townhome development projects in Marin. This analysis estimated that total development costs for the single-family subdivision were $355 per net residential square foot while the costs for the condominium townhome were $373 per net residential square foot.

Because there are limited examples of recent multifamily development in Marin, the Consultant Team relied on a variety of sources to identify the multifamily cost assumptions. They are partly based on a pro forma for a proposed Type V development in Marin, as well as an interview with a multifamily developer. The team also relied on cost data and recently completed feasibility studies for similar rental apartment developments in the Bay Area. The analysis estimated that the total development cost for Prototype 3 was $705 per net square foot.

The remainder of this section explains the costs assumptions in more detail.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
317
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 25 FIGURE 18. SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT COST ASSUMPTIONS
Single Family
Subdivision
Condominium
Townhome
Rental
Apartments
Land Cost (a)
Per Land Sq. Ft. $56 $69 $86
Per Unit $350,000 $200,000 $75,000
Hard Costs
Site Costs per Land Sq. Ft. (b) $15 $35 $35
Construction Costs per Sq. Ft. of Residential Area $110 $150 $350 Parking Cost per Space (c) n/a n/a $32,500
Other Costs (Displayed as % of Hard Cost)
Soft Costs (d) 12% 12% 12%
Contingency 5% 5% 5%
Developer Overhead 4% 4% 4%
Financing Costs
Amount Financed (% of Hard and Soft Costs) 65% 65% 70%
Construction Loan Fee 1.5% 1.5% 1.5%
Term (Months) 18 18 24
Construction Interest Rate 4.5% 4.5% 5.0%
Source: Developer Interviews, 2021; Project Pro Formas, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.

Notes:
(a) Entitled land
(b) Assumes relatively flat site
(c) Parking costs for for-sale prototypes are incorporated into the construction cost. Cost for rental prototype refers to one level of podium (d) Includes architectural, engineering, and consulting fees, as well as taxes, legal, insurance, accounting, and other costs.

FIGURE 19. TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS BY PROTOTYPE
Cost Category
Single Family
Subdivision
Condominium
Townhome
Rental
Apartments
Total Project
Land Cost $4,900,000 $6,000,000 $7,500,000
Hard Costs $4,694,800 $11,149,200 $38,222,811
Soft Costs $1,344,396 $3,001,696 $10,660,521
Development Costs $10,939,196 $20,150,896 $56,383,332
Per Unit
Land Cost $350,000 $200,000 $75,000
Hard Costs $335,343 $371,640 $382,228
Soft Costs $96,028 $100,057 $106,605
Development Costs $781,371 $671,697 $563,833
Per Net Residential Sq. Ft.

Land Cost $159 $111 $94
Hard Cost $152 $206 $478
Soft Costs $44 $56 $133
Development Costs $355 $373 $705
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
318
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 26 The following subsections provide further details on how the cost assumptions were identified.

LAND COST
Land costs typically vary widely, depending on factors such as location, zoning, and the amount of site work required to prepare the land for development. Because the price of land is so strongly tied to what can be built upon it, land costs are characterized in this study as the cost per dwelling unit of development. Recent comparable sales that informed land cost for the three prototypes are shown below in Figures 20-22.
• There is only one relevant recent sale for an entitled single-family subdivision. The site is in Mill Valley, which tends to have high land costs compared to the Marin average. • A range of $180,000 per unit to approximately $300,000 per unit was identified for the condominium townhome prototype based on two recent sales, which reflect the high end (Mill Valley) and the low end (Novato) of the Marin County market. • For the rental apartment prototype, two sales for sites entitled for multifamily development had land costs of $75,000 per unit, a number that was corroborated by a developer with experienced in multifamily development in Marin.

Based on these comparable examples and feedback from developers, the land cost assumptions were set at $350,000 per unit for Prototype 1, $200,000 per unit for Prototype 2, and $75,000 per unit for Prototype 3.

FIGURE 20. RECENT LAND SALE FOR SITE ZONED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION Site Address 548 Miller Ave., Mill Valley
Description
Single-family subdivision (13 fee simple
lots, three of which include ADUs)
Site Acres 1.58
Site Sq. Ft. 68,825
Units Per Acre 10
Sale Date September 2019
Sale Price $8,500,000
Price Per Unit $531,250
Source: Costar, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
319
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 27

FIGURE 21. RECENT LAND SALES FOR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOMES
Site Address 500 Miller Ave., Mill Valley 7533-7537 Redwood Blvd., Novato Description
Nine condominium townhomes with
underground parking and corner retail
space
50 condominium townhomes
(Atherton Place)
Site Acres 1.2 3.7
Site Sq. Ft. 52,272 161,172
Units Per Acre 7.5 13.5
Sale Date June 2017 July 2018
Sale Price $2,900,000 $9,000,000
Price Per Unit $322,222 $180,000
Source: Costar, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.

FIGURE 22. RECENT LAND SALES FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
Site Address 703 Third St., San Rafael (a) 1203-1211 Lincoln Ave., San Rafael (b) Description
Proposed apartment project with 61
units and underground, automated
parking and incorporating density
bonus
36 condominium flats Type V over I
construction
Site Acres 0.63 0.74
Site Sq. Ft. 27,395 32,234
Units Per Acre 97 49
Sale Date August 2014 March 2017
Sale Price $4,650,000 $2,700,000
Price Per Unit $76,230 $75,000
Source: Costar, 2021; Developer Pro Formas, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.

Notes:
(a) Reflects the site's "base case scenario" which is more comparable to Prototype 3 (b) Site is now associated with pipeline assisted living proposal but at time of sale, it had been planned for condominiums

HARD COSTS
Hard costs refer to both horizontal site costs and vertical construction costs, including the residential area construction and parking construction.

According to developers active in Marin County, construction costs for the county are higher than other locations in the Bay Area because it is less accessible to construction workers. Subcontractors often charge a premium that is equivalent to prevailing wage. The construction cost estimates for residential buildings incorporate these cost factors specific to Marin County.

The construction costs also include horizontal/site costs that include demolition, grading, utility connection installation, paving, and landscaping. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
320
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 28 the hypothetical sites are relatively flat, with horizontal costs of $15 per land square foot for the singlefamily subdivision, and $35 per land square foot for the condominium townhomes and apartments.

The construction costs for the single-family subdivision and the condominium townhome, which are based on feedback from Marin developers and homebuilders, are $110 and $150 per gross residential square foot respectively. Note that the cost of garage parking is incorporated into the residential hard cost, while the cost of any surface parking is incorporated into the site cost for these prototypes.

For the rental prototype, the construction cost of the residential area is estimated to be $350 per gross residential square foot. Because there are very few examples of recent and under construction apartments over podium in Marin, the Consultant Team also reviewed pro formas for planned affordable and market-rate projects in San Rafael and other Bay Area cities to estimate costs.

Based on this broad review of costs, the Consultant Team estimated that residential construction costs for Prototype 3 were approximately $350 per gross residential square foot, which translates to per unit costs of $564,000. A review of financial data from affordable housing projects in the San Francisco Bay Area supported these cost estimates, which show that affordable housing per unit costs are in the range of $530,000 to $678,000.

SOFT COSTS
Soft costs refer to necessary costs of development that are not directly related to the physical construction of the building. They include architecture, engineering costs and other professional services fees, as well as other costs associated with doing business, such as insurance and taxes.

Finally, soft costs include city permits and fees, and other miscellaneous costs. It is estimated that soft costs are 12 percent of hard costs for all three prototypes, a standard assumption that was confirmed by developer interviewees. The developer’s contingency and overhead, also account for an additional five and four percent of hard costs, respectively.6

FINANCING COSTS
Financing assumptions are consistent for both for-sale prototypes because the two hypothetical projects would have similar loan terms and construction timelines. Based on input from developers that specialize in owner-occupied single-family and townhome developments, 65 percent of the project cost would be financed with debt, with a typical interest rate of approximately 4.5 percent. The development period for the for-sale prototypes is assumed to be 18 months.

The rental apartment prototype incorporates a slightly higher interest rate at 5 percent, to account for a higher level of risk, with a 24-month development period. The amount financed is also tends to be slightly higher at 70 percent of project cost, according to a multifamily developer.

All three prototypes incorporate a 1.5 percent construction loan fee, which is a standard industry assumption.
6 Developer profit is not included in the consideration of costs.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
321
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 29

AFFORDABILITY GAP
The final step is to calculate the housing affordability gap, which is the difference between what very low-, low-, and moderate-income households can afford to pay and the cost of developing those units.

The gap helps determine the in-lieu fee amount that would be required to cover the cost associated with developing affordable housing units.

FOR-SALE HOUSING
Figures 23 and 24 shows the affordability gap calculation for the for-sale housing prototypes. For each unit type, the gap is calculated as the difference between the per-unit cost of development and the affordable sales price for each income level. The average housing affordability gap is weighted based on the unit mix in the prototypes.

FIGURE 23. AFFORDABILITY GAP FOR SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION Income Level and Unit
Type
Unit Size (Sq.

Ft.)
Affordable
Sales Price (a)
Development
Costs (b)
Affordability Gap
(c)
Very Low Income (50%)
3 Bedroom 2,000 $219,714 $710,337 $490,623
4 Bedroom 2,400 $240,398 $852,405 $612,007
Weighted Average $230,056 $781,371 $551,315

Low Income (70%)
3 Bedroom 2,000 $344,076 $710,337 $366,261
4 Bedroom 2,400 $379,167 $852,405 $473,237
Weighted Average $361,622 $781,371 $419,749

Moderate Income (110%)
3 Bedroom 2,000 $589,581 $710,337 $120,757
4 Bedroom 2,400 $653,042 $852,405 $199,363
Weighted Average $621,311 $781,371 $160,060
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

Notes:
(a) See calculation in Figure 14, above.
(b) Assumes $349 per SF for development costs
(c) Calculated as the difference between affordable sales price and development cost (d) Includes 50% three-bedrooms and 50% four-bedrooms.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
322
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 30 FIGURE 24. AFFORDABILITY GAP FOR CONDOMINIUM TOWNHOME
Income Level and Unit
Type
Unit Size (Sq.

Ft.)
Affordable
Sales Price (a)
Development
Costs (b)
Affordability Gap
(c)
Very Low Income (50%)
3 Bedroom 1,750 $202,624 $653,038 $450,414
4 Bedroom 1,900 $230,523 $709,013 $478,490
Weighted Average $211,924 $671,697 $459,773

Low Income (70%)
3 Bedroom 1,750 $326,986 $653,038 $326,052
4 Bedroom 1,900 $369,293 $709,013 $339,720
Weighted Average $341,089 $671,697 $330,608

Moderate Income (110%)
3 Bedroom 1,750 $572,582 $653,038 $80,456
4 Bedroom 1,900 $643,220 $709,013 $65,793
Weighted Average $596,128 $671,697 $75,568
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

Notes
(a) See calculation in Figure 15, above.
(b) Assumes $393 per square foot for development costs
(c) Calculated as the difference between affordable sales price and development cost (d)Includes two-thirds three-bedrooms and one-third four-bedrooms.

RENTAL HOUSING
Figure 25 shows the affordability gap calculation for the rental prototype. For each rental unit type and income level, the gap is defined as the difference between the per-unit cost of development and the supportable debt per unit. The supportable debt is calculated based on the net operating income generated from the monthly rent from the affordable unit and incorporates assumptions about operating expenses (including property taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc.), reserves, and vacancy. It also incorporates financing assumptions related to the permanent loan on the property. Assumptions on operating costs are informed by data on Victory Village, which is a recent affordable housing development built in Marin. The average housing affordability gap is also weighted based on the unit mix of the prototype.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
323
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 31 FIGURE 25. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY GAP FOR RENTAL APARTMENTS Income Level
and Unit Type
Unit Size
(Sq. Ft.)
Maximum
Monthly Rent (a)
Annual
Income
Net Operating
Income (b)
Available for
Debt Service (c)
Supportable
Debt (d)
Development
Costs (e)
Affordability
Gap (f)
Very Low-income (50%)
Studio 650 $1,209 $14,507 $2,781 $2,418 $39,393 $458,250 $418,857 1 Bedroom 750 $1,379 $16,551 $4,723 $4,107 $66,904 $528,750 $461,846 2 Bedroom 900 $1,539 $18,468 $6,545 $5,691 $92,699 $634,500 $541,801 Weighted Average (g) $74,471 $564,000 $489,529
Low-income (65%)
Studio 650 $1,584 $19,013 $7,063 $6,141 $100,036 $458,250 $358,214 1 Bedroom 750 $1,809 $21,704 $9,618 $8,364 $136,236 $528,750 $392,514 2 Bedroom 900 $2,022 $24,264 $12,051 $10,479 $170,691 $634,500 $463,809 Weighted Average (g) $146,398 $564,000 $417,602
Moderate
Income (90%)
Studio 650 $2,210 $26,525 $14,198 $12,346 $153,206 $458,250 $305,044 1 Bedroom 750 $2,524 $30,291 $17,776 $15,458 $191,816 $528,750 $336,934 2 Bedroom 900 $2,827 $33,924 $21,228 $18,459 $229,058 $634,500 $405,442 Weighted Average (g) $202,852 $564,000 $361,148
Notes:
(a) Affordable rent levels based on 2020 income limits
(b) Amount available for debt. Assumes 5% vacancy and collection loss and $11,000 per unit for operating expenses and reserves, based on operating pro formas for recent affordable projects in Marin County. (c) Assumes 1.15 Debt Coverage Ratio.
(d) Assumes 4.5% permanent financing interest rate and 30 year loan. (e) Assumes development cost of $705 per net square foot on rental units. (f) Calculated as the difference between development costs and supportable debt. (g) Incorporates 10% studios, 50% one-bedrooms, and 40% two-bedrooms.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
324
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 32

SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM IN-LIEU FEE BY HOUSING TYPE
A summary of the affordability gaps by tenure and income level is displayed in Figure 26. The affordability gap is the basis for setting the maximum in-lieu fee. As shown, the maximum in-lieu fee per required affordable unit (rounded) is approximately $377,000 for single-family subdivisions, $289,000 for condominium townhomes, and $423,000 for rental apartments.

The maximum in-lieu fee is highest for rental apartments because the average targeted income is lower (68 percent of AMI, compared to 78 percent AMI for for-sale housing), resulting in a wider affordability gap.

The calculated in-lieu fee is lower for condominium townhomes than single-family subdivisions because the construction cost for townhomes is slightly lower, while the targeted income groups remain the same.

It is important to note that the County of Marin can choose to adopt lower fees than the maximum calculated in-lieu fees shown in Figure 26.

FIGURE 26. SUMMARY OF MAXIMUM IN-LIEU FEES
Income Level
For-sale Gap
Rental Gap
Single-Family
Subdivision
Condominium
Townhome
Very Low-income (50% AMI) $551,315 $459,773 $489,529
Low-income
(65% AMI Rental/ 70% Owner) $419,749 $330,608 $417,602
Moderate Income
(90% AMI Rental)/ 110% AMI Owner) $160,060 $75,568 $361,148 Average Affordability Gap/
Maximum In-Lieu Fee $377,042 $ 288,650 $422,760
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
325
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 33 IV. Policy Considerations and Recommendations
This section summarizes key policy issues for the County of Marin to consider when updating its inclusionary housing ordinance and in-lieu fee. The following questions are addressed:
• How do the calculated in-lieu fees compare with the County’s existing fees? • How do the calculated fees compare with in-lieu fees in other jurisdictions? • How much do the calculated in-lieu fees raise development costs in Marin County and impact financial feasibility?
• How do the calculated fees compare with existing municipal fees, such as building permit and other impact fees?
Each of these questions is addressed in the sections below, followed by a set of recommendations.

COMPARISON OF IN-LIEU FEES IN MARIN COUNTY AND NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS The newly calculated in-lieu fees from the previous section are shown along with the existing inlieu fees for for-sale housing for the participating jurisdictions and other nearby jurisdictions for comparison in Figure 27. As shown, the newly calculated maximum in-lieu fee for single-family subdivisions is higher than the existing fee in all the other jurisdictions. However, the calculated fee for for-sale townhomes is lower than the County’s existing fee but higher than the current inlieu fee for for-sale housing in Novato.

The same information is shown for rental housing in Figure 28. As shown, the calculated maximum in-lieu fee for rental projects is higher than the existing fees in Marin County and all the neighboring cities. Larkspur, Novato, and San Francisco charge lower in-lieu fees for rental projects, even though the affordability gap may be higher than for-sale housing.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
326
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 34 FIGURE 27: COMPARISON OF CALCULATED IN-LIEU FEES WITH EXISTING IN-LIEU FEES, FOR-SALE DEVELOPMENTS [a] Corte Madera has an in-lieu fee that is calculated based on construction costs and area median incomes. Because the assumptions in the calculation have not been updated for several years, the fee currently evaluates to zero. [b] In-lieu fees for San Francisco and Novato vary by the number of units in the project. Both fee amounts assume the 30-unit condo townhome prototype.

Sources: Available documents from jurisdictions, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.

FIGURE 28: COMPARISON OF CALCULATED IN-LIEU FEES WITH EXISTING IN-LIEU FEES, RENTAL DEVELOPMENTS [a] Corte Madera has an in-lieu fee that is calculated based on construction costs and area median incomes. Because the assumptions in the calculation have not been updated for several years, the fee currently evaluates to zero. [b] In-lieu fees for San Francisco and Novato vary by the number of units in the project. Both fee amounts assume the 100-unit rental apartment prototype.

Sources: Available documents from jurisdictions, 2020; Strategic Economics, 2021.in-Lieu Fee in Relation to Development costs Using the development cost estimates from the previous section, the Consultant Team calculated the increase in costs that would be experienced when charging the fee in-lieu of an onsite requirement at a level of 10 percent, 15 percent, 20 percent, and 25 percent. As shown in Figure 29, the cost of the fee for would range from five to 12 percent for the single-family subdivision $377,042
$288,650
$0
$338,126 $329,485 $343,969
$187,885
$359,100
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$422,760
$0
$213,267
$329,485 $343,969
$108,730
$177,334
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
Calculated Fee
for Rental
Corte Madera [a] Larkspur Unincorporated
Marin County
San Rafael Novato [b] San Francisco
[b]
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
327
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 35 prototype, four to 11 percent for the condo townhome prototype, and seven to 19 percent for the apartment prototype.

FIGURE 29: IMPACT OF IN-LIEU FEE ON TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS BY PROTOTYPE

Single Family
Subdivision
Condo
Townhome
Rental
Apartment
Total Development Costs per Unit $781,371 $671,697 $563,833 In lieu Fees per Affordable Unit $289,905 $203,088 $422,760 Increase in Total Development Costs
@ 10% Onsite Requirement 5% 4% 7%
@ 15% Onsite Requirement 7% 6% 11%
@ 20% Onsite Requirement 10% 9% 15%
@ 25% Onsite Requirement 12% 11% 19%
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

The calculated in-lieu fee for the apartment prototype has the largest impact on development costs, due to the much higher affordability gap for apartments. Although rental apartments are the least expensive of the three prototypes to build per unit, the smaller households expected to occupy these units, which translates to lower tenant incomes, and the high operating costs of apartments mean that the affordability gap for rentals is higher in this case. This analysis suggests that for-sale developments will be able to accommodate a substantially higher percentage onsite requirement than will rental projects.

BURDEN OF IN-LIEU COMBINED WITH OTHER MUNICIPAL FEES
The Consultant Team reviewed the total burden of the calculated in-lieu fees in the context of other municipal fees charged by the cities, including fees such as building permits as well as any impact fees each jurisdiction might have in place.7 A table of these costs for each jurisdiction is given in Figure 30 below, including the total fees that would be paid on each prototype in-lieu of hypothetical inclusionary requirements ranging from ten to 25 percent.

Because each jurisdiction has its own schedule of fees for new development, the cost of development in each community varies. For example, municipal fees for the prototypes in San Anselmo are currently estimated at two percent of development costs. Enacting maximum in-lieu fees with a 15 percent inclusionary requirement would raise municipal fees to between seven and 14 percent. The Town of Anselmo will need to take into account the impact to total development costs when setting an in-lieu fee and/or inclusionary percentage. 7 Connection fees charged by a local sanitary sewer and water district were also estimated; they would be expected to represent an additional three to four percent of development costs above what is shown in the Figure 30.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
328
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 36 FIGURE 30: IN-LIEU FEES AND OTHER MUNICIPAL FEES* BY JURISDICTION Current level of onsite requirement for each jurisdiction in bold.

Per Unit As % of Development Costs

S.F.

Subdiv. Condo Apt.

S.F.

Subdiv. Condo Apt.

Corte Madera
Municipal Fees $35,776 $27,116 $23,339 5% 4% 4%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $64,767 $47,424 $65,615 8% 7% 12%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $79,262 $57,579 $86,753 10% 9% 15% Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $93,757 $67,733 $107,891 12% 10% 19% Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $108,253 $77,888 $129,029 14% 12% 23%

Fairfax
Municipal Fees $13,231 $11,258 $8,104 2% 2% 1%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $42,221 $31,567 $50,380 5% 5% 9%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $56,717 $41,722 $71,518 7% 6% 13%
Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $71,212 $51,876 $92,656 9% 8% 16%
Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $85,707 $62,030 $113,794 11% 9% 20% Larkspur
Municipal Fees $39,839 $25,951 $19,449 5% 4% 3%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $68,830 $46,260 $61,725 9% 7% 11%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $83,325 $56,414 $82,863 11% 8% 15% Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $97,820 $66,569 $104,001 13% 10% 18% Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $112,316 $76,723 $125,139 14% 11% 22% Unincorporated Marin County
County Fees $25,397 $23,656 $5,470 3% 4% 1%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $63,101 $52,521 $47,746 8% 8% 8%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $81,953 $66,954 $68,884 10% 10% 12% Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $100,806 $81,386 $90,022 15% 12% 18% Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $119,658 $95,819 $111,160 17% 15% 22% San Anselmo
Municipal Fees $12,821 $13,837 $14,034 2% 2% 2%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $41,811 $34,146 $56,310 5% 5% 10%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $56,306 $44,300 $77,448 7% 7% 14%
Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $70,802 $54,455 $98,586 9% 8% 17%
Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $85,297 $64,609 $119,724 11% 10% 21% San Rafael
Municipal Fees $27,044 $23,545 $15,113 3% 4% 3%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $56,034 $43,854 $57,389 7% 7% 10%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $70,530 $54,009 $78,527 9% 8% 14%
Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $85,025 $64,163 $99,665 11% 10% 18% Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $99,520 $74,317 $120,803 13% 11% 21% Continued next page
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
329
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 37 Continued from previous page
Sausalito
Municipal Fees $7,448 $7,694 $9,987 1% 1% 2%
Tot. Fees @10% Rqmt. $36,438 $28,003 $52,263 5% 4% 9%
Tot. Fees @15% Rqmt. $50,934 $38,157 $73,401 7% 6% 13%
Tot. Fees @20% Rqmt. $65,429 $48,311 $94,539 8% 7% 17%
Tot. Fees @25% Rqmt. $79,924 $58,466 $115,677 10% 9% 21% * Municipal fees include all applicable permits and impact fees charged by the jurisdiction. Water and sanitary sewer connection fees are not included. Based on estimates from Marin Municipal Water District and Ross Valley Sanitary District, water and sewer fees represent and additional four percent to development costs of the single family subdivision and three percent to condo townhomes and apartments.

Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

CONVERSION TO PER SQUARE FOOT FEE
Jurisdictions can opt to implement the in-lieu fee as a per square foot fee, rather than a per unit fee, in order to incentivize development projects with smaller units. This may be useful for jurisdictions that primarily see developments with large, luxury units. The per square foot fees are calculated by dividing the per-unit in lieu fee by the weighted average unit square feet for each prototype. This calculation is shown below in Figure 31.

FIGURE 31. EQUIVALENT IN LIEU FEES PER UNIT SQUARE FOOT FOR PROTOTYPES Multifamily
Rental
Condominium
Townhome
Single Family
Subdivision
Weighted Average Unit Sq. Ft. 800 1800 2,200
Affordability Gap per Unit
Very Low Income (50% AMI Rental and Owner) $489,529 $459,773 $551,315 Low Income (65% AMI Rental/ 70% AMI Owner) $417,602 $330,608 $419,749 Moderate Income (90% AMI Rental)/ 110% AMI
Owner) $361,148 $75,568 $160,060
Affordability Gap per Sq. Ft.

Very Low Income (50% AMI) $612 $255 $251
Low Income (65% AMI Rental/ 70% AMI Owner) $522 $184 $191 Moderate Income (90% AMI Rental)/ 110% AMI
Owner) $451 $42 $73
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
330
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 38

COMPARISON OF INCLUSIONARY REQUIREMENTS IN SELECTED BAY AREA CITIES Figure 32 summarizes the inclusionary requirements for selected Bay Area cities outside of Marin County for the purposes of comparison. As shown, the cities all have inclusionary requirements on for-sale development projects ranging from a minimum of 5 percent in Oakland to 22 percent in San Francisco. The income targets for for-sale housing are typically low-income and moderateincome households.

For rental housing, the percentage requirement ranges from 5 percent in Oakland to 20 percent in San Francisco. Most of the jurisdictions require some proportion of very low-income units, along with low-income and moderate-income units.

San Francisco, San Jose, and Cupertino have lower requirements for small projects.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
331
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 39 FIGURE 32. INCLUSIONARY POLICIES FOR SELECT BAY AREA JURISDICTIONS Jurisdiction For-Sale Housing Rental Housing Fee Option Year Adopted/Updated Berkeley 20% affordable at or below 80% AMI. 20% must be affordable (10% at 80% AMI and 10% at 50% AMI).

For sale: In-lieu fee option (62.5% of
difference between affordable and
market price).

Rental: Affordable housing impact fee
$39,716 per market-rate unit.
2020
Oakland 5% at 50% AMI or 10% at 80% AMI or 10%
at 120% AMI.
5% at 50% AMI or 10% at 80% AMI or
10% at 120% AMI. Fee permitted. 2016
San Francisco
Projects with 25+ units: 22% must be
affordable to 80%-110% AMI.

Projects with 10-24 units: 13% must be
affordable.

Projects with 25+ units: 20% must be
affordable to 55%-110% AMI.

Projects with 10-24 units: 13% must be
affordable to 55% AMI.

Fee permitted but with a higher
percentage requirement than building onsite. Smaller projects pay a lower fee.2017 San Jose
Projects with 20+ units must meet 15%
affordable set-aside at or below 120% AMI.

Smaller projects have lower percentage
requirements.
5% at 100% AMI, 5% at 60% AMI, and
5% at 50% AMI, or 10% at 30% AMI.

Smaller projects have lower percentage
requirements.

Fee permitted. 2021
Santa Cruz 20% must be affordable to households at
or 80% - 100% AMI.
20% must be affordable to households
at or below 80% AMI. On-site units encouraged. 2019
Palo Alto 15% must be affordable to households at
120% AMI or below. No on-site requirement for rental.

For sale: Fee permitted but developer
must demonstrate infeasibility of on-site
units.

Rental: Affordable housing impact fee
charged.
2012
Cupertino 15% must be affordable to 120% or 100%
AMI.
15% must be affordable to 120% or 80%
AMI.

Projects with 1-6 units may provide a unit
or pay a fee. For projects with 7 or more
units, requires City Council approval.
2012
Source: Urban Displacement Project, 2021; City of Berkeley, 2021; Strategic Economics, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
332
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 40 Recommendations
A number of considerations inform the decision to update the inclusionary requirements and the in-lieu fees, including market and feasibility factors, comparative policies in other jurisdictions, and the pros and cons of alternative means of compliance. Below is a summary of recommendations tailored for the Town of San Anselmo:

Establish inclusionary percentage requirement of 20 percent for for-sale and rental development projects. The Consultant Team recommends that the Town of San Anselmo establish an inclusionary requirement of 20 percent for for-sale and rental development projects, including single-family subdivisions, townhomes, and rental apartments. This percentage requirement is consistent with many other jurisdictions in the Bay Area. Once the policy has been in effect and the market has responded, the Town may wish to review the policy to determine whether a higher inclusionary requirement can be supported.

Establish income targets that are consistent with other Marin County jurisdictions. The Consultant Team recommends that the inclusionary policy include a mix of very low-, low- and moderateincome households for both for-sale and rental projects.

Establish flexible requirements for housing projects containing six or fewer units. According to the site analysis conducted by Opticos for the Objective Development Design Standards project, a large share of potential housing sites countywide are infill lots that could only accommodate small projects. These types of projects are more challenging to build than larger projects. To ensure they are financially feasible, the Consultant Team recommends that the Town of San Anselmo establish more flexible requirements for these types of projects, which could include:
• Allowing for a higher average income target, with a higher proportion of moderate-income units.
• Providing more flexibility on providing a combination of on-site units and payment of in-lieu fees.
• Allowing for the provision of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), with provisions to ensure that it is made available to renter households.

For ownership housing, designate a separate fee for single-family versus townhome condominium developments, and set the fee amount at the maximum level for each. This study establishes a maximum in-lieu fee of $377,042 for single-family subdivisions and a fee of $288,650 for condominium townhomes. Establishing a lower fee on townhome condominiums relative to singlefamily subdivisions recognizes that higher density ownership housing can be relatively more challenging to build.

For rental housing, establish an in-lieu fee amount below the maximum level to avoid inhibiting development. The maximum calculated fees of $422,760 are considerably higher than the fees in Marin County’s jurisdictions. A high fee would be a significant cost burden on rental projects, which do not command the same values as for-sale housing in San Anselmo. For this reason, the Consultant Team recommends that San Anselmo consider implementing a lower fee than the maximum calculated in-lieu fee on rental development.

Allow for land dedication and off-site converted units as an alternative means of compliance. Many jurisdictions allow for developers to comply with the inclusionary policy by dedicating land for offsite units or acquiring and converting existing housing units to deed-restricted housing. However, Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
333
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 41 conversion can result in the provision of units that are not comparable in quality or location to the market-rate development projects. Furthermore, it does not add to the overall supply of housing and burdens the jurisdiction with the cost of monitoring and compliance. The Consultant Team recommends that the Town of San Anselmo develop a policy that prioritizes on-site units, allowing for the payment of in-lieu fees or land dedication as the preferred alternatives. It is recommended that the off-site conversion option is permitted only if the converted units are of a similar quality and located within close proximity to the principal project.

Require for-sale development projects with on-site units to submit a plan for the ongoing maintenance of below-market rate units. According to Marin Housing, some for-sale condominium and townhome projects have not been able to adequately fund the maintenance and repair of below-market rate units. The Consultant Team recommends that the Town of San Anselmo require developers to provide a realistic plan for collecting sufficient reserves for the repair and maintenance of below-market rate units without compromising the affordability of those units.

Explore options for a countywide administration program for inclusionary units. Establishing and administering an inclusionary program requires staff to manage negotiations with developers to provide affordable units (on-site or off-site) in accordance with local requirements, monitor the resales/leasing of below-market rate units to qualified households, and ongoing administration.

Because there is often limited staffing capacity in-house, the Consultant Team recommends that the participating jurisdictions investigate the potential to partner with a non-profit to provide these services. Some cities charge property owners a small administrative fee to help offset the costs of monitoring and compliance.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
334
Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation 42 Appendix A
The Consultant Team spoke with a range of stakeholders for this report, including market-rate housing developers, affordable housing developers, affordable housing advocates, Marin housing authority staff, and local community land trusts. Stakeholders that participated in either one-onone interviews with the Consultant Team, or in developer forums, both of which helped inform this report, are listed below in Figure 33.

FIGURE 33. LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED FOR STUDY
Name Organization/ Affiliation
Judith Bloomberg Marin Organizing Committee
Arianne Dar Bolinas Community Land Trust
Todd David Housing Action Committee
Justin Derby Meritage Homes
Bruce Dorfman Thompson Dorfman
Aaron Eckhouse California YIMBY
Michael Hooper Campus Property Group
Larry Kennings Marin Environmental Housing Collaborative Stacey Laumann Community Land Trust of West Marin
Marianne Lim EAH Housing
Stephanie Lovette Marin Housing Authority
Linda Mandolini Eden Housing
Tom Monahan Monahan Parker Development
Wick Polite Seagate Properties
Kiki La Porta Coalition for a Livable Marin
Phil Richardson Individual developer
Suzanne Sadowsky San Geronimo Valley Affordable Housing Association Carmen Soruco Marin Housing Authority
Mary Kay Sweeney Homeward Bound
Joanne Webster
Housing Crisis Action Group, San Rafael Chamber of
Commerce
Source: Strategic Economics, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
Item # 2.1- Attachment 5
335
2991 SHATTUCK AVENUE #20 3 | BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA 94705 | P: 510.647.5291 | F: 510.647.5295 | STRATEGICECONOMICS.COM

MEMORANDUM
To: Heidi Scoble, Town of San Anselmo
From: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates Date: February 18, 2023
Project: Marin Inclusionary Study
Subject: Commercial Linkage Fee Study
I. INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
Purpose and Background
The County of Marin, along with six of the jurisdictions within the County, are collaborating on a regional effort to implement or update existing affordable housing policy tools, namely inclusionary zoning and commercial linkage fees. Some of the jurisdictions currently have inclusionary zoning and/or commercial linkage fee programs they intend to review and update as necessary, while others are establishing new programs. Together, the seven jurisdictions have retained Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates (the Consultant Team) to study and offer recommendations for both these policies.

This memo fulfills Task 4 of the study, which includes an analysis of commercial linkage fees in the seven participating jurisdictions. Currently, three of the seven jurisdictions charge commercial linkage fees, while the remaining four may enact fees based on the results of this study. A commercial linkage fee is a type of impact fee that charges new commercial development for its role in creating new demand for affordable housing. It is based on the finding of a “rational nexus” between the new employment created by commercial development, and the accompanying need for affordable housing for new worker households. There are two main parts to the analysis:

1. The nexus analysis establishes the linkage between new jobs and the needed affordable housing.

2. The affordability gap analysis quantifies the shortfall between what employee households can afford and what new housing costs to build. The affordability gap analysis was performed as part of the In-lieu Fee Study (Task 3) and is summarized in Section IV of this report.

The results of the nexus findings and the affordability gap analysis establish the maximum fees that can be charged on new development projects.

It is important to note that the analysis relies on occupational wage data from the California Employment Development Department collected in December 2019. It does not capture the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on local employment and wages since then.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6 Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
336
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 2
The Nexus Concept
Many commercial developments are associated with jobs that pay wages that are insufficient to afford local housing costs. A nexus study determines the justifiable commercial linkage fee that might be charged on development based on the need for affordable housing that new development projects create. To establish this relationship, a nexus analysis quantifies any increase in demand for affordable housing that accompanies new commercial development, and the additional funding required to address the uptick in demand. The increase in demand is a result of the net gain in employment directly attributable to the new commercial space that is built.

The magnitude of the nexus, and hence the maximum justifiable fee, depends on the number and types of jobs created and the prevailing cost of providing housing for the new worker households. The ability of the new workers to pay for housing costs is linked to their occupations (and hence salaries).

Some of the new workers will have household incomes below the market prices for new homes and would qualify for income-restricted affordable housing. This study quantifies the demand for housing created at several household income levels and estimates the “affordability gap” between what worker households can afford to pay (to rent or to buy) and the actual costs of building new housing.

Methodology and Report Organization
To perform the nexus analysis, the Consultant Team used an established methodology described below to calculate the relationship between new commercial development and household incomes of employees, which then determines the employees' need for affordable housing. These steps provide the rationale for calculating the maximum justified commercial linkage fee that could be levied on commercial development. An overview of the methodology and contents of the report is provided below. There are ten steps to calculate the maximum nexus fees, which are covered in Section II, Section III, and Section IV of this report. However, most jurisdictions do not implement the maximum fee levels. There are multiple policy considerations that are taken into account, including market factors, the commercial linkage fees enacted in other similar communities, and the potential impact on development. These policy issues are discussed in Section V followed by recommendations for setting or updating the fee levels. Finally, Section VI outlines the fee proposal to be taken up by the jurisdictions based upon this study and follow-up collaboration with planning staff in the jurisdictions.

To satisfy the requirements of recently passed state legislation (AB 602), this section provides further justification on the specific fee proposal under consideration.

STEPS 1-6: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE NEXUS ANALYSIS (SEE SECTION II) Step 1. Define commercial “land use prototypes” that represent broad categories of new commercial development in Marin County.

The purpose of defining prototypes is to estimate future employment linked to various categories of commercial space. The land use prototypes are used to estimate the amount of employment generated from commercial development in the county. Three land use prototypes were selected for the nexus analysis, based on common categories of commercial development in Marin County: 1) Office, R&D, and medical office uses; 2) Retail, restaurants, and services; and 3) Hotel.

Each land use prototype is assumed to be 100,000 square feet in floor area. This number was chosen not because it is necessarily typical of new commercial development, but rather as a round number to Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
337
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 3
simplify the calculations in the steps below. (In Section IV, more typical prototypes are designated to evaluate feasibility.)
Step 2. Estimate the number of workers that will work in the new commercial space.

The Consultant Team estimated the employment density for each prototype based on national survey data on employment density for commercial land uses and other sources. The employment density is expressed as the number of square feet of building area per worker.1 For example, a building prototype of 100,000 sf and employing 100 workers would have an employment density of 100,000 / 100 = 1,000 square feet per worker.

Step 3. Estimate the number of new households represented by these new workers.

Since there are multiple wage earners in a household, the number of new workers must be translated into a number of households. This adjustment is based on the average number of wage-earners per worker household for Marin County (1.60), estimated from the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015-2019.

Step 4. Estimate wages of new workers.

The first step in calculating employee wages is to identify industries that are typically associated with each prototype. Using industry data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), industries were identified that are associated with each land use category. The next step is to identify all the occupations that are associated with each industry based on data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The national BLS occupational matrix is then calibrated to match the county’s employment mix by weighting the national employment distribution to reflect the distribution of employment by industry within Marin County. Finally, the average wage by worker is calculated using data on average annual wages by occupation in the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley Metropolitan Statistical Area from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Step 5. Estimate household income of worker households.

Worker wage estimates from the previous step are then converted to household incomes. This step assumes that the income of the second wage-earner is similar to the wage of the first wage-earner.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015-2019, there are 1.60 wage-earners per worker household in Marin County. Individual worker wages are therefore multiplied by 1.60 to represent household incomes.

Step 6. Calculate the number of households that would be eligible for affordable housing divided into relevant income categories.

The average household size in Marin is 2.4 persons, based on the US Census, American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015-2019. Because household income tables are organized by whole numbers, the average household size was rounded down to 2 persons. Thus, the income groups are defined for a household size of two persons and based on standard household income categories used 1 The analysis takes into account the effects of physical distancing and remote work on employment density by estimating slightly higher assumptions of square feet per employee in office/R&D buildings than were typical before the COVID-19 pandemic.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
338
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 4
in California. The income categories analyzed include very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.2
STEPS 7-9: CALCULATION OF THE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY GAP (SEE SECTION III) The affordability gap represents the difference between what households can afford to pay for housing and the development cost of new housing. As part of the In-lieu Fee Study Calculation memo already submitted to participating jurisdictions, the Consultant Team analyzed the affordability gap of new rental and for-sale housing units. The In-lieu Fee Study identified the affordability gap for one rental prototype (rental stacked flats) and two for-sale housing prototypes (condo townhomes and singlefamily subdivision units) for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The affordability gap findings of this previous analysis were applicable here because the household incomes of new worker households identified in Step 5 align with the household income categories that were considered in that analysis. The steps below describe how the affordability gap analysis from the In-lieu Fee Study was adapted for this analysis.

Step 7. Estimate affordable rents and housing prices for households in the targeted income groups.

As part of the In-lieu Fee Study, the affordable rent levels and for-sale housing prices were estimated for each of the worker household income categories described above. Households with incomes in the very low-income range are assumed to occupy rental housing. Households in the low- and moderateincome ranges are assumed to require a combination of rental and for-sale housing. The respective rents and sales prices that are affordable to these households were based on the income limits used by the Marin Housing Authority and the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Step 8. Estimate the development cost of new housing.

As part of the In-lieu Fee Study, the Consultant Team estimated the typical development costs of new units in rental apartment, townhome condo, and single family subdivision developments.

Step 9. Calculate the affordability gap.

The affordability gap is calculated for each of the three income categories. Very low-income households are assumed to be renters, so the affordability gap is the difference between the cost of developing new rental housing and what those households can afford to pay, based on the gap for the rental prototype analyzed in the In-lieu Fee Study. Since low-income and moderate-income households are expected to include a mix of renters and homeowners, the overall gap per household for these income categories is calculated as the average of the three affordability gaps for all three housing types that were considered in the In-lieu Fee Study.

To estimate the total affordability gap for each commercial land use prototype, the total number of very low-, low-, and moderate-income new worker households for each prototype is multiplied by the corresponding affordable housing gap figure.
2 The occupation and wage analysis found no extremely low-income households. These households are defined as earning less than 30 percent of area median income and do not typically earn wages from permanent employment.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
339
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 5
STEP 10: CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM LINKAGE FEES (SEE SECTION IV) Step 10. Calculate maximum justifiable commercial linkage fees for each prototype.

For each category of land use, the maximum fee per square foot is the total affordability gap calculated in Step 9 divided by the floor area of the land use prototype (100,000 square feet for each).

MARKET FACTORS, FEASIBILITY, AND OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS (SECTION V) This section of this report contains a discussion and analysis of policy considerations jurisdictions should review before enacting a commercial linkage fee. Typically, a commercial linkage fee is set at a level significantly below the maximum justifiable fee determined in the nexus study. Thus, considerations for setting appropriate fee levels include the impact of fees on the total development costs of typical commercial projects. Jurisdictions will also want to be cognizant of similar linkage fees charged in nearby or comparable cities as well as the amount the commercial linkage fee will raise their existing municipal fees. To facilitate an analysis of these considerations, the Consultant Team created a set of illustrative “fee scenarios” to highlight the fees’ impact on development costs and the existing set of municipal fees for each jurisdiction. These fee scenarios were tested on three development prototypes representative of the three commercial land uses that were evaluated in the nexus study. These “feasibility prototypes” were created based on recent and proposed commercial development projects in Marin County, and in consultation with local developers. Following this analysis is a section with recommendations for setting the fees, as well as a brief analysis of the potential revenues that could be generated by implementing the fee recommendations.

UNIFIED FEE PROPOSAL AND FULFILLING STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADOPTION (SECTION VI) The final section of the report considers the commercial linkage fee program to be formally proposed by the seven jurisdictions based on the recommendations in Section V. To establish more consistency and uniformity across jurisdictions, each of the jurisdictions plans to propose the same schedule of fees in their respective communities. The section first includes an overview of the fees in comparison to the linkage fees currently in place in some of the jurisdictions. Based on the unified fee proposal, Strategic Economics estimated the potential affordable housing revenues that could be raised over a five year period. Strategic Economics also performed further analysis on the unified fee proposal to fulfill the requirements of recently passed state legislation (AB 602) relating to impact fees imposed on new development. As required by AB 602, Strategic Economics summarized the revenues collected from each of the three existing fee programs and provided a justification for the new level of service advanced by the new fee program. Finally, the section concludes with a discussion of the purpose of these fees and the role of new commercial development to contribute to funding affordable housing in Marin County.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
340
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 6
II. COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE NEXUS ANALYSIS
This section describes each step of the nexus analysis in detail, including Steps 1 through 6 outlined in the previous section.

Step 1: Commercial Prototypes
This study examined the jobs-housing linkage for three commercial land use prototypes, which are described below. These prototypes were selected because they are the most common categories of commercial development in Marin County, based on a review of recently built, planned, and proposed projects.3

1. Office/ R&D/ Medical Office: Includes professional and business services offices, medical/dental office, and research and development.

2. Retail/Restaurants/Services: Includes retail stores, eating and drinking places (cafes, restaurants, bars, etc.), and personal and financial services such as salons, drycleaners, retail banks.

3. Hotel: Includes full-service hotels, limited-service hotels, motels, and other lodging.

The nexus analysis is calculated based on a 100,000 square foot building, but the actual development projects that are likely to occur in Marin will be smaller. 4 Since the fee is calculated on a per-squarefoot basis, the fee would be proportional to the size of the development project.

Step 2: Number of Workers
For each building prototype, an average employment density was applied based on a combination of national survey data for existing commercial buildings and a review of other recently completed linkage fee nexus studies. Figure 1 summarizes the available research on employment density by building type that formed the basis for establishing average employment density assumptions for the nexus model.

Figure 2 shows the assumptions on worker density for each commercial land use prototype, measured by the average number of square feet per worker. A lower number of square feet per worker implies a higher worker density, which leads to a higher estimate of worker households. For each prototype, the Consultant Team selected an employee density number in the middle of the range; this is a more conservative approach to avoid overestimating the maximum linkage fee amount. The density factors represent the average density for the prototypes; individual projects and buildings may have a greater or lower worker density than the average.

The employee density factor is multiplied by the prototype’s floor area (100,000 square feet) to calculate the total number of workers in each commercial prototype. The density assumption is used to generate the total number of direct workers occupying the commercial space in each prototype. 3 Some commercial developments will lie outside the three major categories of land use analyzed in this study. Examples of such land uses include industrial projects, assisted living facilities, and child care centers. Jurisdictions may still charge a commercial linkage fee on these land uses provided the applicant for development supplies estimates of jobs and wages that accompany the new development. 4 Section V contains financial feasibility testing on a more detailed set of prototypes that would be typical of new development in Marin County. These feasibility prototypes vary in size and contain additional details such as parking, number of floors, and land area.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
341
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 7
• Office/Medical Office/R&D. The average density assumption for office is 375 square feet per worker. This is a blended average that represents a combination of business office spaces (estimated to be approximately 300 square feet per worker in the Bay Area), nonprofit offices, medical office, (typically estimated at approximately 500 square feet per worker) and R&D, (approximately 350 square feet per worker).5 Note that there are limited sources on R&D employee density, so the R&D density assumption is based on qualitative research from previous work in the Bay Area conducted by the Consultant Team. • Retail/Restaurants/Services. Worker density varies widely for this category depending on the specific use (food service, grocery stores, dry goods retail, and services all have different average densities). Worker densities are typically higher for independent retailers and tenants in smaller-scale neighborhood centers and urban locations than in large-scale big box retail (around 600 square feet per worker). For this reason, Strategic Economics used a slightly higher density number of 450 square feet per worker.
• Hotel. The average employment density assumption for visitor accommodations is 0.70 workers per room (or approximately 880 square feet per worker).6 This density is consistent with the Vallen and Vallen estimate for select service mid-scale hotels, which are in between full-service “luxury” properties and economy properties. Select service hotels are typical of new development in Marin.
5 In the last decade, there has been a trend towards an increasing density of workers (225-250 square feet per worker) occupying open format office spaces. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there is anecdotal evidence suggesting that the trend may be reversing as firms implement measures to create more physical distancing and allow employees to work from home. For this reason, the Consultant Team used a density number for business office that represents a return to conventional office spaces rather than open layouts. 6 The assumption of 880 square feet per worker for visitor accommodations assumes an average 0.70 workers per hotel room and an average room size of 615 square feet of gross building area per room.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
342
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 8
FIGURE 1. EMPLOYMENT DENSITY DATA AND SOURCES
Employee Density Figure Source
Visitor Accommodations

1.5 workers per full-service (luxury) hotel room Vallen and Vallen, "Chapter 1: The Traditional Hotel Industry," Check-In, Check-Out, 2012

0.5 to 1.0 workers per room for "in-between" hotels Vallen and Vallen, "Chapter 1: The Traditional Hotel Industry," Check-In, Check-Out, 2012 As few as 0.25 workers per room for "budget" hotels Vallen and Vallen, "Chapter 1: The Traditional Hotel Industry," Check-In, Check-Out, 2012 Retail
605 square feet per worker A.C. Nelson, "Reshaping Metropolitan America" (based on calculations from EIA survey) 368 square feet per worker "San Francisco Jobs Housing Nexus Analysis", Keyser Marston Associates, 2019 400 square feet per worker Study Session: City of Emeryville Impact Fees, Helen Bean, Director, Economic Development and Housing Department, 2014.

Office
306 square feet per worker Building Owners and Managers Association Survey, 2012 434 square feet per worker Energy Information Administration, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, Rev. 2006 300 square feet per worker A.C. Nelson, "Reshaping Metropolitan America," 2013 250-350 square feet per worker San Mateo County Housing Needs Study, Economic & Planning Systems, 2006 300 square feet per worker Jobs Housing Impact Fee Draft Nexus Study: City of Napa, CA, Vernazza Wolfe Associates Inc., 2011 312.5 square feet per worker Housing Impact Fee Nexus Study: Mountain View, CA, KMA, 2012 Medical Office
484 square feet per worker for outpatient care Energy Information Administration, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Building Characteristics Tables, Revised June 2006;
513 square feet per worker for inpatient care Energy Information Administration, 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey: Building Characteristics Tables, Revised June 2006;
Note: Many studies of worker density are older. Because information on worker densities is not collected by any public agency, estimates must rely on other studies, which are not routinely done.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
343
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 9
FIGURE 2. EMPLOYMENT DENSITY BY PROTOTYPE
Commercial Prototype Prototype Size Average Worker Density Number of Workers in
Prototype
Office/Medical Office/R&D 100,000 sq. ft. 375 sq. ft. per worker 267 workers Retail/Restaurant/Services 100,000 sq. ft. 450 sq. ft. per worker 222 workers Hotel 100,000 sq. ft.;
163 rooms*
880 sq. ft. per worker;

0.70 workers per room
114 workers
* Assumes the gross building area is 615 square feet per room.

Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Step 3: Number of Worker Households
Based on the total number of workers directly employed in the prototypes, the Consultant Team estimated the total number of worker households. The number of worker households is calculated by dividing the number of workers by the average number of wage-earners per household in Marin County. Based on data from the U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015- 2019, there is an average of 1.60 workers per household in Marin. The calculation of total new worker households is shown in Figure 3 below, ranging from 71 for hotel to 167 for office.

FIGURE 3. NUMBER OF WORKER HOUSEHOLDS BY PROTOTYPE
Commercial Prototype
Number of New
Workers
Workers per
Household
Number of New
Worker Households
Office/ Medical Office/ R&D 267 1.60 167
Retail/Restaurant/Services 222 1.60 139
Hotel 114 1.60 71
Sources: US Census, American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates, 2015-2019; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Step 4: Worker Wages
The first step in calculating employee wages is to establish a list of the industries associated with each prototype (as defined by the North American Industry Classification System, or “NAICS”).

Using industry data from Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), industries were associated with each land use prototype. Figures 4 through 6 below list the industries associated with each prototype.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
344
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 10
FIGURE 4. DEFINITION OF INDUSTRIES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D PROTOTYPE NAICS Code Description
Percent Total Workers in
Prototype
5617 Services to buildings and dwellings 9.2%
5511 Management of companies and enterprises 8.8%
5415 Computer systems design and related services 6.5%
6214 Outpatient care centers 6.4%
5416 Management and technical consulting services 5.8%
6211 Offices of physicians 4.9%
6212 Offices of dentists 3.9%
5112 Software publishers 3.9%
5412 Accounting and bookkeeping services 3.9%
5313 Activities related to real estate 3.0%
5239 Other financial investment activities 3.0%
5413 Architectural and engineering services 2.9%
5611 Office administrative services 2.9%
5411 Legal services 2.7%
5221 Depository credit intermediation 2.3%
5311 Lessors of real estate 2.1%
5613 Employment services 2.1%
8133 Social advocacy organizations 2.0%
5419 Other professional and technical services 1.8%
8134 Civic and social organizations 1.7%
6213 Offices of other health practitioners 1.7%
5616 Investigation and security services 1.6%
5418 Advertising, pr, and related services 1.5%
5242 Insurance agencies and brokerages 1.4%
5619 Other support services 1.2%
5312 Offices of real estate agents and brokers 1.2%
5417 Scientific research and development services 1.1%
5111 Newspaper, book, and directory publishers 1.0%
5414 Specialized design services 1.0%
5231 Securities and commodity contracts brokerage 0.9%
5222 Nondepository credit intermediation 0.9%
6117 Educational support services 0.8%
8139 Professional and similar organizations 0.8%
3345 Electronic instrument manufacturing 0.7%
8132 Grantmaking and giving services 0.7%
5223 Activities related to credit intermediation 0.7%

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
345
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 11
FIGURE 4. DEFINITION OF INDUSTRIES FOR OFFICE/ MEDICAL OFFICE/ R&D PROTOTYPE, CONTINUED NAICS Code Description
Percent Total Workers in
Prototype
5615 Travel arrangement and reservation services 0.7%
6114 Business, computer and management training 0.4%
5241 Insurance carriers 0.4%
5182 Data processing, hosting and related services 0.4% 5191 Other information services 0.3%
5173
Wired and wireless telecommunications
carriers 0.3%
7114 Agents and managers for public figures 0.2%
7113 Promoters of performing arts and sports 0.1%
5122 Sound recording industries 0.1%
3391
Medical equipment and supplies
manufacturing 0.1%
3344 Semiconductor and electronic component mfg. 0.02%
Total 100%
Source: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
346
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 12
FIGURE 5. DEFINITION OF INDUSTRIES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANTS/SERVICES PROTOTYPE NAICS Code Description
Percent Total Workers in
Prototype
7225 Restaurants and other eating places 38.6%
4451 Grocery stores 13.3%
4411 Automobile dealers 4.5%
4533 Used merchandise stores 3.7%
4441 Building material and supplies dealers 3.2%
8121 Personal care services 3.2%
4481 Clothing stores 3.1%
4422 Home furnishings stores 2.9%
4522 Department stores 2.9%
4461 Health and personal care stores 2.9%
4523
General merchandise stores, including warehouse
clubs and supercenters 2.6%
4511 Sporting goods and musical instrument stores 2.3%
5121 Motion picture and video industries 1.6%
7223 Special food services 1.6%
8129 Other personal services 1.6%
4431 Electronics and appliance stores 1.5%
4471 Gasoline stations 1.3%
4539 Other miscellaneous store retailers 1.2%
8123 Drycleaning and laundry services 1.1%
4541 Electronic shopping and mail-order houses 0.8%
4413 Auto parts, accessories, and tire stores 0.8%
4452 Specialty food stores 0.7%
4532 Office supplies, stationery, and gift stores 0.6%
4512 Book stores and news dealers 0.5%
4421 Furniture stores 0.5%
7224 Drinking places, alcoholic beverages 0.5%
5321 Automotive equipment rental and leasing 0.5%
4442 Lawn and garden equipment and supplies stores 0.3% 4453 Beer, wine, and liquor stores 0.3%
4482 Shoe stores 0.3%
5322 Consumer goods rental 0.3%
4483 Jewelry, luggage, and leather goods stores 0.2%
4412 Other motor vehicle dealers 0.2%
8122 Death care services 0.2%
4531 Florists 0.1%
4542 Vending machine operators 0.02%
4543 Direct selling establishments 0.02%
Total 100%
Source: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
347
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 13
FIGURE 6. DEFINITION OF INDUSTRIES FOR HOTEL PROTOTYPE
NAICS Code Description Percent Total Workers in Prototype 7211 Traveler accommodation 100%
* Note: Unlike other prototypes, the visitor accommodations prototype only includes one NAICS industry category.

Source: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019; Strategic Economics, 2020.

The next step is to identify all the occupations that are associated with each industry based on data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The best available data is at the national level; state level industry-occupation data exist but do not include all relevant industries. The national BLS occupational matrix is calibrated to match the county’s employment mix by weighting the national employment distribution to reflect the distribution of employment by industry within Marin County. Finally, the average wage by worker is calculated using data on average annual wages by occupation in the San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley Metropolitan Statistical Area (the smallest geographic level at which wage data are available) from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Figure 7 below summarizes the results of these calculations, computing the average weighted wages7 for each prototype. As shown, office/medical office/R&D employees have the highest average wage of the three prototypes, reflecting a greater mix of higher salary occupations in that use. The lowest average annual wages are in the retail/restaurants/services category. Due to the level of detail associated with the data on occupational wages, the full occupation mix in each land use prototype are shown in Figures 35 through 37 at the end of this report.

FIGURE 7. AVERAGE ANNUAL WAGE BY PROTOTYPE
Commercial Prototype Weighted Average Annual Wage (a)
Office/Medical Office/R&D $85,441
Retail/Restaurant/Services $37,493
Hotel $46,473
(a) Average wages are weighted to account for the proportion of jobs in each occupational wage category.

Source: United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019; United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, 2019; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021. 7 The weighted average wage accounts for the proportion of jobs in each occupational category.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
348
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 14
Step 5: Household Incomes
Based on the employee wage calculations discussed above, household incomes are estimated for each land use prototype. As a standard assumption for nexus studies, the average worker wage is multiplied by the number of wage-earners per household to calculate the annual household income. According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015-2019, the average number of wage-earners per household in Marin County is 1.6. The average annual wage per employee within each occupation was multiplied by 1.6 to determine annual average household income.

Step 6: Household Income Categories
Employee households are then categorized as extremely low-, very low-, low-, moderate-, or above moderate-income based on standard income definitions based on percentage of Area Median Income (AMI).

According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, 2015-2019, the average household size in Marin County is 2.4. To reference the available income tables, this has been rounded to 2, the nearest whole number. The income categories for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, are therefore based on the household size of two persons, using the income thresholds shown in Figure 8.8 Note that this analysis uses 2020 income thresholds to match up with the affordability gap calculations which were also based on 2020 income figures.

FIGURE 8. AMI LEVELS FOR 2-PERSON HOUSEHOLDS IN MARIN COUNTY, 2020 Income Category Maximum Income
Area Median Income (100% AMI) $114,500
Extremely Low-income (<30% AMI) $34,350
Very Low-income (31-50% AMI) $57,250
Low-income (51-80% AMI) $91,600
Moderate-income (81-120% AMI) $137,400
Source: Marin Housing Authority, 2020. Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Using the income categories described above, the new worker households were sorted into income groups. As shown in Figure 9 below, the distribution of workers within each income group varies markedly between the prototypes. The majority of employment in retail/restaurants/services is in the very low-income group, while the majority of hotel workers are in the low-income group.

Employment in office/medical office/R&D tends to be distributed more in the higher income groups. According to the results of this analysis, the primary affordable housing need associated with these prototypes is at the very low-income, low-income, and moderate-income levels. While the results of this analysis did not demonstrate demand from extremely low-income worker 8 Rounding to two persons per household is a conservative estimate. Using a larger household size assumption would result in a higher maximum commercial linkage fee calculation.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
349
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 15
households associated with new commercial development, it is understood that there are worker households in Marin County that require extremely low-income housing.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
350
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 16
FIGURE 9. NUMBER OF WORKER HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME CATEGORY Land Use Number of Worker
Households
Percent of Workers
In Prototype
Office/Medical Office/R&D
Extremely Low (<=30% AMI) (a) 0 0%
Very Low-income (31-50% AMI) 4 2%
Low-income (51-80% AMI) 67 40%
Moderate-income (81-120% AMI) 26 16%
Above 120% AMI (b) 69 42%
Total Households Requiring Affordable Housing 97 100%
Total Households 166

Retail/Restaurants/ Services
Extremely Low (<=30% AMI) (a) 0 0%
Very Low-income (31-50% AMI) 74 53%
Low-income (51-80% AMI) 59 42%
Moderate-income (81-120% AMI) 4 3%
Above 120% AMI (b) 2 1%
Total Households Requiring Affordable Housing 137 100%
Total 139

Hotel
Extremely Low (<=30% AMI) (a) 0 0%
Very Low-income (31-50% AMI) 14 19%
Low-income (51-80% AMI) 49 69%
Moderate-income (81-120% AMI) 4 6%
Above 120% AMI (b) 4 6%
Total Households Requiring Affordable Housing 67 100%
Total 71
Notes:
(a) The methodology used to estimate worker household incomes relies on identifying the weighted averages of a large number of occupations present in each land use prototype. According to the results of this analysis, the primary affordable housing need associated with these prototypes is at the very low-income, low-income, and moderate-income levels. While this methodology does not estimate demand from extremely low-income worker households associated with new commercial development, it is understood that there are worker households in Marin County that require extremely low-income housing. (b) Worker households earning above 120% AMI are expected to be able to afford market-rate rental or ownership housing, and therefore they are not incorporated in the affordability gap calculation.

Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
351
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 17
III. HOUSING AFFORDABILITY GAP
This section summarizes the approach to calculating the housing affordability gap and the results of the analysis (steps 7, 8 and 9). The steps outlined here draw upon a previous estimation of affordability gaps in the In-lieu Fee Study. A more detailed explanation of the methodology and assumptions for the affordability gap calculation can be found in that study (“Inclusionary Program Study and In-lieu Fee Calculation”).

Methodology
The housing affordability gap is defined as the difference between what very low-, low-, and moderate-income households can afford to pay for housing and the development cost of building new housing units.9 From the nexus methodology section at the beginning of this report, calculating the housing affordability gap involves the following steps 7 through 9:

7. Estimating affordable rents and housing prices for households in the targeted income groups.

8. Estimating development costs of building new housing units, based on current cost and market data.

9. Calculating the difference between what renters and owners can afford to pay for housing and the cost of development of rental and ownership units to arrive at the “affordability gap.”
Step 7: Estimating Affordable Rents and Sales Prices
The first step in calculating the housing affordability gap is to determine the amount that households at the targeted income levels can afford to pay for housing. As introduced in Step 6, for eligibility purposes, most affordable housing programs define very low-income households as those earning 31 to 50 percent of area median income (AMI), low-income households as those earning between 51 and 80 percent of AMI, and moderate-income households as those earning between 81 and 120 percent of AMI.10
Households with incomes in the very low range are assumed to live in rental housing. Households in the low and moderate ranges are assumed to live in a mix of rental and ownership housing.

While the nexus analysis identified some new worker households that would fall above the moderate-income range (above 120 percent of AMI), the Consultant Team did not calculate an affordability gap for this group because it is expected they would find housing at market rates. 9 As shown in the previous section, there are no households created by commercial development in the extremely low-income range (zero to 30 percent of AMI).
10 Drawing on the In-lieu Fee Study, very low-income households were assumed to be at 50% AMI; Low-income households were assumed to be at 70% AMI for ownership housing and 65% AMI for rental housing. Moderate-income households were assumed to be at 110% AMI for ownership housing and 90% AMI for rental housing.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
352
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 18
Figure 10 shows the maximum monthly rents and supportable debt for rental housing, as determined by the In-lieu Fee study. Renters are assumed to pay a maximum of 30 percent of their gross monthly income on total housing costs for the housing to be considered “affordable”. The maximum rent is then identified after deducting utility costs from monthly income. It is assumed that one-to-three person households occupy these units. In order to calculate the affordability gap, the affordable rents were converted to supportable debt. The supportable debt represents the onetime value of the rental revenue stream, incorporating assumptions about operating expenses, reserves, vacancy and collection loss, and mortgage terms.

FIGURE 10. AFFORDABLE RENTS AND SUPPORTABLE DEBT BY UNIT TYPE Studio 1-BR 2-BR Weighted Average (a)
Maximum Affordable Rents
Very Low-income (50%) $1,209 $1,379 $1,539 $1,426
Low-income (65%) $1,584 $1,809 $2,022 $1,872
Moderate-income (90%) $2,210 $2,524 $2,827 $2,614
Supportable Debt
Very Low-income (50%) $39,393 $66,904 $92,699 $74,471
Low-income (65%) $100,036 $136,236 $170,691 $146,398
Moderate-income (90%) $153,206 $191,816 $229,058 $202,852 Notes:
(a) The weighted average incorporates a unit mix assumption of 50% 1-bedrooms, 40% 2-bedrooms, and 10% studio units.

Source: Marin Housing Authority, 2020; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Figure 11 shows the maximum sales prices for homeowners, as determined by the In-lieu Fee Study. Homeowners are assumed to pay a maximum of 33 percent of gross monthly income on total housing costs. The maximum affordable price for for-sale housing is then calculated based on the total monthly mortgage payment that a homeowner could afford, using typical mortgage loan assumptions for income-restricted ownership housing, as well as other housing cost assumptions such as homeowner’s association (HOA) fees.11 It is assumed that four-to-six person households occupy these units. Due to varying HOA costs, the maximum sales price varies slightly between the two ownership prototypes, condominium townhomes and single-family subdivision units.
11 The housing cost assumptions for homeowners are based on correspondence with the Marin Housing Authority. It is assumed the homeowner pays a 5% downpayment, and their mortgage is 30-year fixed rate, with an interest rate of 3.8%. Other annual housing costs include: 1) Homeowner’s insurance costing 0.28% of the sales price; 2) Property tax rate of 1.5% the sales price; 3) Private mortgage insurance premium rate of 0.85% the amount financed; 4) Interior property insurance of $1,200; and 5) homeowner’s association fees of $0.35 per square foot for condominium units and $0.25 for single-family units.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
353
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 19
FIGURE 11. AFFORDABLE SALES PRICES BY UNIT TYPE
Condo Townhome Single-Family Subdivision
3-BR 4-BR
Weighted
Average (a) 3-BR 4-BR
Weighted
Average (a)
Low-income
(70%) $326,986 $369,293 $341,089 $344,076 $379,167 $361,622 Moderateincome (110%) $572,582 $643,220 $596,128 $589,581 $653,042 $621,311 Notes:
(a) The weighted average for the condo townhome assumes a unit mix of 66% three-bedrooms units and 33% four-bedroom units. For the single-family subdivision, it is assumed half of the units have three bedrooms and half have four bedrooms.

Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Step 8: Estimating Housing Development Costs
The next step in calculating the housing affordability gap is to estimate the cost of developing new housing units to address the housing need. As part of the In-lieu Fee Study, the Consultant Team estimated development costs for three prototypes: a single-family subdivision, a development of condominium townhomes, and a rental apartment development. The estimated development costs of those prototypes are shown below in Figure 12.

FIGURE 12. TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS BY PROTOTYPE
Cost Category
Single Family
Subdivision
Condominium
Townhome
Rental
Apartments
Per Unit
Land Cost $350,000 $200,000 $75,000
Hard Costs $335,343 $371,640 $382,228
Soft Costs $96,028 $100,057 $106,605
Development Costs $781,371 $671,697 $563,833
Per Net Residential Sq. Ft.

Land Cost $159 $111 $94
Hard Cost $152 $206 $478
Soft Costs $44 $56 $133
Development Costs $355 $373 $705
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Step 9: Calculating the Housing Affordability Gap
The final step is to calculate the housing affordability gap, or the difference between what renters and owners can afford to pay and the total cost of developing new units. The purpose of the housing affordability gap calculation is to help determine the fee amount that would be necessary to cover the cost of developing housing for very low-, low-, and moderate-income households. The calculation does not assume the availability of any other source of housing subsidy because not all housing is built with public subsidies, and tax credits and tax-exempt bond financing are highly competitive programs that will not always be available to developers of modest housing units.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
354
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 20
Figures 13 and 14 shows the housing affordability gap calculation for the rental prototype and the two ownership prototypes respectively.
• For the rental prototype, the gap is defined as the difference between the per-unit cost of development and the supportable debt per unit. The supportable debt is calculated based on the net operating income generated by an affordable monthly rent, incorporating assumptions about operating expenses (including property taxes, insurance, etc.), reserves, vacancy and collection loss, and mortgage terms. • For the ownership housing prototypes, the gap is calculated as the difference between the per-unit cost of development and the affordable sales price for each income level. To calculate the maximum affordable sales price, Strategic Economics relied on the approach used by Marin Housing Authority for local affordable housing homeownership programs.

The mortgage is assumed to be 30-year fixed rate, with an interest rate of 3.8 percent, which is a typical rate at the time of research (December 2020). The owner is assumed to put down a five percent down payment, which is standard for conventional and CalFHA loans. Other monthly housing costs include homeowners’ association dues, property taxes, homeowners’ insurance, interior property insurance, and premiums for private mortgage insurance.

Note that for each prototype, the gaps shown for each income level are the weighted average of the specific gaps for each unit type in the prototype.

The average affordability gap for each income group was then calculated by averaging the affordability gaps for each prototype, shown in Figure 15. Since it is assumed that all households in the very low-income group are renters, the average affordability gap is simply the rental gap.

For more explanation, see the In-lieu Fee Study.

FIGURE 13. AFFORDABILITY GAP CALCULATION FOR RENTAL HOUSING BY INCOME GROUP Supportable Debt (a)
Development Costs
(b) Affordability Gap (c)
Very Low-income (50%) $74,471 $564,000 $489,529
Low-income (65%) $146,398 $564,000 $417,602
Moderate-income (90%) $202,852 $564,000 $361,148
Notes:
(a) Calculated as net operating income generated by an affordable monthly rent, incorporating assumptions about operating expenses, reserves, vacancy and collection loss, and mortgage terms. (b) Assumes development cost of $705 per net square foot on rental units. (c) Calculated as the difference between development costs and supportable debt.

Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
355
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 21
FIGURE 14. AFFORDABILITY GAP CALCULATION FOR OWNERSHIP HOUSING BY INCOME GROUP Affordable Sales Price (a)
Development
Cost (b) Affordability Gap (c)
Condo Townhome
Low-income (70%) $341,089 $671,697 $330,608
Moderate-income (110%) $596,128 $671,697 $75,568
Single-family Subdivision
Low-income (70%) $361,622 $781,371 $419,749
Moderate-income (110%) $621,311 $781,371 $160,060
Notes:
(a) Based on affordable sales prices identified in Figure 14, this is the weighted average affordable sales price, incorporating the prototypes’ overall unit mix.
(b) Assumes a development cost of $373 per square foot for the condo townhome, and $355 per square foot for the single-family subdivision.
(c) Calculated as the difference between the affordable sales price and development cost.

Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

FIGURE 15: AVERAGE AFFORDABILITY GAP FOR VERY LOW-, LOW-, AND MODERATE-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS Income Level Rental Gap
Ownership
Gap
Townhome
Ownership
Gap SF
Subdivision
Average
Affordability
Gap
Very Low-income (50% AMI) $489,529 N/A N/A $489,529
Low-income (65% AMI Rental / 70% Owner) $417,602 $330,608 $419,749 $389,320 Moderate-income (90% AMI Rental / 110%
AMI Owner) $361,148 $75,568 $160,060 $198,925
Note: The affordability gap for Above Moderate-income Households (more than 120 percent of AMI) is assumed to be zero.

Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
356
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 22
This section builds on the findings of the previous analytical steps to calculate the maximum justified linkage fees for each commercial prototype.

Step 10: Maximum Fee Calculation
To derive the maximum nexus-based fee for each land use prototype, the housing affordability gap amounts (see previous section) are applied to the number of worker households in each respective income category (Figure 9). The number of very low-, low-, and moderate-income households associated with each land use prototype is used to calculate the total affordability gap (Figure 16).

The above moderate-income households are included in the number of worker households shown in Figure 16, but there is no affordability gap for this group and it does not contribute to the total affordability gap. Finally, the total gap for each land use prototype is divided by 100,000 square feet to calculate a maximum fee per square foot.

As shown in Figure 16, the maximum fee results (rounded to the nearest dollar) are $331 per square foot for office/medical office/R&D, $601 per square foot for retail/restaurants/services, and $267 per square foot for hotel.

The calculated linkage fees are relatively high because of the high cost of housing development in Marin, leading to large affordability gaps particularly for very low- and low-income households. The maximum fee calculation is highest for retail/restaurants/services because of the relatively low worker wage levels in these industries, combined with a moderate employee density. Hotel uses also employ a large share of lower wage workers, but have a much lower employee density, resulting in the lowest maximum fee of all of the uses. Finally, office/medical/R&D uses have a lower number of lower wage workers, but have the highest employment density, resulting in a maximum fee that is lower than retail/restaurants/services but higher than hotel.

The maximum fees shown in Figure 16 are not the recommended fees for adoption. They are the preliminary nexus-justified fees that represent the maximum that Marin jurisdictions could charge to mitigate affordable housing demand related to commercial development.

FIGURE 16. MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES
Land Use
Number of
Worker
Households*
Average Gap (per
Household)
Total
Affordability Gap
Size of
Prototype (SF)
Max Fee
per SF
Office/Medical Office/R&D 166 $199,226 $33,116,879 100,000 $331 Retail/Restaurants/
Services 139 $432,496 $60,068,911 100,000 $601
Hotel 71 $374,089 $26,673,031 100,000 $267
* The number of worker households includes above moderate-income households. However, these households are assumed to have an affordability gap of zero and, therefore, do not affect the calculations of the total affordability gap and the maximum fee.

Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

IV. MAXIMUM LINKAGE FEES
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
357
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 23
V. MARKET FACTORS, FEASIBILITY, AND OTHER POLICY

CONSIDERATIONS
The previous section presented the maximum commercial linkage fees for each land use based on the nexus study. These fees are the maximum justifiable fee that jurisdictions can charge to mitigate the affordable housing need. However, for most jurisdictions, other factors are considered when enacting the commercial linkage fees, and, as a result, the fees are almost always set at a level significantly below the maximum amount that is justified by the nexus study.

This section considers market factors and their impact on the feasibility of a range of commercial linkage fee scenarios, as well as other policy factors each jurisdiction will want to consider when setting commercial linkage fees. The first subsection includes a brief market overview of commercial development in Marin County. That is followed by a review of commercial linkage fees in comparable cities, which inform a set of “fee scenarios” that are intended to illustrate a range of reasonable fee levels that could be adopted. Following that is a discussion highlighting the following policy considerations:
• An evaluation of the potential impact of the fee scenarios on the financial feasibility of commercial development; and
• An estimate of the amount the fee scenarios would raise existing municipal fees.

To inform this analysis, the Consultant Team reviewed recent development trends, spoke with local professionals in the development and building trades, and reviewed commercial linkage fee levels in comparable Bay Area jurisdictions.

Finally, this section makes a set of recommendations for setting the commercial linkage fees, including ranges for the fees, possible affordable housing revenues generated, and an approach for updating the fees.

Market Overview
Marin County is considered a secondary market for most commercial development in relation to San Francisco and the more urban areas of the East Bay. Consequently, Marin County’s commands lower rents and attracts less development activity than the primary commercial real estate markets. In the last year, the COVID-19 pandemic has depressed the market for commercial development, with rising vacancy rates and decreasing revenues for office, retail, and hotel uses.

This dynamic presents many challenges for the feasibility of new development projects.

Market conditions for each of the land use categories addressed in this study are discussed separately below in more detail.

OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D
Office employment in Marin is concentrated in downtown San Rafael, with a few areas of lower density office employment in North San Rafael, eastern Larkspur, and Sausalito (see Figure 17).

Recent office development has included the San Rafael Corporate Center, a Class A office development in downtown San Rafael; Biomarin Pharmaceuticals, R&D lab space also in downtown San Rafael; and smaller office developments in San Anselmo and Corte Madera.

According to developers interviewed for this study, because of uncertainties about the timing of the COVID-19 economic recovery, many investors are delaying decisions about building new Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
358
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 24
commercial projects. It is unclear whether the Biomarin laboratories will attract additional demand for life sciences R&D space.

Historically, San Rafael has been the center of office development in Marin County. Once the demand for office returns, it is likely that new, larger-scale office and R&D developments will continue to be concentrated in downtown San Rafael. As the primary location for office uses, San Rafael is considered the strongest tier for office uses in Marin County. The other six jurisdictions have not captured significant office development in the last decade, and therefore comprise a weaker office market tier.

RETAIL/RESTAURANTS/SERVICES
Demand for brick-and-mortar retail development nationwide has slowed as an increasing share of retail sales move online. The shelter-in-place restrictions from COVID-19 have accelerated this trend, and it is unclear when significant demand for new retail space will return. Marin County has seen only a small amount of retail development in recent years, limited to single tenant stores such as the RH showroom in Corte Madera. Redevelopment plans for the Northgate Mall in San Rafael will reduce the overall retail area on the site while adding over 1,300 new housing units.

It is unlikely that the county will see significant new retail development in the coming years. When the market does recover, new retail is expected to be relatively small scale, serving a local trade area and/or any new residential development. Rather than concentrating in any one area of the county, retail is likely to be dispersed, favoring sites close to US-101, major highways with good visibility, or serving larger residential developments. For this reason, to the Consultant Team recommends that the jurisdictions adopt a relatively uniform commercial linkage fee. Jurisdictions may also wish to enact lower fees for small and independently-owned businesses. Many jurisdictions exempt retail spaces of under 5,000 square feet from these fees.

HOTEL
Located geographically in between San Francisco and Northern California’s wine country, Marin County is a secondary market for hotel development. Business travel is an important component of demand in San Rafael, serving the downtown employment center, while the market in the remainder of the county is mostly composed of leisure travelers. Although the county has seen no new hotels in over twenty years, currently several hotels and motels have been proposed, planned, or are under construction. These new projects include two in downtown San Rafael (the select service AC Marriot and Hampton Inn and Suites), and three additional proposals in Corte Madera and Larkspur. All of these developments were planned and proposed before the start of the COVID19 pandemic, with the AC Marriot already under construction.

The pandemic has taken a serious toll on hotel demand, causing developers that have yet to break ground to reconsider moving forward with their projects. Developers and industry leaders do not expect the market to recover for several years.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
359
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 25
FIGURE 17: OFFICE EMPLOYMENT DENSITY IN MARIN COUNTY, 2018 Source: U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, 2018; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
360
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 26
Comparable Cities
Figures 18 through 20 show existing commercial linkage fees for the jurisdictions participating in this study alongside other comparable jurisdictions in Sonoma County, Napa County, San Mateo County, and San Francisco.

As shown in Figure 18, linkage fees for office/medical office/R&D land uses in Marin County range from $3.20 to $10.32 per square foot. The fee in San Rafael is at the high end of this range, reflecting its relative strength as an office center within the county. The selected jurisdictions from Sonoma County, (Petaluma, Santa Rosa, and Unincorporated Sonoma County) all charge approximately $3.00 per square foot. San Francisco, San Mateo County, and South San Francisco have stronger office markets than Marin and all charge much higher fees ranging from $15 to $65 per square foot.12
Figure 19 gives a comparison of linkage fees for retail/restaurants/services. These fees tend to be lower than what is charged for office, except in places where retail markets have been particularly strong. In Marin County the linkage fees on these uses range from $3.28 to $8.38, with Corte Madera at the top of the range. The selected jurisdictions in Sonoma County range from $3.00 to $5.25.

Figure 20 shows linkage fees for hotel uses in the comparable jurisdictions. Fees charged for hotel uses in Marin tend to be lower than for other uses, ranging from $1.20 to $4.63 per square foot.

The selected communities in Sonoma County all charge approximately $3.00 per square foot, and the fee in the City of Napa is as high as $6.00 per square foot. The fee in San Francisco is more than $23 per square foot.
12 South San Francisco is shown because it provides a reference point for life sciences industry clusters that have a high concentration of R&D space.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
361
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 27
FIGURE 18: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D ADOPTED IN MARIN AND

COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS
[a] San Rafael’s fee is defined as a percentage of the inclusionary in-lieu fee. [b] Mill Valley’s fee is defined as one percent of the valuation of the proposed project. The Consultant Team assumed the valuation of the office prototype used for feasibility testing (see next section).

Sources: Published schedules of city fees; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021. $4.79
$3.20
$10.32
$7.19
$4.28
$3.04
$3.00
$2.93
$64.83
$15.00
$25.00
Corte Madera - office
Corte Madera - R&D
San Rafael [a]
Unincorporated Marin County
Mill Valley [b]
Unincorporated Sonoma County
Santa Rosa
Petaluma
San Francisco (less than 50K sf)
South San Francisco
Unincorporated San Mateo County
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
362
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 28
FIGURE 19: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES ADOPTED IN MARIN AND

COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS
[a] San Rafael’s fee is defined as a percentage of the inclusionary in-lieu fee. [b] Mill Valley’s fee is defined as one percent of the valuation of the proposed project. The Consultant Team assumed the valuation of the retail prototype used for feasibility testing (see next section).

Sources: Published schedules of city fees; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021. $8.38
$4.39
$7.74
$5.40
$3.28
$5.25
$3.00
$5.07
$29.11
$5.00
Corte Madera - retail
Corte Madera - restaurants
San Rafael [a]
Unincorporated Marin County
Mill Valley [b]
Unincorporated Sonoma County
Santa Rosa
Petaluma
San Francisco
Unincorporated San Mateo County
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
363
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 29
FIGURE 20: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES FOR HOTEL ADOPTED IN MARIN AND COMPARABLE JURISDICTIONS [a] San Rafael’s fee is defined as a percentage of the inclusionary in-lieu fee. [b] Marin County’s fee $1,745 per room. This figure was converted to a value per square foot assuming a hotel development will average 615 square feet of gross building area per room. [c] Mill Valley’s fee is defined as one percent of the valuation of the proposed project. The Consultant Team assumed the valuation of the hotel prototype used for feasibility testing (see next section).

Sources: Published schedules of city fees; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Fee Scenarios
The Consultant Team developed a set of fee scenarios to analyze the impact of a commercial linkage fee adopted for the three categories of land use. The determination of the fee scenarios was based on the range of fee levels that have been adopted in comparable cities and counties in the Bay Area.

The four fee scenarios range from $3.00 per square foot to $15.00 per square foot (Figure 21).

The fee scenarios, which are all only a fraction of the nexus-justified maximum fee, are intended as a guide to illustrate a range of commercial linkage fee amounts that might be implemented for $1.20
$2.58
$2.84
$4.63
$3.04
$3.00
$2.93
$6.00
$23.36
Corte Madera
San Rafael [a]
Unincorporated Marin County [b]
Mill Valley [c]
Unincorporated Sonoma County
Santa Rosa
Petaluma
City of Napa
San Francisco
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
364
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 30
each land use category. Jurisdictions may choose to set linkage fees at different scenarios for different land uses, at an amount different from the values shown, or may choose to implement a commercial linkage fee for only certain land uses.

FIGURE 21: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE SCENARIOS PER BUILDING GROSS SQUARE FOOT

Office/Medical
Office/R&D Retail/Restaurant/Services Hotel
Maximum Fee $331 $601 $267
Scenario 1 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
Scenario 2 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00
Scenario 3 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00
Scenario 4 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Feasibility Analysis
One of the important policy considerations when enacting a new fee is the impact of the fee on the financial feasibility of new commercial development. The Consultant Team analyzed the financial feasibility of potential new linkage fees by assessing their impact on overall development costs. While there are no established rules-of-thumb for setting commercial linkage fees in relation to development costs, generally where real estate markets are strong, new development is able to accommodate higher fees if they represent a relatively low share of overall development costs.13

DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES FOR ANALYZING FEASIBILITY
The Consultant Team designated a set of development prototypes to analyze feasibility. These prototypes are different from the commercial prototypes used for the nexus study and introduced in Section II. While the nexus prototypes represent broad categories of use, the development prototypes for feasibility represent more specific developments within each category and include additional details such as land area and parking to facilitate the estimation of costs. The three “feasibility prototypes” are defined as: 1) Class B Office; 2) Small Neighborhood Center; and 3) Select-Service Hotel. These development prototypes, which are designed to represent a typical development within each land use category, are informed by recent and proposed commercial developments in Marin, as well as from interviews with local developers and builders. The prototypes are described below and summarized further in Figure 22. • Class B Office: A smaller, Class B office format was used because Marin is a secondary office market within the Bay Area, and the economics of smaller developments are likely to be more impacted by municipal fees than larger developments. This prototype is 17,000 square feet in two stories on a one acre site. Surface parking is assumed with a ratio of

4.0 (one stall per 250 square feet of gross building area). 13 Over time, fee increases are expected to be capitalized into lower land costs.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
365
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 31
• Small Neighborhood Center: This is a 7,600 square-foot neighborhood shopping center on one-half acre. This prototype assumes surface parking with a parking ratio of 4.0 (one stall per 250 square feet of gross building area). Similar to the office prototype above, a smaller center is likely to be more impacted by new fees. In additional, the parcel size is very small because there is very limited retail development occurring in Marin, and developer interviews also suggested that Marin’s limited site availability meant larger retail developments were unlikely to occur.
• Select-Service Hotel: Most recent and pipeline hotel projects in Marin are select-service hotels. This prototype is a 70,000 square foot select service hotel with 115 guest rooms on a 2.5 acre site. It assumes surface parking with a parking ratio of 1.1 spaces per room.

The hotel will include a limited number of high-quality amenities such as a small restaurant/bar, a fitness room, and a business center.

FIGURE 22. DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES
Class B Office
Small Neighborhood
Center
Select Service
Hotel
Land Area
Parcel Size (Sq. Ft.) 43,560 21,780 108,900
Parcel Size (acres) 1.00 0.50 2.50
Building Height and FAR
Total Stories 2 stories Single story 3 stories
FAR 0.40 0.35 0.65
Building Area
Gross area (gsf) 17,424 7,623 70,785
Net area (nsf) 15,682 6,861 n/a
Number of rooms n/a n/a 115
Average Room Size (nsf) n/a n/a 400
Average Room Size (gsf) n/a n/a 615
Parking
Total Spaces (surface) 70 30 127
Parking Ratio (per room) n/a n/a 1.10
Parking Ratio (per 1,000 SF) 4.0 4.0 1.8
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

DEVELOPMENT COSTS
The Consultant Team estimated development costs based on interviews with developers and general contractors experienced with commercial development in Marin, as well as a review of recent land transactions. Key development cost assumptions are described below, and a summary of the assumptions is provided in Figure 23.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
366
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 32

LAND AND SITE COST ASSUMPTIONS
One of the critical cost factors for a commercial development project is land cost. To determine the land value of sites zoned for commercial uses, the Consultant Team combined feedback from developer interviews with an analysis of recent sales transactions of vacant parcels for development in the relevant areas of Marin County. Land costs can range greatly based on the site’s location and characteristics. The Consultant Team reviewed comparable land sales and generally based land cost assumptions on the middle of the range of comparable land prices.

Site costs include the horizontal costs associated with preparation of the site for development and demolition of any existing buildings. As these costs vary widely from site to site, the Consultant Team estimated average site costs based on developer interviews and experience with previous feasibility studies.

BUILDING AREA HARD COSTS
The hard costs for the building area include the cost of vertical construction of the building. This ranges from $300 per gross square foot for the Small Neighborhood Center to $450 per gross square foot for the Class B Office. These costs are informed by developer interviews as well as recent construction cost market reports.

TENANT IMPROVEMENTS AND FF&E COSTS
This cost category includes a separate allowance for tenant improvements for the office and retail prototypes as well as “fixtures, furniture, and equipment” (FF&E) for the hotel prototype. The tenant improvement allowance of $75 per square foot for office and retail is based on recent feasibility studies for these development types in the Bay Area. The FF&E cost of $25,000 per room is based on feedback from developer interviews.

SURFACE PARKING COSTS
The direct cost of parking is assumed to be an average of $10,000 per stall for a surface lot, which applies to all development prototypes.

SOFT COST ASSUMPTIONS
Soft costs include all costs for architecture, engineering, consulting, legal, and accounting fees, as well as taxes, insurance, financing costs, contingency, and any other incidental costs not included in the cost categories listed in this section. Soft costs were estimated as 12 percent of hard costs for all prototypes. Note that existing municipal fees, including utility hook-ups, are not incorporated into this assumption, and are addressed separately, because they vary across the jurisdictions.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
367
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 33
FIGURE 23: DEVELOPMENT COST ASSUMPTIONS
Class B
Office
Small
Neighborhood
Center
Select Service
Hotel
Land and Sites Costs (per sf) $75 $75 $40
Building Area Hard Costs (per gsf) $400 $300 $450
Tenant Improvements (per nsf, office and retail only) $75 $75 n/a FF&E (per room, hotel only) n/a n/a $25,000
Surface parking (per space) $10,000 $10,000 $10,000
Soft Costs (as % of hard costs) 12% 12% 12%
Sources: Developer Interviews, 2021; Costar, 2021; Rider, Levett, Bucknall Quarterly Construction Cost Report, Q4 2020; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
368
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 34

TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Based on the assumptions summarized in Figure 23, The Consultant Team estimated the total development costs for the prototypes, summarized in Figure 24. The costs are summarized for the whole project, by square foot of gross building area, and by guest room for hotel. On a per-square foot basis, the Class B Office is the most expensive, and the Select Service Hotel is the least expensive.

FIGURE 24: TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST BY PROTOTYPE
Class B Office
Small Neighborhood
Center Select Service Hotel
Overall Project
Land and Site Costs $3,267,000 $1,633,500 $4,356,000
Building Area Hard Costs $6,969,600 $2,286,900 $31,853,250 Tenant Improvements / FF&E $1,176,120 $514,553 $2,875,641 Surface parking $700,000 $300,000 $1,270,000
Soft Costs $920,352 $310,428 $3,974,790
Total Development Cost $13,033,072 $5,045,381 $44,329,681

Per GSF
Land and Site Costs $188 $214 $62
Building Area Hard Costs $400 $300 $450
Tenant Improvements / FF&E $68 $68 $41
Surface parking $40 $39 $18
Soft Costs $53 $41 $56
Total Development Cost $748 $662 $626

Per Guest Room
Land and Site Costs $37,870
Building Area Hard Costs $276,923
Tenant Improvements / FF&E $25,000
Surface parking $11,041
Soft Costs $34,556
Total Development Cost $385,390
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
369

Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 35

INCREASES IN DEVELOPMENT COSTS
The fee scenarios were applied to the development costs for each prototype and are summarized below and in Figure 25. A fee level of $3.00 per square foot (Scenario 1) increases development costs by 0.4 to 0.5 percent, depending on the prototype; a fee level of $5.00 (Scenario 2) increases development costs by 0.7 to 0.8 percent; at $10.00 per square foot (Scenario 3), the increase in costs ranges from 1.3 to 1.6 percent; and, finally, at $15.00 per square foot (Scenario 4), the increase in costs ranges from 2.0 to 2.4 percent. In percentage terms, hotel development experiences the largest increase from a new fee because hotel is the least expensive prototype to build per square foot.

FIGURE 25: FEE SCENARIOS AND PERCENTAGE OF DEVELOPMENT COSTS FOR EACH PROTOTYPE Class B
Office
Small Neighborhood
Center
Select Service
Hotel
Total Development Costs before Linkage Fee ($/sf) $748 $662 $626 Linkage Fee Scenarios ($/sf)
Maximum Fee $331 $601 $267
Scenario 1 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00
Scenario 2 $5.00 $5.00 $5.00
Scenario 3 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00
Scenario 4 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00
Linkage Fee Scenarios (as % to Total Dev. Costs)
Maximum Fee 44% 91% 43%
Scenario 1 0.4% 0.5% 0.5%
Scenario 2 0.7% 0.8% 0.8%
Scenario 3 1.3% 1.5% 1.6%
Scenario 4 2.0% 2.3% 2.4%
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

FEE SCENARIOS COMBINED WITH OTHER MUNICIPAL FEES
The Consultant Team reviewed the total burden of the fee scenarios in the context of other fees charged by the cities and Marin County, including fees such as building permits as well as any impact fees each jurisdiction might have in place.14 A table of these costs for each jurisdiction is given in Figure 26 below, including the total fees that would be paid on each prototype for the commercial linkage fee scenarios.

Because each jurisdiction has its own schedule of fees for new development, the cost of development in each community varies. For example, municipal fees for the prototypes in Corte Madera range from

0.6 percent to 0.9 percent of development costs, while fees in San Rafael are higher, ranging from 2.2 14 Connection fees charged by a local sanitary sewer and water district were also estimated; they would be expected to represent an additional 1.0 to 2.6 percent of development costs above what is shown in the Figure 26.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
370
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 36
to 4.4 percent of development costs. Jurisdictions will need to take into account these baseline costs when setting a commercial linkage fee amount.

FIGURE 26. COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE SCENARIOS AND OTHER MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY FEES* BY JURISDICTION Per GSF As % of Development Costs

Class B
Office
Small
Neighborhood
Center
Select
Service
Hotel
Class B
Office
Small
Neighborhood
Center
Select
Service
Hotel
Corte Madera
Municipal Fees $4.71 $4.75 $5.90 0.6% 0.7% 0.9%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $7.71 $7.75 $8.90 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $9.71 $9.75 $10.90 1.3% 1.5% 1.7% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $14.71 $14.75 $15.90 2.0% 2.2% 2.5% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $19.71 $19.75 $20.90 2.6% 3.0% 3.3% Fairfax
Municipal Fees $8.53 $8.83 $9.42 1.1% 1.3% 1.5%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $11.53 $11.83 $12.42 1.5% 1.8% 2.0% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $13.53 $13.83 $14.42 1.8% 2.1% 2.3% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $18.53 $18.83 $19.42 2.5% 2.8% 3.1% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $23.53 $23.83 $24.42 3.1% 3.6% 3.9% Larkspur
Municipal Fees $16.02 $19.04 $13.05 2.1% 2.9% 2.1%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $19.02 $22.04 $16.05 2.5% 3.3% 2.6% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $21.02 $24.04 $18.05 2.8% 3.6% 2.9% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $26.02 $29.04 $23.05 3.5% 4.4% 3.7% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $31.02 $34.04 $28.05 4.1% 5.1% 4.5% Unincorporated Marin County
County Fees $4.88 $5.38 $5.14 0.7% 0.8% 0.8%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $7.88 $8.38 $8.14 1.1% 1.3% 1.3% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $9.88 $10.38 $10.14 1.3% 1.6% 1.6% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $14.88 $15.38 $15.14 2.0% 2.3% 2.4% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $19.88 $20.38 $20.14 2.7% 3.1% 3.2% San Anselmo
Municipal Fees $10.12 $11.03 $12.86 1.4% 1.7% 2.1%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $13.12 $14.03 $15.86 1.8% 2.1% 2.5% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $15.12 $16.03 $17.86 2.0% 2.4% 2.9% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $20.12 $21.03 $22.86 2.7% 3.2% 3.6% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $25.12 $26.03 $27.86 3.4% 3.9% 4.4% Continued on next page
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
371
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 37
Continued from previous page
San Rafael
Municipal Fees $16.59 $29.24 $14.62 2.2% 4.4% 2.3%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $19.59 $32.24 $17.62 2.6% 4.9% 2.8% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $21.59 $34.24 $19.62 2.9% 5.2% 3.1% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $26.59 $39.24 $24.62 3.6% 5.9% 3.9% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $31.59 $44.24 $29.62 4.2% 6.7% 4.7% Sausalito
Municipal Fees $7.18 $7.81 $9.08 1.0% 1.2% 1.4%
Total Fees with Scenario 1 $10.18 $10.81 $12.08 1.4% 1.6% 1.9% Total Fees with Scenario 2 $12.18 $12.81 $14.08 1.6% 1.9% 2.2% Total Fees with Scenario 3 $17.18 $17.81 $19.08 2.3% 2.7% 3.0% Total Fees with Scenario 4 $22.18 $22.81 $24.08 3.0% 3.4% 3.8% * Municipal and County fees include all applicable permits and impact fees charged by the jurisdiction. Water and sanitary sewer connection fees are not included. Based on estimates from Marin Municipal Water District and Ross Valley Sanitary District, water and sewer fees represent may add an additional 1.0 percent to development costs of Class B office, 1.9 percent to small neighborhood retail, and 2.6 percent to select service hotel.

Sources: Participating Jurisdictions, 2021; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Fee Recommendations
The Consultant Team evaluated the four fee scenarios based on the analyses summarized above:
market factors, fees in comparable cities, fees as a percentage of development costs, and fees in relation to the municipal/county fees that are currently charged in the seven jurisdictions.

Recommendations for setting a commercial linkage fee are outlined below.

In the wake of the commercial real estate market slowdown due to COVID-19, the Consultant Team recommends that jurisdictions enact commercial linkage fees that are generally comparable across the different jurisdictions within the county, without significantly raising fees in the places that already have them. Several jurisdictions in this study have commercial linkage fees currently in place, and the recommendations below do not represent a significant departure from these fee levels. Jurisdictions without commercial linkage fees should consider adopting fees comparable with their neighbors.

However, there is one exception to this guidance with regard to office/R&D/medical office, where San Rafael can reasonably impose a higher fee than other jurisdictions.

For office/R&D/medical office uses, the Consultant Team recommends the commercial linkage fee for office be set between $10 and $15 per square foot in San Rafael and between $5 and $10 per square foot in the other six jurisdictions. Because the market for office is stronger in San Rafael, new office development is more likely to be able to support the higher fee levels. In San Rafael, the recommended fee level represents an increase in development costs of 0.7 to 1.3 percent for the Class B prototype (Figure 26). Class A office and R&D, which are more expensive product types and more likely to occur in downtown San Rafael, would experience a lower percentage increase. For the other communities, the recommended fees would result in an increase in development costs of 0.4 to

0.7 percent.

The Consultant Team recommends the commercial linkage fee for retail be set between $5 and $10 per square foot for all jurisdictions. The existing fee levels for retail are in this range, which amounts Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
372
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 38
to 0.8 to 1.5 percent in development costs for a small neighborhood center (Figure 26). Because the future of retail is very uncertain, it is difficult to generalize where demand will be strong once retail markets recover, and it is recommended the fees be relatively consistent across jurisdictions. Postpandemic demand for retail could materialize in small scale developments dispersed throughout the county, depending on site-specific conditions related to transportation access and nearby amenities and development.

The Consultant Team recommends that jurisdictions consider reducing the commercial linkage fee requirement for small and independent businesses. It is expected that the viability of small-scale retail in particular will be challenging, so jurisdictions may choose to exempt smaller retail projects from paying the fee or reduce the overall fee. For instance, San Rafael does not apply a commercial linkage fee to developments 5,000 square feet and below, while Sonoma County exempts the first 2,000 square feet from its fee. Because many large “big-box” tenants occupy far more than 5,000 square feet, this incentive would not apply to those types of businesses. Because the definition for “small scale retail” may vary by jurisdiction, the Consultant Team recommends that each jurisdiction develop its own appropriate threshold.

For hotel uses, the Consultant Team recommends that all jurisdictions adopt a commercial linkage fee of $3 to $5 per square foot. This fee level would represent between 0.5 and 0.8 percent of development costs for a select service hotel (Figure 26). Fees of $3 to $5 would increase in the cost of development slightly in Corte Madera, San Rafael, and Unincorporated Marin County while keeping them comparable with Mill Valley and the communities in Sonoma County that were reviewed for this study. It is important to note that while jurisdictions may charge on the basis of number of rooms rather that square feet, charging the fee by square foot advantages more efficient hotels with smaller room sizes.

It is advised that the jurisdictions reexamine the potential for raising the fees once the commercial real estate market recovers and development activity picks up. This study provides the economic analysis for higher fees, so that a new study would not be needed if this were to occur in the next five years.

Other Policy Considerations
This section briefly addresses other considerations for adopting or updating a commercial linkage fee, including establishing equivalencies for payment of the fee, and an approach to updating the fees.

EQUIVALENCIES TO PAYMENT OF FEES
It is recommended that jurisdictions establish a process for developers to make an in-kind contribution to affordable housing in lieu of paying a commercial linkage fee. Some examples of alternative mitigation include land dedication, providing on-site affordable units, or providing off-site affordable units. Typically, developers would need to demonstrate that the value of these contributions would be in excess or equal to the value of the commercial linkage fee requirement. In such instances, jurisdictions will want to have an established process in place for financially evaluating these proposals as a substitute for paying the fee to create predictability and consistency for development projects.

UPDATING THE FEES
Similar to any impact fee, it will be necessary to adjust the commercial linkage impact fee on an annual basis. Adjustments are also needed due to possible changes in the affordability gaps. A simple Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
373
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 39
approach to annual adjustments is to use an index. The Consultant Team recommends using either the construction cost index (localized to the San Francisco Bay Area region), such as the one published by the Engineering News-Record, or the shelter component of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), whichever is higher.

VI. UNIFIED FEE PROPOPAL AND FULFILLING STATE

REQUIREMENTS FOR ADOPTION
Strategic Economics collaborated with staff from the seven jurisdictions to develop a unified fee proposal that will be considered for adoption by each of the jurisdictions. Based on these conversations and the guideline recommendations in the previous section, this section outlines the commercial linkage fee schedule that has been proposed by the jurisdictions. It also provides further analysis on the fee proposal in order to meet state requirements for implementation. For four of the seven jurisdictions, this will be a new fee program. For the other three jurisdictions, the fees will represent an update to an existing commercial linkage fee program in that jurisdiction.

In 2021, the California legislature imposed new requirements (Assembly Bill 602 [2021-2022]) on impact fee nexus studies adopted by local governments after July 1, 2022. The legislation applies to this study in relation to any new commercial linkage fees to be implemented in the seven jurisdictions.

Among other provisions, AB 602 requires the adopted nexus study to provide a justification for new impact fees for affordable housing should they seek a higher “level of service” for the community. The legislation also asks for a review of any current fee programs.

Considering the proposal put forth by the jurisdictions, this report section first includes an overview of the fees in comparison to the linkage fees currently in place in some of the jurisdictions. Based on the unified fee proposal, Strategic Economics estimated the potential affordable housing revenues that could be raised over a five year period. (Although the fee proposal is designed to apply the same fee levels across all seven jurisdictions, the adopted fees in any specific jurisdiction may ultimately deviate from the unified schedule, which would affect the generated revenues.) As required by AB 602, Strategic Economics also summarized the revenues collected from each of the three existing fee programs and provided a justification for the new level of service advanced by the new fee program.

Finally, the section concludes with a discussion of the purpose of these fees and the role of new commercial development to contribute to funding affordable housing in Marin County.

Current and Proposed Commercial Linkage Fees
AB 602 includes the provision: “[i]f a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.” (Government Code § 66016.5). Below is a summary of the fee programs in place (in the jurisdictions that have them) and a discussion of the changes that would occur if the unified fee proposal were adopted.

The current and proposed commercial linkage fee programs are summarized in Figure 27. Three of the jurisdictions (Corte Madera, San Rafael, and the Unincorporated County) currently charge linkage fees on various types of nonresidential development. The fee programs each were proposed and adopted independently in the early 2000’s and tend to have disparate definitions for grouping Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
374
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 40
nonresidential development into categories for the application of a fee. Currently Marin County charges a hotel impact fee based on the number of rooms, rather than on a square foot basis;15 in Figure 27, Strategic Economics converted this number to a typical fee per square foot using a gross average room size assumption.

Strategic Economics and the jurisdictions made every best effort to collect data on fee revenues since each program’s inception. In Marin County and Corte Madera, where the full history of fee revenues was not available, revenues collections are reported for those jurisdictions from the earliest dates data could be obtained. As shown in Figures 27 and 28:
• Corte Madera has collected $381,516 since April 2018 (an average of $84,781 annually); • San Rafael has collected $2,556,106 since 2005 ($144,006 annually); and • Unincorporated County has collected $38,680 since 2019 ($10,315 annually) The higher rates of revenue generation in San Rafael and Corte Madera reflect their higher levels of commercial development as retail and office job centers, as compared with Unincorporated Marin County, which is largely suburban and rural.

The unified fee proposal is also shown in Figure 27. The proposed fee levels are $10.00 per square foot for office, medical office, and R&D uses; $8.00 or $10.000 per square foot retail development, depending on the size of the development; and $5.00 per square foot for hotel development. The jurisdictions are proposing a smaller fee level on retail developments up to 2,500 square feet to help lessen the burden of the fee on smaller, locally owned businesses.

In the other three jurisdictions that currently have fee programs, the proposed fees generally represent an increase from current levels. (For example, the fee for office development in Corte Madera would increase from $4.79 per square foot to $10.00 per square foot; while the fee for R&D development would increase from $3.20 per square foot to $10.00 per square foot.) The single exception to the fee increases is office and R&D development in San Rafael, which would experience a slight decrease from $10.32 per square foot to $10.00 per square foot.
15 A provision in AB 602 discourages jurisdictions from assessing impact fees on any basis other than square feet of floor area. All fees proposed in the unified fee schedule are based on this standard.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
375
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 41
FIGURE 27: SUMMARY OF CURRENT COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES AND THE UNIFIED PROPOSED FEE LEVELS FOR ALL

SEVEN JURISDICTIONS
Jurisdiction
Program
Effective
Since
Current Fee Levels (per
equivalent square foot)[a]
Revenues
Collected
Unified Fee Proposal
(per square foot)
Corte Madera 2001
Office: $4.79
R&D: $3.20
Retail: $8.38
Restaurant: $4.39
Hotel: $1.20
$381,516 since
April 2018
Office/Medical Office/
R&D: $10.00
Retail/Restaurants/
Services:
- $8.00 (up to
2,500 square feet)
- $10.00 (more
than 2,500 square
feet)
Hotel: $5.00
Fairfax no current policy
Larkspur no current policy
San Anselmo no current policy
San Rafael 2005
Office/R&D: $10.32
Retail/Restaurant/
Services: $7.74
Hotel: $2.58
See Note [b], below.
$2,556,106
since inception
Sausalito no current policy
Unincorporated
Marin County 2003
Office/R&D: $7.19
Retail/Restaurant/
Services: $5.40
Hotel: $2.84 [c]
$38,680 since
2019
[a] In some jurisdictions, linkage fees may exist for other land uses outside the scope of this study. Only the relevant fees are shown. [b] San Rafael’s fees are defined as a percentage of the inclusionary in-lieu fee. [c] Marin County’s fee $1,745 per room. This figure was converted to a value per square foot assuming a hotel development will average 615 square feet of gross building area per room.

Sources: Town of Corte Madera, 2022; City of San Rafael, 2022; County of Marin, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
376
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 42
FIGURE 28: AVERAGE ANNUAL COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE REVENUES BY JURISDICTION HAVING A FEE PROGRAM

CURRENTLY IN PLACE
Sources: Town of Corte Madera, 2022; City of San Rafael, 2022; County of Marin, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022.

Potential Fee Revenues under the Unified Fee Program
Figure 29 shows the potential fees that could be generated, along with the potential affordable housing funding that could be leveraged, over a five year period if the fee levels recommended above were adopted. Based on the past pace of new development and the development pipeline, the Consultant Team established very approximate numbers for the volume of development that could take place over a five year period once commercial real estate markets recover from the pandemic.16 Potential fee revenues are on the order of $2.6 million across all jurisdictions. If every dollar in local contributions to affordable housing were able to attract three dollars from other funding sources, approximately $10 million in affordable housing funds could be generated or leveraged through the recommended commercial linkage fees. This three to one leveraging assumption is based on a recent study that found that local contributions for affordable housing projects in the Bay Area accounted for 23 percent of total project costs on average.17 Note that in Marin County, the leveraging ratio may be higher because local jurisdictions tend to have more limited funding for affordable housing. 16 The development estimates in Figure 29 are illustrative of past trends and the development pipeline and do not represent a formal demand estimate.
17 This leveraging ratio will be updated as new information is available. See SPUR, “Housing as Infrastructure,” April 2021, https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2021-04/SPUR_Housing_as_Infrastructure_0.pdf. $84,781
$144,006
$10,315
Corte Madera San Rafael Unincorporated Marin County
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
377
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 43
FIGURE 29: POTENTIAL FEE REVENUES AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDS LEVERAGED OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD Land Use
Unified Fee
Proposal
Potential Development
Areawide over Five Years
[a]
Potential
Commercial
Linkage Fee
Revenues
Office / Medical Office / R&D $10 /sf 100,000 sf $1,000,000 Retail /Restaurants /Services
$8 /sf
(up to 2,500
square feet)
$10 /sf
(more than 2,500
square feet)
35,000 sf $315,000 [b]
Hotel $5 /sf 250,000 sf
(400 rooms) $1,250,000
Subtotal Commercial Linkage Fee Local Revenues $2,565,000 Potential New Affordable Housing Funds Leveraged from Other Sources (3:1 ratio) [c] $7,695,000 Total Potential New Affordable Housing Funds $10,260,000 Notes:
(a) For office/medical office/R&D and retail/restaurants/services, the development estimates are drawn from the pace of new development between 2011 and 2020. For hotel, the Consultant Team reviewed planned and proposed projects and estimated 400 rooms at approximately 615 square feet of gross building area per room. (b) Assumes half of new retail/restaurants/services developments are 2,500 square feet or less and half of new developments are more than 2,500 square feet.
(c) Assumes that every dollar in local revenues leverages another three dollars in other subsidies, including tax credit equity, federal sources, state sources, and other funds. Actual leveraging will vary by project.

Sources: Costar, 2011-2020; Participating Jurisdictions, 2020; Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Justification for New Fee Levels
AB 602 requires the nexus study for a new fee to “identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate” (Government Code § 66016.5).

In this study, Strategic Economics defined level of service as the ratio of deed-restricted, “family” affordable units within a jurisdiction to the number of worker households associated with employment in that jurisdiction (see below).

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
378
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 44
𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑆𝑆 𝑒𝑒 𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 =
𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓 𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢
𝑤𝑤 𝑤𝑤 ℎ𝑜𝑜 ℎ𝑜𝑜 = 𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 𝑓𝑓 𝑎𝑎 𝑎𝑎 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢
� 𝑤𝑤 𝑤𝑤
𝑎𝑎. 𝑤𝑤 𝑤𝑤 𝑝𝑝 ℎ𝑜𝑜 ℎ𝑜𝑜 𝑀𝑀 𝐶𝐶 .
�
Only family affordable units were counted because the workers associated with new commercial development are most likely to be family households, rather than, for example, seniors or disabled people applying for subsidized housing. This number was then compared to worker households because households is the standard unit of demand for housing. The number of worker households is estimated as the total employment in the jurisdiction divided by the average number of workers per household in Marin County. As mentioned in the first section of this report, the average workers per household in Marin County is 1.60.

Strategic Economics calculated the current level of service for family affordable housing for the seven jurisdictions as shown in Figure 30. The level of service over all jurisdictions is 0.035, ranging from

0.011 in Sausalito and San Anselmo, to 0.057 in the Unincorporated County. Larger communities such as San Rafael, Corte Madera, and Larkspur, which have had a more comprehensive set of affordable housing tools, generally have a higher proportion of family affordable housing than the smaller communities that are exploring inclusionary and commercial linkage fee programs for the first time.

FIGURE 30: FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING, EMPLOYMENT, EMPLOYEE HOUSEHOLDS, AND CURRENT LEVEL OF

SERVICE FOR THE SEVEN JURISDICTIONS
Jurisdiction
Deed-restricted
Family
Affordable
Housing [a]
Total
Employment [b]
Total Worker
Households
[c] = [b] /

1.60 Level of
Service =
[a] / [c]
Corte Madera

130

6,482

4,051

0.032
Fairfax

29 1,806

1,129

0.026
Larkspur

150

6,730

4,206

0.036
San Anselmo

21 3,113

1,946

0.011
San Rafael

780

39,218

24,511

0.032
Sausalito

38 5,627

3,517

0.011
Unincorporated County

561

15,695

9,809

0.057
Total All Seven Jurisdictions 1,709 78,671 49,169 0.035 Sources: [a] Family affordable housing developments supplied by the County of Marin, 2022; Inclusionary affordable units from Marin Housing Authority, 2022; [b] Employment data from U.S. Census Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, 2019; Strategic Economics, 2022.

Next, Strategic Economics calculated the level of service associated with the current and proposed commercial linkage fees, or the number of family affordable units that could be funded per worker household created by new development. This calculation accounts for the employment created by new development for each use, the fee revenues that would be generated, and the affordability gap for Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
379
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 45
each use that would need to be filled with the fee revenues. Figure 31 shows a comparison of the level of service metrics for each jurisdiction and for the current and proposed fee programs.

As mentioned earlier, the fees would increase above their current level in nearly all cases and, therefore, would represent an increase in the level of service above any current fee program (or, in the case of four jurisdictions, no current fee program). This increase in level of service is justified for the following reasons:
• Areawide, the level of service associated with the proposed fee program is commensurate with and, in some cases, even below the level of service already supplied by each jurisdiction’s current inventory of family affordable housing. Figure 32 shows a comparison of the current level of service aggregated across all seven jurisdictions with the level of service that would accompany each of the proposed fees. The areawide level of service is 0.035 while the fees have a level of service ranging from 0.013 to 0.030. Further, the proposed fee levels are not placing an undue burden on nonresidential development because they represent only a small fraction of the development’s full impact on housing demand. • The cost of housing development, including affordable housing, has increased significantly since the inception of the current fee programs. Higher fees are needed to cover these escalating costs. For example, while the unincorporated County is considering raising its fees by between 39 percent (for office, medical office, and R&D uses) and 76 percent (hotel), the affordability gap has increased significantly more since the nexus study was performed for the current fee program in 2002. As shown in Figure 33, the affordability gap has increased by 283 percent for Very Low Income households, 371 percent for Low Income households, and 936 percent for Moderate Income households.
• State mandates will require a rapid acceleration in the production of family affordable housing in Marin County. The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for Moderate, Low, and Very Low Income households will increase significantly for the upcoming RHNA cycle. Area-wide, the allocations add up to a more than six-fold increase over the last cycle (see Figure 34), while the allocations by jurisdiction have been tied more directly to projected job growth than in past RHNA cycles. A substantial contribution from nonresidential developers is needed to help meet these goals.

In summary, the fee program as proposed by the jurisdictions will accomplish two objectives. First, the unified fee proposal will level the playing field for developers, ensuring they are charged the same fee across all jurisdictions. Secondly, the fee levels are set such that the revenue is sufficient to support new affordable housing development in cities that are expected to experience continued job growth over the next RHNA cycle. Most commercial development and accompanying job growth is expected to occur in San Rafael, and to a lesser extent in Larkspur and Corte Madera.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
380

Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 46
FIGURE 31: LEVEL OF SERVICE COMPARISON JURISDICTION-WIDE AND FOR THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEES Level of Service - Office Fees Level of Service - Retail Fees Level of Service - Hotel Fees
Jurisdiction
Total Current
Level of Service
Jurisdictionwide Current Proposed Current Proposed <
2,500 sf)
Proposed >
2,500 sf Current Proposed
Corte Madera

0.032

0.012

0.030

0.011

0.013

0.017

0.004

0.019
Fairfax

0.026

0.030

0.013

0.017

0.019
Larkspur

0.036

0.030

0.013

0.017

0.019
San Anselmo

0.011

0.030

0.013

0.017

0.019
San Rafael

0.032

0.031

0.030

0.013

0.017

0.010

0.019
Sausalito

0.011

0.030

0.013

0.017

0.019
Unincorporated
County

0.057

0.022

0.030

0.009

0.013

0.017

0.011

0.019
Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
381
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 47
FIGURE 32: CURRENT LEVEL OF SERVICE ACROSS ALL JURISDICTIONS AND LEVEL OF SERVICE OF PROPOSED FEES Source: Strategic Economics, 2022.

FIGURE 33: AFFORDABILITY GAP IN MARIN COUNTY FOR VERY LOW, LOW, AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, 2002 AND 2020

Source: David Paul Rosen and Associates, 2002; Strategic Economics, 2020.

0.035

0.030

0.013

0.017

0.019
Current Level of
Service Areawide
Proposed Fee Level
of Service (Office)
Proposed Fee Level
of Service (Retail <
8000 sf)
Proposed Fee Level
of Service (Retail >
8000 sf)
Proposed Fee Level
of Service (Hotel)
$127,700
$82,600
$19,200
$489,529
$389,320
$198,925
Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income
2002 2020
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
382
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 48
FIGURE 34: REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATIONS FOR VERY LOW, LOW, AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLDS,

FIFTH AND SIXTH CYCLES
Source: Department of Housing and Community Development, 2022; Strategic Economics, 2022. 0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
5th Cycle (2015-2023) 6th Cycle (2023-2031)
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
383
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 49
Data Tables: Occupational Wage by Land Use Prototype
Figures 35-37 provide the full detail of the occupations associated with each land use, and their respective average wages. As a part of Step 4, this data is used to calculate the weighted average wage for each land use prototype (Figure 7).

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
384
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 50
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
11-0000 Management Occupations
11-1021 General and Operations Managers $155,850 2.404% 11-3021 Computer and Information Systems Managers $201,960 1.131% 11-3031 Financial Managers $182,190 1.016%
11-9198
Personal Service Managers, All Other; Entertainment
and Recreation Managers, Except Gambling; and
Managers, All Other $168,900 0.594%
11-2021 Marketing Managers $181,720 0.585%
11-9111 Medical and Health Services Managers $142,760 0.507% 11-2022 Sales Managers $159,720 0.504%
11-3010 Administrative Services and Facilities Managers $132,020 0.365% 11-3121 Human Resources Managers $163,810 0.295%
11-1011 Chief Executives $236,060 0.288%
11-9041 Architectural and Engineering Managers $186,500 0.270% 11-3061 Purchasing Managers $154,870 0.117%
11-2030 Public Relations and Fundraising Managers $142,950 0.104% 11-3071 Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers $123,910 0.098% 11-9151 Social and Community Service Managers $73,210 0.087% 11-9021 Construction Managers $134,880 0.082%
11-3051 Industrial Production Managers $140,910 0.082%
11-9051 Food Service Managers $63,460 0.074%
11-3131 Training and Development Managers $152,380 0.072% 11-9121 Natural Sciences Managers $208,910 0.067%
11-9141
Property, Real Estate, and Community Association
Managers $92,930 0.061%
11-3111 Compensation and Benefits Managers $170,770 0.041% 11-2011 Advertising and Promotions Managers $175,210 0.040% 11-9039 Education Administrators, All Other $92,160 0.010% 11-9031
Education and Childcare Administrators, Preschool
and Daycare $70,080 0.008%
11-9081 Lodging Managers $104,250 0.006%
11-9032
Education Administrators, Kindergarten through
Secondary $129,070 0.004%
11-9033 Education Administrators, Postsecondary $130,980 0.003% 11-9161 Emergency Management Directors $132,440 0.003%
11-9013 Farmers, Ranchers, and Other Agricultural Managers n/a 0.002% 11-9071 Gambling Managers $125,300 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $166,968 8.921%

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
385
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 51
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
13-0000 Business and Financial Operations Occupations
13-2011 Accountants and Auditors $93,590 2.418%
13-1111 Management Analysts $113,750 1.667%
13-1198
Project Management Specialists and Business
Operations Specialists, All Other $93,010 1.648%
13-1161
Market Research Analysts and Marketing
Specialists $91,350 1.294%
13-1071 Human Resources Specialists $89,820 1.023%
13-2098
Financial and Investment Analysts, Financial Risk
Specialists, and Financial Specialists, All Other $119,100 0.681% 13-1020 Buyers and Purchasing Agents $79,040 0.459%
13-1151 Training and Development Specialists $83,550 0.410% 13-1041 Compliance Officers $92,960 0.299%
13-1081 Logisticians $82,010 0.269%
13-1031 Claims Adjusters, Examiners, and Investigators $88,480 0.221% 13-2082 Tax Preparers $72,280 0.210%
13-2072 Loan Officers $84,940 0.184%
13-1141
Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis
Specialists $83,230 0.174%
13-1121 Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners $67,530 0.102% 13-2053 Insurance Underwriters $97,260 0.090%
13-2041 Credit Analysts $109,330 0.087%
13-1051 Cost Estimators $98,960 0.082%
13-2052 Personal Financial Advisors $157,720 0.062%
13-1131 Fundraisers $77,450 0.060%
13-2061 Financial Examiners $124,720 0.057%
13-1075 Labor Relations Specialists $86,370 0.057%
13-2031 Budget Analysts $93,800 0.051%
13-2071 Credit Counselors $53,010 0.028%
13-2020 Property Appraisers and Assessors $98,450 0.013% 13-1032 Insurance Appraisers, Auto Damage $72,630 0.009% 13-1011
Agents and Business Managers of Artists,
Performers, and Athletes $83,260 0.003%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $95,541 11.657%
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
15-1256
Software Developers and Software Quality
Assurance Analysts and Testers $145,250 4.036%
15-1211 Computer Systems Analysts $121,300 1.649%
15-1232 Computer User Support Specialists $75,640 1.418% 15-1299 Computer Occupations, All Other $120,370 0.860% 15-1244 Network and Computer Systems Administrators $104,370 0.745% 15-1251 Computer Programmers $116,400 0.597%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
386
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 52
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
15-1241 Computer Network Architects $137,720 0.405%
15-1231 Computer Network Support Specialists $85,990 0.367% 15-1212 Information Security Analysts $122,570 0.353%
15-1257 Web Developers and Digital Interface Designers $110,790 0.338% 15-1245 Database Administrators and Architects $107,930 0.266% 15-2031 Operations Research Analysts $116,910 0.199%
15-2098
Data Scientists and Mathematical Science
Occupations, All Other $140,080 0.079%
15-2041 Statisticians $125,970 0.062%
15-1221 Computer and Information Research Scientists $142,150 0.060% 15-2011 Actuaries $116,500 0.036%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $121,679 11.473%
17-0000 Architecture and Engineering Occupations
17-2051 Civil Engineers $120,110 0.466%
17-2141 Mechanical Engineers $123,270 0.313%
17-2071 Electrical Engineers $120,990 0.234%
17-1011 Architects, Except Landscape and Naval $103,530 0.228% 17-2112 Industrial Engineers $113,920 0.210%
17-3011 Architectural and Civil Drafters $67,050 0.190% 17-2199 Engineers, All Other $113,050 0.181%
17-2061 Computer Hardware Engineers $134,000 0.137%
17-2072 Electronics Engineers, Except Computer $112,800 0.110% 17-3023
Electrical and Electronic Engineering
Technologists and Technicians $67,200 0.108%
17-2081 Environmental Engineers $112,830 0.100%
17-3031 Surveying and Mapping Technicians $76,380 0.092% 17-3022 Civil Engineering Technologists and Technicians $75,160 0.086% 17-3098
Calibration Technologists and Technicians and
Engineering Technologists and Technicians,
Except Drafters, All Other $75,070 0.086%
17-1022 Surveyors $88,860 0.085%
17-1012 Landscape Architects $94,750 0.064%
17-2011 Aerospace Engineers $135,230 0.054%
17-3013 Mechanical Drafters $71,180 0.047%
17-3027
Mechanical Engineering Technologists and
Technicians $61,100 0.046%
17-3025
Environmental Engineering Technologists and
Technicians $60,630 0.033%
17-3026
Industrial Engineering Technologists and
Technicians $61,050 0.028%
17-3012 Electrical and Electronics Drafters $65,810 0.028% 17-2041 Chemical Engineers $106,430 0.024%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
387
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 53
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
17-2111
Health and Safety Engineers, Except Mining
Safety Engineers and Inspectors $114,800 0.024%
17-2131 Materials Engineers $104,560 0.021%
17-1021 Cartographers and Photogrammetrists $105,970 0.014% 17-3019 Drafters, All Other $73,450 0.014%
17-2031 Bioengineers and Biomedical Engineers $119,000 0.013% 17-2121 Marine Engineers and Naval Architects $136,480 0.010% 17-3024
Electro-Mechanical and Mechatronics
Technologists and Technicians $61,190 0.008%
17-2151
Mining and Geological Engineers, Including
Mining Safety Engineers $132,720 0.008%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $101,626 3.146%
19-0000 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations
19-2041
Environmental Scientists and Specialists,
Including Health $109,180 0.149%
19-1042 Medical Scientists, Except Epidemiologists $120,470 0.095% 19-3031 Clinical, Counseling, and School Psychologists $110,070 0.091% 19-5011 Occupational Health and Safety Specialists $108,230 0.072% 19-4042
Environmental Science and Protection
Technicians, Including Health $58,010 0.060%
19-4099
Life, Physical, and Social Science Technicians, All
Other $61,390 0.055%
19-4031 Chemical Technicians $55,980 0.054%
19-4021 Biological Technicians $60,040 0.042%
19-1021 Biochemists and Biophysicists $124,400 0.033%
19-1029 Biological Scientists, All Other $108,200 0.030% 19-4061 Social Science Research Assistants $54,210 0.024% 19-3011 Economists $133,180 0.024%
19-5012 Occupational Health and Safety Technicians $62,820 0.017% 19-1013 Soil and Plant Scientists $77,070 0.017%
19-3051 Urban and Regional Planners $105,370 0.016%
19-4010 Agricultural and Food Science Technicians $46,060 0.015% 19-1012 Food Scientists and Technologists $90,860 0.015% 19-2012 Physicists $134,500 0.014%
19-3091 Anthropologists and Archeologists $69,480 0.013% 19-3022 Survey Researchers $89,020 0.013%
19-1022 Microbiologists $104,580 0.013%
19-3099 Social Scientists and Related Workers, All Other $90,120 0.012% 19-1023 Zoologists and Wildlife Biologists $75,320 0.012% 19-2099 Physical Scientists, All Other $127,650 0.010%
19-2043 Hydrologists $108,850 0.010%
19-2021 Atmospheric and Space Scientists $114,370 0.009% Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
388
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 54
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
19-1031 Conservation Scientists $83,700 0.009%
19-2032 Materials Scientists $119,470 0.008%
19-3039 Psychologists, All Other $106,870 0.007%
19-1032 Foresters $93,760 0.004%
19-4071 Forest and Conservation Technicians $47,410 0.003% 19-1041 Epidemiologists $107,760 0.002%
19-3041 Sociologists $101,420 0.001%
19-4092 Forensic Science Technicians $103,940 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $81,448 1.104%
21-0000 Community and Social Service Occupations
21-1018
Substance Abuse, Behavioral Disorder, and
Mental Health Counselors $60,290 0.449%
21-1093 Social and Human Service Assistants $48,800 0.222% 21-1023
Mental Health and Substance Abuse Social
Workers $77,630 0.181%
21-1022 Healthcare Social Workers $86,560 0.128%
21-1021 Child, Family, and School Social Workers $61,900 0.085% 21-1013 Marriage and Family Therapists $63,470 0.075%
21-1094 Community Health Workers $55,350 0.064%
21-1091 Health Education Specialists $72,560 0.059%
21-1099
Community and Social Service Specialists, All
Other $59,510 0.038%
21-1015 Rehabilitation Counselors $50,320 0.038%
21-1012
Educational, Guidance, and Career Counselors
and Advisors $78,220 0.027%
21-1019 Counselors, All Other $66,150 0.013%
21-1029 Social Workers, All Other $80,980 0.011%
21-2011 Clergy $72,730 0.007%
21-2021 Directors, Religious Activities and Education $67,180 0.003% 21-2099 Religious Workers, All Other $48,670 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $64,024 1.403%
23-0000 Legal Occupations
23-1011 Lawyers $188,910 1.158%
23-2011 Paralegals and Legal Assistants $71,360 0.662%
23-2093 Title Examiners, Abstractors, and Searchers $59,890 0.064% 23-2099 Legal Support Workers, All Other $61,510 0.035% 23-1022 Arbitrators, Mediators, and Conciliators $114,800 0.004% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $141,697 1.923%
25-0000 Educational Instruction and Library Occupations Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
389
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 55
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
25-3031 Substitute Teachers, Short-Term $42,940 0.079%
25-9045 Teaching Assistants, Except Postsecondary $39,730 0.046% 25-9031 Instructional Coordinators $77,090 0.041%
25-3021 Self-Enrichment Teachers $53,730 0.038%
25-3097 Tutors and Teachers and Instructors, All Other $50,800 0.030% 25-2011 Preschool Teachers, Except Special Education $45,050 0.024% 25-2059 Special Education Teachers, All Other $66,210 0.011% 25-4022 Librarians and Media Collections Specialists $89,390 0.010% 25-9099
Educational Instruction and Library Workers, All
Other $61,100 0.009%
25-1194
Career/Technical Education Teachers,
Postsecondary $87,990 0.007%
25-4031 Library Technicians $58,980 0.005%
25-3011
Adult Basic Education, Adult Secondary
Education, and English as a Second Language
Instructors $94,920 0.002%
25-2051 Special Education Teachers, Preschool $62,550 0.002% 25-1071 Health Specialties Teachers, Postsecondary $115,900 0.002% 25-4011 Archivists $81,730 0.001%
25-2058 Special Education Teachers, Secondary School $93,110 0.001% 25-2031
Secondary School Teachers, Except Special and
Career/Technical Education $93,350 0.001%
25-2052
Special Education Teachers, Kindergarten and
Elementary School $73,540 0.001%
25-9044 Teaching Assistants, Postsecondary $33,880 0.001% 25-2021
Elementary School Teachers, Except Special
Education $84,040 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $54,651 0.318%
27-0000
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Occupations
27-3031 Public Relations Specialists $84,520 0.274%
27-1024 Graphic Designers $77,110 0.257%
27-3042 Technical Writers $102,500 0.109%
27-1026 Merchandise Displayers and Window Trimmers $38,480 0.102% 27-3041 Editors $86,530 0.091%
27-1025 Interior Designers $72,240 0.068%
27-1011 Art Directors $135,970 0.063%
27-3043 Writers and Authors $93,060 0.062%
27-4021 Photographers $61,530 0.056%
27-3091 Interpreters and Translators $78,250 0.055%
27-1014 Special Effects Artists and Animators $97,570 0.047% 27-2012 Producers and Directors $104,520 0.045%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
390
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 56
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
27-1021 Commercial and Industrial Designers $87,530 0.039% 27-1022 Fashion Designers $89,400 0.029%
27-4011 Audio and Video Technicians $64,140 0.026%
27-3023 News Analysts, Reporters, and Journalists $81,080 0.017% 27-1029 Designers, All Other $91,810 0.014%
27-2022 Coaches and Scouts $48,900 0.013%
27-3099 Media and Communication Workers, All Other $63,270 0.009% 27-4032 Film and Video Editors $83,100 0.007%
27-4031 Camera Operators, Television, Video, and Film $59,160 0.005% 27-1023 Floral Designers $39,920 0.005%
27-1013
Fine Artists, Including Painters, Sculptors, and
Illustrators $85,980 0.004%
27-4098
Lighting Technicians and Media and
Communication Equipment Workers, All Other $60,610 0.003% 27-2023 Umpires, Referees, and Other Sports Officials $38,360 0.003% 27-4014 Sound Engineering Technicians $70,470 0.002%
27-1027 Set and Exhibit Designers $60,530 0.002%
27-1019 Artists and Related Workers, All Other $93,840 0.001% 27-1012 Craft Artists $59,460 0.001%
27-4012 Broadcast Technicians $57,390 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $81,665 1.421%
29-0000
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical
Occupations
29-1141 Registered Nurses $138,000 1.900%
29-1228
Physicians, All Other; and Ophthalmologists,
Except Pediatric $173,990 0.831%
29-1292 Dental Hygienists $113,940 0.701%
29-2098
Medical Dosimetrists, Medical Records
Specialists, and Health Technologists and
Technicians, All Other $58,370 0.682%
29-2061
Licensed Practical and Licensed Vocational
Nurses $69,490 0.592%
29-1171 Nurse Practitioners $157,150 0.510%
29-1021 Dentists, General $169,730 0.349%
29-1215 Family Medicine Physicians $213,960 0.343%
29-1071 Physician Assistants $126,810 0.330%
29-2034 Radiologic Technologists and Technicians $103,670 0.253% 29-2010 Clinical Laboratory Technologists and Technicians $65,210 0.216% 29-1123 Physical Therapists $102,470 0.211%
29-2057 Ophthalmic Medical Technicians $52,660 0.173%
29-2056 Veterinary Technologists and Technicians $46,670 0.155% 29-2055 Surgical Technologists $72,790 0.119%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
391
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 57
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
29-1216 General Internal Medicine Physicians $227,810 0.116% 29-1248 Surgeons, Except Ophthalmologists $256,870 0.108% 29-1151 Nurse Anesthetists $254,860 0.105%
29-1131 Veterinarians $113,930 0.104%
29-1221 Pediatricians, General $213,530 0.093%
29-1051 Pharmacists $148,390 0.093%
29-2052 Pharmacy Technicians $51,090 0.092%
29-1122 Occupational Therapists $103,740 0.086%
29-2081 Opticians, Dispensing $50,840 0.082%
29-2032 Diagnostic Medical Sonographers $115,280 0.081% 29-1127 Speech-Language Pathologists $97,500 0.073%
29-1041 Optometrists $125,680 0.068%
29-1031 Dietitians and Nutritionists $87,890 0.065%
29-9098
Health Information Technologists, Medical
Registrars, Surgical Assistants, and Healthcare
Practitioners and Technical Workers, All Other $81,080 0.064% 29-1218 Obstetricians and Gynecologists $223,430 0.059% 29-1223 Psychiatrists $257,150 0.055%
29-1011 Chiropractors $79,240 0.052%
29-2053 Psychiatric Technicians $54,930 0.044%
29-2031 Cardiovascular Technologists and Technicians $75,720 0.037% 29-2035 Magnetic Resonance Imaging Technologists $104,870 0.029% 29-2040 Emergency Medical Technicians and Paramedics $54,180 0.028% 29-1298
Acupuncturists and Healthcare Diagnosing or
Treating Practitioners, All Other $76,670 0.028%
29-1126 Respiratory Therapists $97,950 0.027%
29-1124 Radiation Therapists $142,300 0.025%
29-1181 Audiologists $102,560 0.023%
29-9091 Athletic Trainers $60,150 0.022%
29-1161 Nurse Midwives $156,450 0.018%
29-1081 Podiatrists $132,380 0.016%
29-2033 Nuclear Medicine Technologists $124,660 0.014%
29-1129 Therapists, All Other $62,790 0.011%
29-2091 Orthotists and Prosthetists $81,090 0.007%
29-1125 Recreational Therapists $74,200 0.005%
29-2051 Dietetic Technicians $39,770 0.004%
29-2092 Hearing Aid Specialists $66,050 0.004%
29-9092 Genetic Counselors $108,000 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $124,379 9.259%
31-0000 Healthcare Support Occupations
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
392
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 58
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
31-9092 Medical Assistants $48,920 2.108%
31-9091 Dental Assistants $51,510 1.095%
31-1120 Home Health and Personal Care Aides $30,320 0.255% 31-1131 Nursing Assistants $45,100 0.239%
31-9096
Veterinary Assistants and Laboratory Animal
Caretakers $36,590 0.134%
31-2021 Physical Therapist Assistants $63,110 0.095%
31-9094 Medical Transcriptionists $50,060 0.086%
31-9097 Phlebotomists $54,040 0.059%
31-2022 Physical Therapist Aides $35,520 0.059%
31-9011 Massage Therapists $50,560 0.052%
31-9093 Medical Equipment Preparers $60,670 0.047%
31-9099 Healthcare Support Workers, All Other $50,950 0.043% 31-2011 Occupational Therapy Assistants $73,400 0.037%
31-1133 Psychiatric Aides $30,930 0.015%
31-1132 Orderlies $44,730 0.011%
31-9095 Pharmacy Aides $46,430 0.010%
31-2012 Occupational Therapy Aides $47,740 0.007%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $48,408 4.353%
33-0000 Protective Service Occupations
33-9032 Security Guards $38,580 1.039%
33-1090
Miscellaneous First-Line Supervisors, Protective
Service Workers $61,530 0.064%
33-9021 Private Detectives and Investigators $78,150 0.045% 33-9092
Lifeguards, Ski Patrol, and Other Recreational
Protective Service Workers $31,600 0.031%
33-9091 Crossing Guards and Flaggers $52,400 0.031%
33-2011 Firefighters $98,680 0.016%
33-9098
School Bus Monitors and Protective Service
Workers, All Other $49,650 0.016%
33-9011 Animal Control Workers $51,070 0.002%
33-1021
First-Line Supervisors of Firefighting and
Prevention Workers $166,930 0.002%
33-2021 Fire Inspectors and Investigators $119,380 0.001% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $42,511 1.246%
35-0000
Food Preparation and Serving Related
Occupations
35-3011 Bartenders $37,310 0.068%
35-3031 Waiters and Waitresses $37,810 0.062%
35-3023 Fast Food and Counter Workers $31,610 0.057%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
393
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 59
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
35-1012
First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and
Serving Workers $44,560 0.052%
35-2021 Food Preparation Workers $31,820 0.030%
35-2014 Cooks, Restaurant $38,430 0.024%
35-2012 Cooks, Institution and Cafeteria $40,710 0.022% 35-9021 Dishwashers $31,680 0.017%
35-9011
Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and
Bartender Helpers $35,040 0.015%
35-1011 Chefs and Head Cooks $63,740 0.012%
35-3041 Food Servers, Nonrestaurant $35,200 0.009%
35-2015 Cooks, Short Order $34,460 0.003%
35-9031
Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and
Coffee Shop $34,520 0.002%
35-2011 Cooks, Fast Food $27,060 0.001%
35-9099
Food Preparation and Serving Related Workers,
All Other $31,250 0.001%
35-2019 Cooks, All Other $40,740 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $37,675 0.377%
37-0000
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance
Occupations
37-2011
Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and
Housekeeping Cleaners $38,870 7.030%
37-3011 Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers $43,940 4.364% 37-2012 Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners $41,430 0.880%
37-2021 Pest Control Workers $47,050 0.584%
37-1012
First-Line Supervisors of Landscaping, Lawn
Service, and Groundskeeping Workers $68,600 0.529%
37-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and
Janitorial Workers $53,550 0.431%
37-3013 Tree Trimmers and Pruners $49,440 0.316%
37-2019 Building Cleaning Workers, All Other $32,430 0.107% 37-3012
Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators,
Vegetation $79,020 0.097%
37-3019 Grounds Maintenance Workers, All Other $54,060 0.020% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $42,914 14.358%
39-0000 Personal Care and Service Occupations
39-2021 Animal Caretakers $34,130 0.074%
39-9031 Exercise Trainers and Group Fitness Instructors $59,340 0.073% 39-9011 Childcare Workers $35,590 0.069%
39-9032 Recreation Workers $36,490 0.067%
39-1098
First-Line Supervisors of Personal Service and
Entertainment and Recreation Workers, Except
Gambling Services $54,240 0.031%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
394
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 60
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
39-5094 Skincare Specialists $37,640 0.028%
39-9041 Residential Advisors $42,720 0.018%
39-3091 Amusement and Recreation Attendants $29,650 0.015% 39-9098
Crematory Operators and Personal Care and
Service Workers, All Other $35,060 0.011%
39-7010 Tour and Travel Guides $42,380 0.009%
39-6011 Baggage Porters and Bellhops $33,390 0.008%
39-3031 Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers $33,520 0.008% 39-6012 Concierges $44,060 0.006%
39-5012 Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists $35,410 0.003% 39-3012 Gambling and Sports Book Writers and Runners $32,190 0.002% 39-3093
Locker Room, Coatroom, and Dressing Room
Attendants $41,030 0.001%
39-3019 Gambling Service Workers, All Other $35,260 0.001% 39-2011 Animal Trainers $42,320 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $41,279 0.426%
41-0000 Sales and Related Occupations
41-3091
Sales Representatives of Services, Except
Advertising, Insurance, Financial Services, and
Travel $81,320 1.469%
41-3021 Insurance Sales Agents $109,960 0.419%
41-4012
Sales Representatives, Wholesale and
Manufacturing, Except Technical and Scientific
Products $81,830 0.379%
41-4011
Sales Representatives, Wholesale and
Manufacturing, Technical and Scientific Products $104,680 0.285% 41-2031 Retail Salespersons $34,810 0.171%
41-1012
First-Line Supervisors of Non-Retail Sales
Workers $77,590 0.162%
41-3031
Securities, Commodities, and Financial Services
Sales Agents $101,770 0.139%
41-3011 Advertising Sales Agents $92,720 0.122%
41-9031 Sales Engineers $125,730 0.099%
41-9011 Demonstrators and Product Promoters $36,560 0.078% 41-9041 Telemarketers $33,420 0.072%
41-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers $46,980 0.059% 41-2011 Cashiers $32,150 0.051%
41-3041 Travel Agents $53,520 0.046%
41-9022 Real Estate Sales Agents $71,070 0.037%
41-2021 Counter and Rental Clerks $40,320 0.022%
41-2022 Parts Salespersons $45,260 0.007%
41-2012 Gambling Change Persons and Booth Cashiers $32,010 0.000% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $81,059 3.685%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
395
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 61
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
43-0000 Office and Administrative Support Occupations
43-4051 Customer Service Representatives $49,200 2.549% 43-9061 Office Clerks, General $46,920 2.493%
43-4171 Receptionists and Information Clerks $39,990 1.818% 43-3031 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks $54,980 1.729% 43-6014
Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except
Legal, Medical, and Executive $51,170 1.697%
43-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Office and
Administrative Support Workers $71,190 1.447%
43-6013
Medical Secretaries and Administrative
Assistants $49,140 1.382%
43-3021 Billing and Posting Clerks $50,120 0.988%
43-6011
Executive Secretaries and Executive
Administrative Assistants $82,480 0.628%
43-6012 Legal Secretaries and Administrative Assistants $69,990 0.332% 43-9041 Insurance Claims and Policy Processing Clerks $53,480 0.268% 43-5061 Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks $63,180 0.262% 43-3011 Bill and Account Collectors $55,830 0.244%
43-3051 Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks $63,280 0.214%
43-4111 Interviewers, Except Eligibility and Loan $55,180 0.207% 43-9021 Data Entry Keyers $41,790 0.194%
43-5071 Shipping, Receiving, and Inventory Clerks $42,910 0.189% 43-4131 Loan Interviewers and Clerks $49,770 0.176%
43-4161
Human Resources Assistants, Except Payroll and
Timekeeping $53,370 0.148%
43-9199
Office and Administrative Support Workers, All
Other $45,160 0.146%
43-4071 File Clerks $41,240 0.135%
43-5032 Dispatchers, Except Police, Fire, and Ambulance $54,040 0.074% 43-4199 Information and Record Clerks, All Other $57,150 0.067% 43-9051
Mail Clerks and Mail Machine Operators, Except
Postal Service $39,020 0.061%
43-2011
Switchboard Operators, Including Answering
Service $49,560 0.056%
43-3071 Tellers $36,170 0.052%
43-3061 Procurement Clerks $50,680 0.049%
43-5021 Couriers and Messengers $42,320 0.047%
43-4151 Order Clerks $45,220 0.045%
43-9071 Office Machine Operators, Except Computer $35,990 0.038% 43-3099 Financial Clerks, All Other $47,510 0.032%
43-5011 Cargo and Freight Agents $50,610 0.030%
43-4041 Credit Authorizers, Checkers, and Clerks $47,330 0.026% Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
396
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 62
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
43-5111
Weighers, Measurers, Checkers, and Samplers,
Recordkeeping $41,640 0.024%
43-4141 New Accounts Clerks $44,890 0.019%
43-9022 Word Processors and Typists $63,600 0.016%
43-4011 Brokerage Clerks $61,580 0.014%
43-4061 Eligibility Interviewers, Government Programs $68,450 0.010% 43-9111 Statistical Assistants $54,820 0.010%
43-9031 Desktop Publishers $64,290 0.008%
43-5041 Meter Readers, Utilities $76,620 0.008%
43-9081 Proofreaders and Copy Markers $51,200 0.007%
43-4081 Hotel, Motel, and Resort Desk Clerks $39,440 0.004% 43-2099 Communications Equipment Operators, All Other $65,500 0.004% 43-4031 Court, Municipal, and License Clerks $68,870 0.003% 43-2021 Telephone Operators $48,480 0.003%
43-4121 Library Assistants, Clerical $43,600 0.003%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $52,314 17.996%
45-0000 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
45-2092
Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop, Nursery, and
Greenhouse $37,430 0.023%
45-2093
Farmworkers, Farm, Ranch, and Aquacultural
Animals $35,610 0.006%
45-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Farming, Fishing, and
Forestry Workers $54,120 0.004%
45-2011 Agricultural Inspectors $71,880 0.002%
45-2091 Agricultural Equipment Operators $35,950 0.002% 45-2099 Agricultural Workers, All Other $40,440 0.002%
45-4011 Forest and Conservation Workers $28,010 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $39,878 0.039%
47-0000 Construction and Extraction Occupations
47-2061 Construction Laborers $55,970 0.208%
47-4011 Construction and Building Inspectors $101,820 0.110% 47-2111 Electricians $100,400 0.068%
47-2031 Carpenters $71,490 0.051%
47-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades and
Extraction Workers $99,580 0.048%
47-2152 Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters $87,230 0.034% 47-2073
Operating Engineers and Other Construction
Equipment Operators $86,240 0.020%
47-2051 Cement Masons and Concrete Finishers $65,350 0.011% 47-2141 Painters, Construction and Maintenance $67,770 0.011% 47-2211 Sheet Metal Workers $68,510 0.008%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
397
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 63
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
47-4090 Miscellaneous Construction and Related Workers $63,360 0.007% 47-4041 Hazardous Materials Removal Workers $48,770 0.007% 47-5097
Earth Drillers, Except Oil and Gas; and Explosives
Workers, Ordnance Handling Experts, and
Blasters $64,130 0.006%
47-3019 Helpers, Construction Trades, All Other $36,580 0.003% 47-5022
Excavating and Loading Machine and Dragline
Operators, Surface Mining $91,850 0.003%
47-2181 Roofers $55,100 0.003%
47-2011 Boilermakers $86,630 0.002%
47-2071
Paving, Surfacing, and Tamping Equipment
Operators $63,960 0.001%
47-5081 Helpers--Extraction Workers $48,630 0.001%
47-5012 Rotary Drill Operators, Oil and Gas $112,770 0.001% 47-2221 Structural Iron and Steel Workers $75,630 0.001% 47-3012 Helpers--Carpenters $41,650 0.001%
47-2121 Glaziers $72,550 0.001%
47-2041 Carpet Installers $64,200 0.001%
47-2151 Pipelayers $68,280 0.001%
47-4051 Highway Maintenance Workers $63,210 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $76,185 0.620%
49-0000
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
Occupations
49-9071 Maintenance and Repair Workers, General $56,230 0.473% 49-9099
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Workers,
All Other $55,210 0.152%
49-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers,
and Repairers $89,740 0.113%
49-2098 Security and Fire Alarm Systems Installers $50,410 0.063% 49-2011
Computer, Automated Teller, and Office Machine
Repairers $45,100 0.052%
49-2022
Telecommunications Equipment Installers and
Repairers, Except Line Installers $69,090 0.051%
49-9041 Industrial Machinery Mechanics $78,010 0.036%
49-3053
Outdoor Power Equipment and Other Small
Engine Mechanics $45,750 0.034%
49-3023 Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics $58,630 0.031% 49-3031
Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine
Specialists $68,840 0.027%
49-9052
Telecommunications Line Installers and
Repairers $64,390 0.024%
49-9062 Medical Equipment Repairers $69,330 0.022%
49-3042
Mobile Heavy Equipment Mechanics, Except
Engines $75,510 0.019%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
398
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 64
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
49-2094
Electrical and Electronics Repairers, Commercial
and Industrial Equipment $79,500 0.017%
49-9094 Locksmiths and Safe Repairers $63,770 0.016%
49-9098
Helpers--Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
Workers $37,740 0.015%
49-9021
Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration
Mechanics and Installers $76,480 0.013%
49-9043 Maintenance Workers, Machinery $63,090 0.011%
49-9051 Electrical Power-Line Installers and Repairers $111,740 0.007% 49-9044 Millwrights $82,700 0.007%
49-9012
Control and Valve Installers and Repairers,
Except Mechanical Door $63,770 0.006%
49-2097 Audiovisual Equipment Installers and Repairers $59,500 0.005% 49-3041
Farm Equipment Mechanics and Service
Technicians $42,060 0.005%
49-2091 Avionics Technicians $91,240 0.004%
49-9069
Precision Instrument and Equipment Repairers,
All Other $77,950 0.003%
49-3021 Automotive Body and Related Repairers $57,580 0.003% 49-9091
Coin, Vending, and Amusement Machine
Servicers and Repairers $43,550 0.002%
49-2093
Electrical and Electronics Installers and
Repairers, Transportation Equipment $75,530 0.001%
49-2021
Radio, Cellular, and Tower Equipment Installers
and Repairers $85,700 0.001%
49-9031 Home Appliance Repairers $53,820 0.001%
49-9096 Riggers $73,610 0.001%
49-3093 Tire Repairers and Changers $36,640 0.001%
49-9081 Wind Turbine Service Technicians $62,910 0.001% 49-2092 Electric Motor, Power Tool, and Related Repairers $55,250 0.001% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $60,320 1.246%
51-0000 Production Occupations
51-2090 Miscellaneous Assemblers and Fabricators $43,160 0.454% 51-9061
Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and
Weighers $49,860 0.261%
51-9199 Production Workers, All Other $37,130 0.160%
51-9198 Helpers--Production Workers $34,400 0.146%
51-9111
Packaging and Filling Machine Operators and
Tenders $34,740 0.096%
51-2028
Electrical, Electronic, and Electromechanical
Assemblers, Except Coil Winders, Tapers, and
Finishers $43,800 0.086%
51-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Production and
Operating Workers $76,700 0.084%
51-6011 Laundry and Dry-Cleaning Workers $34,880 0.066% Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
399
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 65
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
51-4041 Machinists $59,690 0.059%
51-4121 Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers $58,600 0.046% 51-5112 Printing Press Operators $43,690 0.039%
51-4081
Multiple Machine Tool Setters, Operators, and
Tenders, Metal and Plastic $39,080 0.033%
51-6099
Textile, Apparel, and Furnishings Workers, All
Other $37,420 0.030%
51-4072
Molding, Coremaking, and Casting Machine
Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and
Plastic $44,990 0.023%
51-3092 Food Batchmakers $35,300 0.018%
51-9081 Dental Laboratory Technicians $43,620 0.018%
51-4031
Cutting, Punching, and Press Machine Setters,
Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic $41,700 0.017% 51-9083 Ophthalmic Laboratory Technicians $43,010 0.016% 51-4199 Metal Workers and Plastic Workers, All Other $49,010 0.014% 51-9161 Computer Numerically Controlled Tool Operators $50,790 0.012% 51-6031 Sewing Machine Operators $32,880 0.010%
51-3022 Meat, Poultry, and Fish Cutters and Trimmers $35,910 0.009% 51-9124
Coating, Painting, and Spraying Machine Setters,
Operators, and Tenders $50,520 0.009%
51-5111 Prepress Technicians and Workers $53,090 0.008% 51-3099 Food Processing Workers, All Other $32,410 0.008% 51-8031
Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant and
System Operators $93,680 0.007%
51-9151
Photographic Process Workers and Processing
Machine Operators $51,650 0.007%
51-3011 Bakers $36,960 0.006%
51-9082 Medical Appliance Technicians $56,910 0.006%
51-4111 Tool and Die Makers $72,410 0.006%
51-9195
Molders, Shapers, and Casters, Except Metal and
Plastic $44,460 0.005%
51-9041
Extruding, Forming, Pressing, and Compacting
Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders $38,720 0.005%
51-9023
Mixing and Blending Machine Setters, Operators,
and Tenders $48,700 0.004%
51-8013 Power Plant Operators $105,500 0.004%
51-2041 Structural Metal Fabricators and Fitters $44,090 0.004% 51-8093
Petroleum Pump System Operators, Refinery
Operators, and Gaugers $90,580 0.004%
51-6092 Fabric and Apparel Patternmakers $44,530 0.004% 51-7011 Cabinetmakers and Bench Carpenters $46,910 0.004% 51-5113 Print Binding and Finishing Workers $39,120 0.004% 51-8021 Stationary Engineers and Boiler Operators $103,370 0.004% 51-9032
Cutting and Slicing Machine Setters, Operators,
and Tenders $44,320 0.003%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
400
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 66
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
51-9011 Chemical Equipment Operators and Tenders $56,050 0.003% 51-4122
Welding, Soldering, and Brazing Machine Setters,
Operators, and Tenders $45,170 0.003%
51-9162
Computer Numerically Controlled Tool
Programmers $81,250 0.003%
51-8099 Plant and System Operators, All Other $79,160 0.002% 51-9071 Jewelers and Precious Stone and Metal Workers $39,560 0.002% 51-7042
Woodworking Machine Setters, Operators, and
Tenders, Except Sawing $35,680 0.002%
51-7041
Sawing Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders,
Wood $31,740 0.002%
51-6093 Upholsterers $46,490 0.002%
51-4035
Milling and Planing Machine Setters, Operators,
and Tenders, Metal and Plastic $51,190 0.002%
51-3093 Food Cooking Machine Operators and Tenders $29,560 0.002% 51-4023
Rolling Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders,
Metal and Plastic $40,960 0.001%
51-9021
Crushing, Grinding, and Polishing Machine
Setters, Operators, and Tenders $37,690 0.001%
51-4022
Forging Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders,
Metal and Plastic $46,780 0.001%
51-7021 Furniture Finishers $35,980 0.001%
51-4032
Drilling and Boring Machine Tool Setters,
Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic $48,700 0.001% 51-9123 Painting, Coating, and Decorating Workers $49,290 0.001% 51-9012
Separating, Filtering, Clarifying, Precipitating, and
Still Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders $57,140 0.001% 51-3091
Food and Tobacco Roasting, Baking, and Drying
Machine Operators and Tenders $39,920 0.001%
51-3021 Butchers and Meat Cutters $39,080 0.001%
51-6063
Textile Knitting and Weaving Machine Setters,
Operators, and Tenders $27,820 0.001%
51-4033
Grinding, Lapping, Polishing, and Buffing Machine
Tool Setters, Operators, and Tenders, Metal and
Plastic $45,420 0.001%
51-6052 Tailors, Dressmakers, and Custom Sewers $52,870 0.001% 51-4034
Lathe and Turning Machine Tool Setters,
Operators, and Tenders, Metal and Plastic $53,800 0.001% 51-8092 Gas Plant Operators $98,340 0.001%
51-4071 Foundry Mold and Coremakers $43,730 0.001%
51-6021 Pressers, Textile, Garment, and Related Materials $30,100 0.001% 51-2051 Fiberglass Laminators and Fabricators $45,970 0.001% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $44,646 1.867%
53-0000 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
53-7062
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material
Movers, Hand $39,930 1.364%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
401
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 67
FIGURE 35. OCCUPATION MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR OFFICE/MEDICAL OFFICE/R&D, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Office Workers (c)
53-3031 Driver/Sales Workers $34,920 0.383%
53-7065 Stockers and Order Fillers $36,170 0.279%
53-7064 Packers and Packagers, Hand $32,950 0.277%
53-3032 Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers $51,440 0.193% 53-7051 Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators $43,940 0.168% 53-3033 Light Truck Drivers $48,790 0.121%
53-7061 Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment $33,470 0.119% 53-1047
First-Line Supervisors of Transportation and
Material Moving Workers, Except Aircraft Cargo
Handling Supervisors $66,690 0.080%
53-3058
Passenger Vehicle Drivers, Except Bus Drivers,
Transit and Intercity $40,610 0.056%
53-3099 Motor Vehicle Operators, All Other $55,930 0.031% 53-6021 Parking Attendants $34,320 0.022%
53-2012 Commercial Pilots $113,260 0.014%
53-3052 Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity $58,860 0.006% 53-7063 Machine Feeders and Offbearers $43,880 0.006%
53-7199 Material Moving Workers, All Other $34,200 0.005% 53-2022 Airfield Operations Specialists $56,410 0.005%
53-6051 Transportation Inspectors $94,170 0.004%
53-6031 Automotive and Watercraft Service Attendants $31,340 0.003% 53-6098
Aircraft Service Attendants and Transportation
Workers, All Other $52,040 0.003%
53-2011 Airline Pilots, Copilots, and Flight Engineers $243,550 0.002% 53-6041 Traffic Technicians $86,560 0.002%
53-2031 Flight Attendants $51,230 0.001%
53-6061 Passenger Attendants $34,080 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $40,712 3.162%

Total, Land Use $85,440.54 100.000%
Notes:
(a) Occupational mix by industry was obtained from US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, 2019. (b) Wage data for the San Francisco Metropolitan Statistical Area was obtained from California Economic Development Department, OES Employment and Wages by Occupation, 2019.
(c) Distribution of workers is calculated based on the existing distribution of employment by industry in Marin County, provided by Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
402
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 68
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Retail Workers (c)
11-0000 Management Occupations
11-9051 Food Service Managers $63,460 1.525%
11-1021 General and Operations Managers $155,850 0.800% 11-2022 Sales Managers $159,720 0.046%
11-3031 Financial Managers $182,190 0.016%
11-3010
Administrative Services and Facilities
Managers $132,020 0.008%
11-2021 Marketing Managers $181,720 0.007%
11-9198
Personal Service Managers, All Other;
Entertainment and Recreation Managers,
Except Gambling; and Managers, All Other $168,900 0.005% 11-3121 Human Resources Managers $163,810 0.004%
11-1011 Chief Executives $236,060 0.003%
11-3071
Transportation, Storage, and Distribution
Managers $123,910 0.002%
11-3021 Computer and Information Systems Managers $201,960 0.002% 11-3131 Training and Development Managers $152,380 0.002% 11-9111 Medical and Health Services Managers $142,760 0.001% 11-3061 Purchasing Managers $154,870 0.001%
11-3051 Industrial Production Managers $140,910 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $98,093 2.423%

13-0000
Business and Financial Operations
Occupations
13-1151 Training and Development Specialists $83,550 0.079% 13-1161
Market Research Analysts and Marketing
Specialists $91,350 0.041%
13-2011 Accountants and Auditors $93,590 0.035%
13-1071 Human Resources Specialists $89,820 0.029%
13-1121 Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners $67,530 0.029% 13-1020 Buyers and Purchasing Agents $79,040 0.019%
13-2072 Loan Officers $84,940 0.012%
13-1198
Project Management Specialists and Business
Operations Specialists, All Other $93,010 0.009%
13-1051 Cost Estimators $98,960 0.007%
13-2098
Financial and Investment Analysts, Financial
Risk Specialists, and Financial Specialists, All
Other $119,100 0.003%
13-1111 Management Analysts $113,750 0.001%
13-1081 Logisticians $82,010 0.001%
13-2041 Credit Analysts $109,330 0.001%
13-1041 Compliance Officers $92,960 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $86,096 0.269%

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
403
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 69

FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
15-1232 Computer User Support Specialists $75,640 0.004% 15-1256
Software Developers and Software Quality
Assurance Analysts and Testers $145,250 0.003%
15-1244 Network and Computer Systems Administrators $104,370 0.003% 15-1257 Web Developers and Digital Interface Designers $110,790 0.003% 15-1299 Computer Occupations, All Other $120,370 0.003% 15-1211 Computer Systems Analysts $121,300 0.001%
15-1231 Computer Network Support Specialists $85,990 0.001% 15-1251 Computer Programmers $116,400 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $109,230 0.019%

21-0000 Community and Social Service Occupations
21-1019 Counselors, All Other $66,150 0.001%
21-1022 Healthcare Social Workers $86,560 0.0005%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $73,047 0.001%

23-0000 Legal Occupations
23-2093 Title Examiners, Abstractors, and Searchers $59,890 0.002% 23-2099 Legal Support Workers, All Other $61,510 0.0003% 23-1011 Lawyers $188,910 0.0003%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $73,546 0.002%

25-0000 Educational Instruction and Library Occupations 25-3021 Self-Enrichment Teachers $53,730 0.005%
25-3097 Tutors and Teachers and Instructors, All Other $50,800 0.0001% 25-9031 Instructional Coordinators $77,090 0.0001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $54,313 0.005%

27-0000
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Occupations
27-2012 Producers and Directors $104,520 0.017%
27-3031 Public Relations Specialists $84,520 0.011%
27-1026 Merchandise Displayers and Window Trimmers $38,480 0.011% 27-4032 Film and Video Editors $83,100 0.007%
27-4011 Audio and Video Technicians $64,140 0.005%
27-1024 Graphic Designers $77,110 0.005%
27-1025 Interior Designers $72,240 0.004%
27-1014 Special Effects Artists and Animators $97,570 0.004% 27-4031 Camera Operators, Television, Video, and Film $59,160 0.003% Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
404
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 70
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
27-4098
Lighting Technicians and Media and
Communication Equipment Workers, All Other $60,610 0.003% 27-3099 Media and Communication Workers, All Other $63,270 0.002% 27-4021 Photographers $61,530 0.002%
27-1027 Set and Exhibit Designers $60,530 0.002%
27-1011 Art Directors $135,970 0.002%
27-1023 Floral Designers $39,920 0.002%
27-3041 Editors $86,530 0.002%
27-1022 Fashion Designers $89,400 0.001%
27-4014 Sound Engineering Technicians $70,470 0.001%
27-1019 Artists and Related Workers, All Other $93,840 0.001% 27-3043 Writers and Authors $93,060 0.001%
27-1013
Fine Artists, Including Painters, Sculptors, and
Illustrators $85,980 0.001%
27-4012 Broadcast Technicians $57,390 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $66,961 0.102%

29-0000
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical
Occupations
29-2052 Pharmacy Technicians $51,090 0.143%
29-1051 Pharmacists $148,390 0.089%
29-2081 Opticians, Dispensing $50,840 0.014%
29-1041 Optometrists $125,680 0.004%
29-1031 Dietitians and Nutritionists $87,890 0.003%
29-2092 Hearing Aid Specialists $66,050 0.003%
29-1141 Registered Nurses $138,000 0.002%
29-2091 Orthotists and Prosthetists $81,090 0.001%
29-2057 Ophthalmic Medical Technicians $52,660 0.001%
29-1126 Respiratory Therapists $97,950 0.001%
29-1181 Audiologists $102,560 0.001%
29-1171 Nurse Practitioners $157,150 0.001%
29-2098
Medical Dosimetrists, Medical Records
Specialists, and Health Technologists and
Technicians, All Other $58,370 0.001%
29-1298
Acupuncturists and Healthcare Diagnosing or
Treating Practitioners, All Other $76,670 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $86,954 0.266%

31-0000 Healthcare Support Occupations
31-9011 Massage Therapists $50,560 0.041%
31-9095 Pharmacy Aides $46,430 0.017%
31-9099 Healthcare Support Workers, All Other $50,950 0.002% Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
405
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 71
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
31-1120 Home Health and Personal Care Aides $30,320 0.001% 31-9092 Medical Assistants $48,920 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $48,986 0.063%

33-0000 Protective Service Occupations
33-9032 Security Guards $38,580 0.106%
33-1090
Miscellaneous First-Line Supervisors, Protective
Service Workers $61,530 0.001%
33-9098
School Bus Monitors and Protective Service
Workers, All Other $49,650 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $38,981 0.108%

35-0000
Food Preparation and Serving Related
Occupations
35-3023 Fast Food and Counter Workers $31,610 28.085%
35-3031 Waiters and Waitresses $37,810 18.684%
35-2014 Cooks, Restaurant $38,430 10.548%
35-1012
First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and
Serving Workers $44,560 6.745%
35-2011 Cooks, Fast Food $27,060 4.527%
35-2021 Food Preparation Workers $31,820 3.926%
35-9021 Dishwashers $31,680 3.412%
35-9031
Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and
Coffee Shop $34,520 3.306%
35-9011
Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and
Bartender Helpers $35,040 2.686%
35-3011 Bartenders $37,310 2.682%
35-2015 Cooks, Short Order $34,460 0.857%
35-1011 Chefs and Head Cooks $63,740 0.599%
35-9099
Food Preparation and Serving Related Workers,
All Other $31,250 0.368%
35-3041 Food Servers, Nonrestaurant $35,200 0.177%
35-2012 Cooks, Institution and Cafeteria $40,710 0.082% 35-2019 Cooks, All Other $40,740 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $35,217 86.687%

37-0000
Building and Grounds Cleaning and
Maintenance Occupations
37-2011
Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and
Housekeeping Cleaners $38,870 0.287%
37-2012 Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners $41,430 0.022%
37-3011 Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers $43,940 0.011% 37-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and
Janitorial Workers $53,550 0.002%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
406
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 72
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $39,305 0.321%

39-0000 Personal Care and Service Occupations
39-5012 Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists $35,410 0.243% 39-5092 Manicurists and Pedicurists $29,490 0.079%
39-2021 Animal Caretakers $34,130 0.045%
39-5094 Skincare Specialists $37,640 0.031%
39-1098
First-Line Supervisors of Personal Service and
Entertainment and Recreation Workers, Except
Gambling Services $54,240 0.027%
39-3091 Amusement and Recreation Attendants $29,650 0.025% 39-3031 Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers $33,520 0.020% 39-5011 Barbers $52,940 0.014%
39-5093 Shampooers - 0.009%
39-9098
Crematory Operators and Personal Care and
Service Workers, All Other $35,060 0.007%
39-3093
Locker Room, Coatroom, and Dressing Room
Attendants $41,030 0.005%
39-9031 Exercise Trainers and Group Fitness Instructors $59,340 0.004% 39-2011 Animal Trainers $42,320 0.003%
39-6012 Concierges $44,060 0.002%
39-3021 Motion Picture Projectionists $34,350 0.001%
39-5091 Makeup Artists, Theatrical and Performance - 0.001% 39-4021 Funeral Attendants $39,180 0.001%
39-4031 Morticians, Undertakers, and Funeral Arrangers $60,050 0.001% 39-3092 Costume Attendants $42,930 0.001%
39-6011 Baggage Porters and Bellhops $33,390 0.001%
39-7010 Tour and Travel Guides $42,380 0.001%
39-9011 Childcare Workers $35,590 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $35,291 0.523%

41-0000 Sales and Related Occupations
41-2011 Cashiers $32,150 3.652%
41-2031 Retail Salespersons $34,810 1.668%
41-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers $46,980 0.367% 41-2022 Parts Salespersons $45,260 0.083%
41-3091
Sales Representatives of Services, Except
Advertising, Insurance, Financial Services, and
Travel $81,320 0.080%
41-2021 Counter and Rental Clerks $40,320 0.072%
41-4012
Sales Representatives, Wholesale and
Manufacturing, Except Technical and Scientific
Products $81,830 0.035%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
407
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 73
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
41-1012
First-Line Supervisors of Non-Retail Sales
Workers $77,590 0.013%
41-9099 Sales and Related Workers, All Other - 0.010%
41-3031
Securities, Commodities, and Financial Services
Sales Agents $101,770 0.004%
41-4011
Sales Representatives, Wholesale and
Manufacturing, Technical and Scientific
Products $104,680 0.003%
41-9041 Telemarketers $33,420 0.003%
41-9011 Demonstrators and Product Promoters $36,560 0.002% 41-3011 Advertising Sales Agents $92,720 0.001%
41-3021 Insurance Sales Agents $109,960 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $35,176 5.992%

43-0000 Office and Administrative Support Occupations
43-9061 Office Clerks, General $46,920 0.285%
43-4051 Customer Service Representatives $49,200 0.214% 43-3031 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks $54,980 0.202% 43-6014
Secretaries and Administrative Assistants,
Except Legal, Medical, and Executive $51,170 0.094%
43-4171 Receptionists and Information Clerks $39,990 0.093% 43-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Office and
Administrative Support Workers $71,190 0.068%
43-5071 Shipping, Receiving, and Inventory Clerks $42,910 0.045% 43-4151 Order Clerks $45,220 0.016%
43-3051 Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks $63,280 0.015%
43-3021 Billing and Posting Clerks $50,120 0.011%
43-6011
Executive Secretaries and Executive
Administrative Assistants $82,480 0.008%
43-5061 Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks $63,180 0.007% 43-4161
Human Resources Assistants, Except Payroll
and Timekeeping $53,370 0.006%
43-2011
Switchboard Operators, Including Answering
Service $49,560 0.006%
43-9199
Office and Administrative Support Workers, All
Other $45,160 0.005%
43-3011 Bill and Account Collectors $55,830 0.004%
43-5032 Dispatchers, Except Police, Fire, and Ambulance $54,040 0.003% 43-4071 File Clerks $41,240 0.003%
43-3061 Procurement Clerks $50,680 0.003%
43-5021 Couriers and Messengers $42,320 0.003%
43-9021 Data Entry Keyers $41,790 0.002%
43-4199 Information and Record Clerks, All Other $57,150 0.002% 43-4041 Credit Authorizers, Checkers, and Clerks $47,330 0.002% Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
408
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 74
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
43-4131 Loan Interviewers and Clerks $49,770 0.002%
43-6013
Medical Secretaries and Administrative
Assistants $49,140 0.001%
43-9041 Insurance Claims and Policy Processing Clerks $53,480 0.001% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $50,617 1.104%

45-0000 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
45-2092
Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop, Nursery, and
Greenhouse $37,430 0.002%
45-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Farming, Fishing, and
Forestry Workers $54,120 0.0001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $38,161 0.002%

47-0000 Construction and Extraction Occupations
47-2031 Carpenters $71,490 0.007%
47-2121 Glaziers $72,550 0.005%
47-2041 Carpet Installers $64,200 0.005%
47-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades
and Extraction Workers $99,580 0.002%
47-2111 Electricians $100,400 0.001%
47-2042
Floor Layers, Except Carpet, Wood, and Hard
Tiles $66,540 0.001%
47-2061 Construction Laborers $55,970 0.001%
47-4031 Fence Erectors $44,820 0.001%
47-2044 Tile and Stone Setters $59,410 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $70,399 0.027%

49-0000
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
Occupations
49-3023 Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics $58,630 0.273% 49-9071 Maintenance and Repair Workers, General $56,230 0.166% 49-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers,
and Repairers $89,740 0.038%
49-3021 Automotive Body and Related Repairers $57,580 0.028% 49-3093 Tire Repairers and Changers $36,640 0.018%
49-9091
Coin, Vending, and Amusement Machine
Servicers and Repairers $43,550 0.010%
49-9099
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Workers,
All Other $55,210 0.009%
49-2011
Computer, Automated Teller, and Office Machine
Repairers $45,100 0.008%
49-9098
Helpers--Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
Workers $37,740 0.007%
49-3031
Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine
Specialists $68,840 0.006%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
409
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 75
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
49-3091 Bicycle Repairers $32,090 0.006%
49-9031 Home Appliance Repairers $53,820 0.004%
49-9011 Mechanical Door Repairers $52,210 0.003%
49-9063 Musical Instrument Repairers and Tuners - 0.003% 49-2097 Audiovisual Equipment Installers and Repairers $59,500 0.003% 49-3053
Outdoor Power Equipment and Other Small
Engine Mechanics $45,750 0.003%
49-9062 Medical Equipment Repairers $69,330 0.002%
49-2096
Electronic Equipment Installers and Repairers,
Motor Vehicles $47,500 0.002%
49-9021
Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration
Mechanics and Installers $76,480 0.001%
49-3052 Motorcycle Mechanics $57,800 0.001%
49-3051 Motorboat Mechanics and Service Technicians $59,490 0.001% 49-3092 Recreational Vehicle Service Technicians $42,360 0.001% 49-9096 Riggers $73,610 0.001%
49-9095
Manufactured Building and Mobile Home
Installers - 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $57,919 0.594%

51-0000 Production Occupations
51-3011 Bakers $36,960 0.349%
51-6011 Laundry and Dry-Cleaning Workers $34,880 0.032% 51-3092 Food Batchmakers $35,300 0.032%
51-3021 Butchers and Meat Cutters $39,080 0.018%
51-9012
Separating, Filtering, Clarifying, Precipitating,
and Still Machine Setters, Operators, and
Tenders $57,140 0.014%
51-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Production and
Operating Workers $76,700 0.013%
51-2090 Miscellaneous Assemblers and Fabricators $43,160 0.010% 51-3091
Food and Tobacco Roasting, Baking, and Drying
Machine Operators and Tenders $39,920 0.009%
51-6021
Pressers, Textile, Garment, and Related
Materials $30,100 0.009%
51-6052 Tailors, Dressmakers, and Custom Sewers $52,870 0.007% 51-9083 Ophthalmic Laboratory Technicians $43,010 0.006% 51-9061
Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and
Weighers $49,860 0.005%
51-3022 Meat, Poultry, and Fish Cutters and Trimmers $35,910 0.005% 51-3099 Food Processing Workers, All Other $32,410 0.005% 51-6031 Sewing Machine Operators $32,880 0.004%
51-9124
Coating, Painting, and Spraying Machine
Setters, Operators, and Tenders $50,520 0.003%
51-9198 Helpers--Production Workers $34,400 0.003%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
410
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 76
FIGURE 36. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND WAGES FOR RETAIL/RESTAURANT/SERVICES, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Title (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Retail
Workers (c)
51-9151
Photographic Process Workers and Processing
Machine Operators $51,650 0.002%
51-9199 Production Workers, All Other $37,130 0.001%
51-7011 Cabinetmakers and Bench Carpenters $46,910 0.001% 51-9082 Medical Appliance Technicians $56,910 0.001%
51-9194 Etchers and Engravers - 0.001%
51-9195
Molders, Shapers, and Casters, Except Metal
and Plastic $44,460 0.001%
51-5112 Printing Press Operators $43,690 0.001%
51-9023
Mixing and Blending Machine Setters,
Operators, and Tenders $48,700 0.001%
51-9071 Jewelers and Precious Stone and Metal Workers $39,560 0.001% 51-4121 Welders, Cutters, Solderers, and Brazers $58,600 0.001% 51-9111
Packaging and Filling Machine Operators and
Tenders $34,740 0.001%
51-7041
Sawing Machine Setters, Operators, and
Tenders, Wood $31,740 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $38,854 0.536%

53-0000
Transportation and Material Moving
Occupations
53-3033 Light Truck Drivers $48,790 0.377%
53-7065 Stockers and Order Fillers $36,170 0.189%
53-7061 Cleaners of Vehicles and Equipment $33,470 0.096% 53-7062
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material
Movers, Hand $39,930 0.093%
53-6021 Parking Attendants $34,320 0.063%
53-6031 Automotive and Watercraft Service Attendants $31,340 0.028% 53-1047
First-Line Supervisors of Transportation and
Material Moving Workers, Except Aircraft Cargo
Handling Supervisors $66,690 0.026%
53-3058
Passenger Vehicle Drivers, Except Bus Drivers,
Transit and Intercity $40,610 0.023%
53-3032 Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers $51,440 0.016% 53-7064 Packers and Packagers, Hand $32,950 0.013%
53-3099 Motor Vehicle Operators, All Other $55,930 0.011% 53-7051 Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators $43,940 0.009% 53-7199 Material Moving Workers, All Other $34,200 0.006% 53-3031 Driver/Sales Workers $34,920 0.005%
53-6098
Aircraft Service Attendants and Transportation
Workers, All Other $52,040 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $42,424 0.958%

Total, Land Use $37,493 100.000%
Notes:

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
411
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 77
(a) Occupational mix by industry was obtained from US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, 2019. (b) Wage data for the San Francisco Metropolitan Statistical Area was obtained from California Economic Development Department, OES Employment and Wages by Occupation, 2019.
(c) Distribution of workers is calculated based on the existing distribution of employment by industry in Marin County, provided by Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
412
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 78
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total
Hotel Workers (c)
11-0000 Management Occupations
11-9081 Lodging Managers $104,250 1.622%
11-1021 General and Operations Managers $155,850 0.810% 11-9051 Food Service Managers $63,460 0.422%
11-2022 Sales Managers $159,720 0.308%
11-9198
Personal Service Managers, All Other; Entertainment
and Recreation Managers, Except Gambling; and
Managers, All Other $168,900 0.214%
11-3031 Financial Managers $182,190 0.206%
11-3010 Administrative Services and Facilities Managers $132,020 0.192% 11-3121 Human Resources Managers $163,810 0.100%
11-9071 Gambling Managers $125,300 0.094%
11-2021 Marketing Managers $181,720 0.080%
11-3021 Computer and Information Systems Managers $201,960 0.035% 11-1011 Chief Executives $236,060 0.021%
11-3061 Purchasing Managers $154,870 0.021%
11-9141
Property, Real Estate, and Community Association
Managers $92,930 0.019%
11-2030 Public Relations and Fundraising Managers $142,950 0.012% 11-9041 Architectural and Engineering Managers $186,500 0.011% 11-2011 Advertising and Promotions Managers $175,210 0.008% 11-9021 Construction Managers $134,880 0.007%
11-3131 Training and Development Managers $152,380 0.005% 11-3071 Transportation, Storage, and Distribution Managers $123,910 0.005% 11-3111 Compensation and Benefits Managers $170,770 0.003% 11-3051 Industrial Production Managers $140,910 0.003%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $128,280 4.198%

13-0000 Business and Financial Operations Occupations
13-1121 Meeting, Convention, and Event Planners $67,530 0.441% 13-2011 Accountants and Auditors $93,590 0.438%
13-1071 Human Resources Specialists $89,820 0.225%
13-1161 Market Research Analysts and Marketing Specialists $91,350 0.182% 13-1198
Project Management Specialists and Business
Operations Specialists, All Other $93,010 0.145%
13-1020 Buyers and Purchasing Agents $79,040 0.087%
13-1151 Training and Development Specialists $83,550 0.040% 13-1041 Compliance Officers $92,960 0.029%
13-2098
Financial and Investment Analysts, Financial Risk
Specialists, and Financial Specialists, All Other $119,100 0.028% 13-1111 Management Analysts $113,750 0.020%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
413
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 79
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Hotel
Workers (c)
13-1141
Compensation, Benefits, and Job Analysis
Specialists $83,230 0.013%
13-1075 Labor Relations Specialists $86,370 0.006%
13-2041 Credit Analysts $109,330 0.003%
13-2031 Budget Analysts $93,800 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $85,441 1.660%

15-0000 Computer and Mathematical Occupations
15-1232 Computer User Support Specialists $75,640 0.071% 15-1244 Network and Computer Systems Administrators $104,370 0.041% 15-1299 Computer Occupations, All Other $120,370 0.022% 15-1211 Computer Systems Analysts $121,300 0.015%
15-1231 Computer Network Support Specialists $85,990 0.011% 15-1245 Database Administrators and Architects $107,930 0.008% 15-1256
Software Developers and Software Quality
Assurance Analysts and Testers $145,250 0.008%
15-1241 Computer Network Architects $137,720 0.006%
15-1212 Information Security Analysts $122,570 0.005%
15-1257 Web Developers and Digital Interface Designers $110,790 0.005% 15-1251 Computer Programmers $116,400 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $99,597 0.195%

17-0000 Architecture and Engineering Occupations
17-3023
Electrical and Electronic Engineering Technologists
and Technicians $67,200 0.012%
17-2141 Mechanical Engineers $123,270 0.008%
17-2199 Engineers, All Other $113,050 0.004%
17-2051 Civil Engineers $120,110 0.003%
17-3027
Mechanical Engineering Technologists and
Technicians $61,100 0.003%
17-2071 Electrical Engineers $120,990 0.000%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $93,450 0.031%

19-0000 Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations
19-5011 Occupational Health and Safety Specialists $108,230 0.005% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $108,230 0.005%

23-0000 Legal Occupations
23-1011 Lawyers $188,910 0.005%
23-2011 Paralegals and Legal Assistants $71,360 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $152,176 0.008%

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
414
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 80
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Hotel
Workers (c)
27-0000
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media
Occupations
27-4011 Audio and Video Technicians $64,140 0.139%
27-2022 Coaches and Scouts $48,900 0.065%
27-3031 Public Relations Specialists $84,520 0.039%
27-3099 Media and Communication Workers, All Other $63,270 0.027% 27-1024 Graphic Designers $77,110 0.019%
27-4098
Lighting Technicians and Media and Communication
Equipment Workers, All Other $60,610 0.010%
27-1023 Floral Designers $39,920 0.009%
27-2090
Miscellaneous Entertainers and Performers, Sports
and Related Workers * 0.006%
27-1026 Merchandise Displayers and Window Trimmers $38,480 0.005% 27-2021 Athletes and Sports Competitors - 0.003%
27-2042 Musicians and Singers * 0.002%
27-2011 Actors * 0.000%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $62,212 0.340%

29-0000 Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations 29-2040 Emergency Medical Technicians and Paramedics $54,180 0.013% 29-1141 Registered Nurses $138,000 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $67,277 0.016%

31-0000 Healthcare Support Occupations
31-9011 Massage Therapists $50,560 0.516%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $50,560 0.516%

33-0000 Protective Service Occupations
33-9032 Security Guards $38,580 1.530%
33-9092
Lifeguards, Ski Patrol, and Other Recreational
Protective Service Workers $31,600 0.338%
33-1090
Miscellaneous First-Line Supervisors, Protective
Service Workers $61,530 0.190%
33-9031
Gambling Surveillance Officers and Gambling
Investigators $43,940 0.149%
33-9098
School Bus Monitors and Protective Service Workers,
All Other $49,650 0.015%
33-9021 Private Detectives and Investigators $78,150 0.003% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $39,966 2.226%

35-0000 Food Preparation and Serving Related Occupations 35-3031 Waiters and Waitresses $37,810 7.632%
35-2014 Cooks, Restaurant $38,430 4.125%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
415
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 81
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Hotel
Workers (c)
35-9011
Dining Room and Cafeteria Attendants and
Bartender Helpers $35,040 2.993%
35-3011 Bartenders $37,310 2.144%
35-9021 Dishwashers $31,680 1.520%
35-1012
First-Line Supervisors of Food Preparation and
Serving Workers $44,560 1.508%
35-3041 Food Servers, Nonrestaurant $35,200 1.378%
35-3023 Fast Food and Counter Workers $31,610 1.153%
35-9031
Hosts and Hostesses, Restaurant, Lounge, and
Coffee Shop $34,520 0.949%
35-1011 Chefs and Head Cooks $63,740 0.735%
35-2021 Food Preparation Workers $31,820 0.702%
35-9099
Food Preparation and Serving Related Workers, All
Other $31,250 0.290%
35-2012 Cooks, Institution and Cafeteria $40,710 0.213% 35-2015 Cooks, Short Order $34,460 0.129%
35-2011 Cooks, Fast Food $27,060 0.037%
35-2019 Cooks, All Other $40,740 0.034%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $37,537 25.543%

37-0000
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance
Occupations
37-2012 Maids and Housekeeping Cleaners $41,430 22.801% 37-2011
Janitors and Cleaners, Except Maids and
Housekeeping Cleaners $38,870 2.336%
37-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Housekeeping and
Janitorial Workers $53,550 1.759%
37-3011 Landscaping and Groundskeeping Workers $43,940 0.575% 37-1012
First-Line Supervisors of Landscaping, Lawn Service,
and Groundskeeping Workers $68,600 0.085%
37-3019 Grounds Maintenance Workers, All Other $54,060 0.021% 37-2019 Building Cleaning Workers, All Other $32,430 0.020% 37-3012
Pesticide Handlers, Sprayers, and Applicators,
Vegetation $79,020 0.010%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $42,139 27.608%

39-0000 Personal Care and Service Occupations
39-3011 Gambling Dealers $26,750 2.633%
39-6011 Baggage Porters and Bellhops $33,390 1.139%
39-1013 First-Line Supervisors of Gambling Services Workers $52,020 0.784% 39-3091 Amusement and Recreation Attendants $29,650 0.757% 39-6012 Concierges $44,060 0.635%
39-9032 Recreation Workers $36,490 0.261%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
416
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 82
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Hotel
Workers (c)
39-1098
First-Line Supervisors of Personal Service and
Entertainment and Recreation Workers, Except
Gambling Services $54,240 0.249%
39-9098
Crematory Operators and Personal Care and Service
Workers, All Other $35,060 0.238%
39-3019 Gambling Service Workers, All Other $35,260 0.223% 39-3093
Locker Room, Coatroom, and Dressing Room
Attendants $41,030 0.171%
39-9031 Exercise Trainers and Group Fitness Instructors $59,340 0.142% 39-5094 Skincare Specialists $37,640 0.130%
39-3031 Ushers, Lobby Attendants, and Ticket Takers $33,520 0.114% 39-3012 Gambling and Sports Book Writers and Runners $32,190 0.072% 39-5092 Manicurists and Pedicurists $29,490 0.070%
39-5012 Hairdressers, Hairstylists, and Cosmetologists $35,410 0.068% 39-9011 Childcare Workers $35,590 0.041%
39-7010 Tour and Travel Guides $42,380 0.039%
39-3099
Entertainment Attendants and Related Workers, All
Other $37,000 0.037%
39-3092 Costume Attendants $42,930 0.020%
39-2011 Animal Trainers $42,320 0.000%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $35,162 7.833%

41-0000 Sales and Related Occupations
41-3091
Sales Representatives of Services, Except
Advertising, Insurance, Financial Services, and
Travel $81,320 1.184%
41-2011 Cashiers $32,150 0.704%
41-2031 Retail Salespersons $34,810 0.328%
41-2012 Gambling Change Persons and Booth Cashiers $32,010 0.326% 41-1011 First-Line Supervisors of Retail Sales Workers $46,980 0.144% 41-1012 First-Line Supervisors of Non-Retail Sales Workers $77,590 0.088% 41-9099 Sales and Related Workers, All Other - 0.041%
41-2021 Counter and Rental Clerks $40,320 0.039%
41-9041 Telemarketers $33,420 0.030%
41-3041 Travel Agents $53,520 0.015%
41-3011 Advertising Sales Agents $92,720 0.007%
41-9021 Real Estate Brokers * 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $54,861 2.959%

43-0000 Office and Administrative Support Occupations
43-4081 Hotel, Motel, and Resort Desk Clerks $39,440 12.021% 43-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Office and Administrative
Support Workers $71,190 1.755%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
417
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 83
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Hotel
Workers (c)
43-3031 Bookkeeping, Accounting, and Auditing Clerks $54,980 1.037% 43-4051 Customer Service Representatives $49,200 0.440% 43-6014
Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except
Legal, Medical, and Executive $51,170 0.427%
43-4181
Reservation and Transportation Ticket Agents and
Travel Clerks * 0.297%
43-3041 Gambling Cage Workers $30,160 0.292%
43-4171 Receptionists and Information Clerks $39,990 0.263% 43-2011 Switchboard Operators, Including Answering Service $49,560 0.233% 43-5071 Shipping, Receiving, and Inventory Clerks $42,910 0.109% 43-6011
Executive Secretaries and Executive Administrative
Assistants $82,480 0.100%
43-5032 Dispatchers, Except Police, Fire, and Ambulance $54,040 0.071% 43-4161
Human Resources Assistants, Except Payroll and
Timekeeping $53,370 0.056%
43-9199 Office and Administrative Support Workers, All Other $45,160 0.053% 43-3051 Payroll and Timekeeping Clerks $63,280 0.050%
43-5061 Production, Planning, and Expediting Clerks $63,180 0.042% 43-3061 Procurement Clerks $50,680 0.032%
43-3021 Billing and Posting Clerks $50,120 0.024%
43-5021 Couriers and Messengers $42,320 0.020%
43-2021 Telephone Operators $48,480 0.016%
43-4151 Order Clerks $45,220 0.015%
43-5111
Weighers, Measurers, Checkers, and Samplers,
Recordkeeping $41,640 0.011%
43-4199 Information and Record Clerks, All Other $57,150 0.009% 43-3011 Bill and Account Collectors $55,830 0.008%
43-9051
Mail Clerks and Mail Machine Operators, Except
Postal Service $39,020 0.007%
43-4041 Credit Authorizers, Checkers, and Clerks $47,330 0.005% 43-4071 File Clerks $41,240 0.004%
43-2099 Communications Equipment Operators, All Other $65,500 0.003% 43-9021 Data Entry Keyers $41,790 0.003%
43-3099 Financial Clerks, All Other $47,510 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $44,074 17.792%

45-0000 Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
45-2093
Farmworkers, Farm, Ranch, and Aquacultural
Animals $35,610 0.007%
45-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Farming, Fishing, and
Forestry Workers $54,120 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $39,723 0.009%

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
418
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 84
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Hotel
Workers (c)
47-0000 Construction and Extraction Occupations
47-2141 Painters, Construction and Maintenance $67,770 0.093% 47-2031 Carpenters $71,490 0.052%
47-2111 Electricians $100,400 0.040%
47-2152 Plumbers, Pipefitters, and Steamfitters $87,230 0.018% 47-2073
Operating Engineers and Other Construction
Equipment Operators $86,240 0.017%
47-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades and
Extraction Workers $99,580 0.011%
47-2061 Construction Laborers $55,970 0.006%
47-2011 Boilermakers $86,630 0.003%
47-2041 Carpet Installers $64,200 0.003%
47-4051 Highway Maintenance Workers $63,210 0.002%
47-4090 Miscellaneous Construction and Related Workers $63,360 0.002% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $77,765 0.248%

49-0000 Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations 49-9071 Maintenance and Repair Workers, General $56,230 4.443% 49-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Mechanics, Installers, and
Repairers $89,740 0.406%
49-9091
Coin, Vending, and Amusement Machine Servicers
and Repairers $43,550 0.136%
49-9021
Heating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration
Mechanics and Installers $76,480 0.041%
49-9099
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Workers, All
Other $55,210 0.041%
49-3053
Outdoor Power Equipment and Other Small Engine
Mechanics $45,750 0.021%
49-9098
Helpers--Installation, Maintenance, and Repair
Workers $37,740 0.016%
49-3023 Automotive Service Technicians and Mechanics $58,630 0.014% 49-3042 Mobile Heavy Equipment Mechanics, Except Engines $75,510 0.011% 49-9043 Maintenance Workers, Machinery $63,090 0.008%
49-9094 Locksmiths and Safe Repairers $63,770 0.006%
49-9041 Industrial Machinery Mechanics $78,010 0.004%
49-2092 Electric Motor, Power Tool, and Related Repairers $55,250 0.003% 49-2094
Electrical and Electronics Repairers, Commercial and
Industrial Equipment $79,500 0.003%
49-3031
Bus and Truck Mechanics and Diesel Engine
Specialists $68,840 0.003%
49-2011
Computer, Automated Teller, and Office Machine
Repairers $45,100 0.001%
49-2093
Electrical and Electronics Installers and Repairers,
Transportation Equipment $75,530 0.001%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $58,694 5.162%
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
419
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 85
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Hotel
Workers (c)

51-0000 Production Occupations
51-6011 Laundry and Dry-Cleaning Workers $34,880 1.846% 51-3011 Bakers $36,960 0.187%
51-1011
First-Line Supervisors of Production and Operating
Workers $76,700 0.051%
51-8021 Stationary Engineers and Boiler Operators $103,370 0.030% 51-9061 Inspectors, Testers, Sorters, Samplers, and Weighers $49,860 0.020% 51-6052 Tailors, Dressmakers, and Custom Sewers $52,870 0.018% 51-3021 Butchers and Meat Cutters $39,080 0.010%
51-6031 Sewing Machine Operators $32,880 0.010%
51-6021 Pressers, Textile, Garment, and Related Materials $30,100 0.009% 51-6093 Upholsterers $46,490 0.007%
51-9193
Cooling and Freezing Equipment Operators and
Tenders $39,590 0.006%
51-8031
Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant and System
Operators $93,680 0.005%
51-9199 Production Workers, All Other $37,130 0.002%
51-3092 Food Batchmakers $35,300 0.002%
51-9012
Separating, Filtering, Clarifying, Precipitating, and
Still Machine Setters, Operators, and Tenders $57,140 0.002% 51-9111
Packaging and Filling Machine Operators and
Tenders $34,740 0.002%
Weighted Mean Annual Wage $37,439 2.208%

53-0000 Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
53-3058
Passenger Vehicle Drivers, Except Bus Drivers,
Transit and Intercity $40,610 0.437%
53-6021 Parking Attendants $34,320 0.394%
53-7062
Laborers and Freight, Stock, and Material Movers,
Hand $39,930 0.221%
53-7065 Stockers and Order Fillers $36,170 0.200%
53-3031 Driver/Sales Workers $34,920 0.069%
53-1047
First-Line Supervisors of Transportation and Material
Moving Workers, Except Aircraft Cargo Handling
Supervisors $66,690 0.039%
53-3033 Light Truck Drivers $48,790 0.028%
53-3032 Heavy and Tractor-Trailer Truck Drivers $51,440 0.011% 53-3099 Motor Vehicle Operators, All Other $55,930 0.011% 53-6031 Automotive and Watercraft Service Attendants $31,340 0.007% 53-6061 Passenger Attendants $34,080 0.005%
53-3052 Bus Drivers, Transit and Intercity $58,860 0.004% 53-5021 Captains, Mates, and Pilots of Water Vessels $95,770 0.003% 53-7199 Material Moving Workers, All Other $34,200 0.003% Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
420
Marin Commercial Linkage Fee Study 86
FIGURE 37. OCCUPATIONAL MIX AND AVERAGE WAGES FOR HOTEL, CONTINUED Occupation
Code Occupation Name (a)
Average Annual
Wage (b)
Share of Total Hotel
Workers (c)
53-4041 Subway and Streetcar Operators $56,730 0.003%
53-5022 Motorboat Operators - 0.002%
53-7051 Industrial Truck and Tractor Operators $43,940 0.000% Weighted Mean Annual Wage $39,024 1.444%

Total, Land Use $46,473 100.000%
Notes:
(a) Occupational mix by industry was obtained from US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational Employment Statistics, 2019. (b) Wage data for the San Francisco Metropolitan Statistical Area was obtained from California Economic Development Department, OES Employment and Wages by Occupation, 2019.
(c) Distribution of workers is calculated based on the existing distribution of employment by industry in Marin County, provided by Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), 2019
Source: Strategic Economics and Vernazza Wolfe Associates, 2021.

Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
Item # 2.1- Attachment 6
421
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and
Related Programs and Fees
May 23, 2023
Town Council Meeting
422
Purpose:

Conduct a public hearing for the following:
• Introduction and first reading of a Zoning Ordinance
amendment to add Chapter 21, “Affordable Housing” to Title 10, “Planning and Zoning” to establish an Inclusionary Housing Program and Affordable Housing Fund; and
• Adoption of implementing inclusionary housing regulations; and
• Adoption of establishing in-lieu and commercial/nonresidential linkage affordable housing fees. 423
Background:
• What is inclusionary Housing? • Policies that tap the economic gains from rising real estate values to create affordable
housing. • Set-aside a certain number of moderate
to low-income affordable housing units or payment of in-lieu fees. • Helps achieve RHNA allocations
• 2015-2023 Housing Element Program H3.C
• Establish criteria and adopt an Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance • Fairfax and San Anselmo only Marin city or town to not have an adopted
Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
424
Background:
• What is a Commercial Linkage
Fee?
• Fees collected for new commercial
development and placed in an
Affordable Housing fund to provide
for the construction and/or
maintenance of affordable
residential units.
425
Background: • 2019 SB 2 Grant Awarded
for a Multi-jurisdictional
effort to develop common
inclusionary policies • Corte Madera, Fairfax,
Larkspur, San Rafael,
Sausalito, and the County.
• Policies need to be
adopted by the end of
June 2023
426
Background:
• Strategic Economics and Vernazza
Wolf Associates hired to prepare the
nexus studies • Established a common inclusionary
policy
• Provides the legal support for the state
requirements relative to the adoption
of fees
• April 25, 2023 Town Council
Meeting to approve Nexus Studies
per AB 602 • Requires a public hearing and 30
-day
notice prior to of the nexus studies
427
Background:
• May 15, 2023, Planning
Commission Public Hearing • Unanimously adopted
Resolution No. 2023-08
recommending approval to
the Town Council for the
draft Ordinance and
related resolutions
• Requested review of any
future policies related to
the expenditure and
distribution of the
Affordable Housing Funds.
428
Proposed Ordinance, Program, and Fees
• Current Marin Council HUD Affordability Level
429
• Project Threshold Size:
• 2-Unit Minimum Threshold
• Excludes Single Family Dwelling Units, ADUs,
JADUs, and up to 1 SB-9 Unit
• Inclusionary Housing Percentage/Set-Aside Requirement :
• 20% for both rental and for-sale developments
Proposed Ordinance, Program, and Fees
430
Proposed Ordinance, Program, and Fees
• Affordability Targeting- Rental Inclusionary Housing
Policy
• Common to target very-low and low-income for rentals
431
Proposed Ordinance, Program, and Fees
• Affordability Targeting- For-Sale Inclusionary Housing Policy • Common to target low and moderate income for for-sale units 432
• Target AMI for Rental and For-Sale Units
• Maximum rent or sales provide that can be charged
• Very-low income of 50% AMI consistent with Density Bonus Law
Proposed Ordinance, Program, and Fees
433
Proposed Ordinance, Program, and Fees
• Affordable Housing Fund:
• Establishment of New Affordable Housing Fund as a
mechanism to collect and earmark in-lieu and linkage fees • Fees to be used only to increase and improve the supply of affordable housing in San Anselmo
• Alternative Means of Compliance
• Government Code Section 65850(g) requires alternative method for rental projects.
• Proposed examples, In-lieu fees, off-site construction, land dedication, and/or rehabilitation, acquisition, and/or
preservation of off-site units.
434
Proposed Ordinance, Program, and Fees
*California Construction Cost Index (CCCI)
435
• Example- Option 1
• 8 Units (8 * 20%)
• 1.6 Inclusionary Units
• 1 Very Low-income unit- 50% AMI
• Choice to either pay .6 *in-lieu fee ($217,690.20) or round up to another Low-income unit with 65% AMI target
• Example- Option 2
• 15 Units (15 * 20%)
• 3 Inclusionary units
• 2.25 Low-Income units (build 2 Low-income units with 65% AMI target and pay .25% in-lieu fee ($9,071.75) or round up and build 3 Low-income units with 65% AMI target
• .75 Moderate-income unit (Choice to either round up to 1 unit Moderate-income unit with 100% AMI target or pay .75 * inlieu fee ($272,112.75) Proposed Ordinance, Program, and Fees:

Rental
436
• Example 1
• 4 For-sale units
• .8 Inclusionary unit
• Pay .80 * In-lieu fee ($290,253.60) or build one above moderateincome unit (120% AMI or above). • Example 2
• 25 For-sale units
• 5 Inclusionary housing units
• 1.25 Low-income units (rounded up to 2 units with 65% AMI target or 1 unit with a 65% AMI target and in-lieu fee of $90,704.25) • 1.25 Moderate-income units (rounded up to 2 units with a 100% AMI target or 1 unit with a 100% AMI target and in-lieu fee of $90,704.25) • 2.5 Above Moderate-income units (rounded up to 3 units or 2 units and $181,408.50 in in-lieu fees)
Proposed Ordinance, Program, and Fees:

For-Sale
437
• Example 1
• 2500 square foot office
addition
• $10 * 2500 = $25,000
• Example 2
• 2500 square foot restaurant
• $8 * 2500= $20,000
• Example 3
• Use Excel Tool
Proposed Ordinance, Program, and Fees:

Commercial Linkage
438
Recommendation:
 That the Town Council hold a public hearing to consider the Ordinance Amendment.
 Motion to read the Ordinance Amendment by title only. The Town Manager will read the full title of the Ordinance.  Motion to approve the first reading of the Ordinance
Amendment and waive future readings in their entirety.
 Adopt a Resolution implementing Affordable Housing
Requirements and Program Regulations.
 Adopt a Resolution establishing affordable housing in-lieu fees and non-residential/commercial linkage fees.
439
Item #: 3.1

STAFF REPORT
TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO Item #: 3.1
MEETING DATE: May 23, 2023
AGENDA TITLE: Town of San Anselmo Prescribed Grazing Program FROM: Sean Condry, P.E., Public Works Director
RECOMMENDATION:

1. Direct staff to implement the Town’s existing annual grazing program. The grazing program is exempt from CEQA.

Alternative Council Actions include:

2. Consider request from the Open Space Committee to hire botanist Shelly Benson of Benson Bio Consulting to perform the “Goat Grazing Impact Survey, Sorich Ranch Park”, Attachment 1, and authorize funding of $4,288.

3. If Recommendation 2 is considered, consider staff’s alternative recommendation and authorize a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a botanical survey consisting of a minimum of three botanist visits over the course of a year to obtain a more comprehensive and objective dataset.

BACKGROUND
Wildfires have substantially increased in recent years due to climate-change driven cycles of drought, extreme heat, and – more recently – accelerated growth of vegetation from record-setting rains. California has seen an unprecedented increase in catastrophic wildfires. In 2020 over 4.3 million acres burned and 33 lives were lost; in 2021, over 2.5 million acres of California burned and 3 people died.

Many wildfires have been located near Marin County, such as the Glass Fire in Napa County (2020), the Tubbs Fire in Santa Rosa (2017), and the August Complex Fire (2020). These fires resulted in the tragic loss of human life, billions of dollars in damages, and the wholesale devastation of entire communities. It is therefore critical that the Town of San Anselmo take all available actions to reduce the risk of devastating wildfire.

Carefully managed and targeted grazing in high-vegetation open space areas has been shown to be an effective and efficient tool to meaningfully reduce the risk of wildfire.

Targeted grazing reduces fire fuel load in open space areas that are adjacent to 440
Item #: 3.1
residential development. Grazing not only decreases the total fire fuel amount, but also decreases the overall height of underlying excessive vegetation, thereby improving suppression by reducing flame lengths, rate of fire spread, and fire severity. Herds can typically graze 1.5 acres per day. Manually removing this amount of fire fuel load in large areas of open space is impractical, inefficient, and cost prohibitive.

The Town of San Anselmo has participated in a prescribed grazing program since 2018 with other local agencies. Initially, prescribed grazing in Town was scheduled independently, but is now similar to the Marin Wildfire Protection Authorities (MWPA grazing program throughout Marin County.

Consistent with previous years, prescribed grazing is planned in Town for Sorich Park, Hawthorne Canyon, and Red Hill Community Park. A map has been provided to staff outlining the areas planned for grazing, Attachment 2. Noted above, the Town’s grazing program is exempt from CEQA.

DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS
A. History of Open Space Committee Discussion Regarding Grazing.

At its March 15, 2023 meeting, the Open Space Committee passed the following resolution in regard to Goat Grazing in San Anselmo Open Space, “The Open Space Committee is exploring the noticeable adverse impacts to vegetation and potentially soils from the 2020 prescribed grazing of Sorich Ranch Park and the 2022 prescribed grazing of Hawthorne Canyon Open Space. We ask the Town Council to direct staff to pause the use of prescribed grazing in our Open Space until the Town can determine that the grazing management plan in use matches town priorities and ensure that there is ample oversight of all grazing activities. In the meantime, if fuel reduction work is necessary, the Public Works Department has told the committee that it could conduct the work manually or by other means.”
At the May 17, 2023 meeting the Open Space Committee voted to rescind the above resolution and to “defer to the consensus of the Town Council at the meeting of May 23rd” and passed a new resolution stating, “authorize $4,288 to hire Shelly Benson to do the botanical survey of Sorich Ranch Park according to her bid contingent on the Town Council’s consensus to move forward with and pay for the report at their meeting on May 23rd.” The survey recommended is a single-day survey that would occur prior to any continued grazing.

As an advisory body, staff now brings forward the Open Space Committee’s request that the Town Council retain and fund Ms. Benson to perform a botanical survey of Sorich Park.

B. Town’s Annual Grazing Program.
441
Item #: 3.1
Staff recommends that a botanical study is not required and seeks Council direction to move forward with the Town’s annual grazing in order to reduce the risk of wildfire as it has done in previous years. As explained in detail below, staff has received the opinion of several experts who have opined that the Town’s targeted grazing program does not cause environmental damage, and that it reduces the risk of wildfire. Also, staff has taken additional steps to prevent environmental damage including wrapping tree trunks and retaining a grazing herd type that is less likely to eat tree bark.

In response to concerns that grazing on the Sorich Park Open Space is detrimental to the environment, staff participated in a site visit to Sorich Park with members of the Open Space Committee’s Goat Subcommittee, and experts in the field of wildfire management and grazing, including representatives from the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority, a representative from Star Creek Land Stewards (provider of grazing herds), a botanist with Sequoia Ecological Consulting, and the County Director and Livestock Range Management Advisor from the UC Cooperative Extension.

The major concerns expressed by the Open Space Committee prior to the site visit were loss of native flora, denuding of the land, and girdling of the trees in the grazed areas. However, loss of native flora and denuding of the land was not apparent. The grazed areas contained the same plants as the non-grazed areas. While some girdling of small trees had occurred, there was no threat to tree health.

The experts present at the site visit indicated that harm to trees can be avoided going forward by both wrapping the trees in wire to protect them from the animals and using a different type of herd. Both of these actions are being taken.

First, a contracted crew from the Central Marin Fire Department have already begun wrapping trees in Sorich Park to protect tree bark against damage. Second, the representative from Star Creek Land Stewards indicated that a different type of herd has already been planned for this grazing season, which will provide less damaging fuel reduction. Last year the herd was comprised of solely wether goats (males castrated at a young age) whereas this year the herd will be mixed female goats and sheep, which are less likely to eat tree bark.

Noted above, climate change has resulted in cycles of drought, extreme heat, and periods of record rainfalls – a combination that exacerbates wildfire risk and severity of potential harm. Over the past year, California and Marin County have experienced near record rain falls causing a significant increase in the amount of vegetation. As this increased vegetation dries over the coming summer months, the fire fuel load will significantly increase. The Livestock Range Management Advisor expressed that in terms of fuel reduction this would be “one of the worst years to skip grazing” due to the heavy rains over the winter months resulting in large amounts of vegetation in Sorich Park.

The continuation of targeted grazing in Sorich Park is consistent with the Sorich Park Master Plan, Attachment 3, (Plan) that was adopted in 1992. Although drafted over 442
Item #: 3.1
three decades ago – prior to climate-change driven catastrophic wildfires – the Plan acknowledges the high fire risk present in Sorich Park, particularly due to its location immediately adjacent to homes and on land with steep slopes. For example, on page 26 the Plan states about Sorich Park vegetation, “[h]owever, the mosaic of vegetation in combination with the steep slopes and the dry climate create a relatively high fire hazard for the area.” This fire hazard has increased due to climate change in the decades since the Plan was drafted. (By way of comparison, prior to recent years, the worst California wildfire year was 1999 where 110,000 acres burned.) Page 38 of the Plan also discusses high fire hazards including the border with homes and the urbanwildland interface nature of Sorich Park. The Plan itself on page 96 acknowledges that grazing can be beneficial.

If the Open Space Committee’s recommendation to move forward with the botanical survey of Shelly Benson is considered, staff recommends that Council instead approve the issuance an RFP for a botanical survey to include a minimum of three site visits over the course of a year. In speaking with experts in the field of wildfire management and grazing, staff was informed that a report consisting of a single site visit will only provide a one-time snapshot of plant life in Sorich Park and may give false positives on plant species present or not present in the park. Because plants seed and sprout at different times during the year, a single site visit is not scientifically comprehensive.

In addition, staff does not see the need to rush this since goats/sheep have been grazing for years and historically Sorich was a dairy farm and was most likely grazed during the time when the Spaniards inhabited the area. Whether this is done before the mixed goat and sheep herd come at the end of the month or after, the same information can be obtained from the areas grazed vs. non grazed. With the collection of data over time during the seasons when plants sprout, go to seed and die a more comprehensive, conclusive and objective data set could be obtained that actually provides clear information of what flora are present.

C. Staff Recommendations and Town Council Options.

Given the significant risk of wildfire, potential loss of life and damage to property, and successful history of the Town’s annual targeted grazing program, staff recommends that the Council direct staff to proceed with grazing on the mapped open space locations.

The Town Council could also consider approving the request of the Open Space Committee to hire Shelly Benson to perform a botanical survey prior to grazing.

If the Council is inclined to recommend a botanical survey, staff recommends that it direct staff to issue an RFP for a more complete botanical survey that will be performed over the course of one year in order to ensure accurate results. Staff has spoken with wildfire management and grazing experts, and was informed that a single-visit report will likely provide incomplete and potentially inaccurate results, because vegetations mature and appear at different times during the year. Given this fact, should the Council 443
Item #: 3.1
wish to see a botanical study, staff seeks direction to issue an RFP for a botanical study. Responses to the RFP will be reviewed objectively and consistent with State law and Town practice. Staff estimates that the cost of complete botanical survey of the noted open space areas would be approximately $40,000-$60,000.

CONCLUSION
The Town’s targeted and limited grazing annual grazing program has proven to be a cost-effective and efficient vehicle to reduce wildfire risk. Staff has worked with members of the Open Space Committee and has taken action to reduce any potential environmental damage by wrapping trees as necessary, and retaining a grazing herd type that will result in less bark damage. Staff is confident that the measures taken to reduce environmental damage will preserve native vegetation while simultaneously protecting the community and our first responders with the Ross Valley Fire Department.

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost for the prescribed grazing in past years has been approximately $30,000. The funding has come from Measure C Funds. The cost for the botanical survey could be funded by either the Open Space Committee or by the Town.

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
Not applicable

CEQA AND CLIMATE ACTION PLAN CONSISTENCY
The Town finds the prescribed and targeted grazing program (Program) to be categorically exempt from the requirement for the preparation of environmental documents under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, Class 4, for minor alterations to land, and Section 15301, Class 1, for Existing Facilities.

A Class 4 exempt project consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation that do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry or agricultural purposes. The Program constitutes a minor alteration to the condition of land under CEQA Guidelines section 15304. The Program will provide protection for trees by wrapping certain tree trunks to prevent damage to bark. The Program utilizes a grazing herd composition that causes less damage to tree bark. The Program will not cause significant erosion or sedimentation of any waters, and will not result in the taking of an endangered, rare, or threatened plant of animal species.

A Class 1 exempt project consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The Program will involve a minor alteration to open space 444
Item #: 3.1
land by removing excess fire fuel load vegetation through targeted and limited grazing.

There is no expansion of existing or former use.

Staff plans to submit a CEQA Notice of Exemption for the grazing program.

The prescribed grazing program’s consistency with the Climate Action Plan (CAP) 2030 is not applicable.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1 – Benson Bio Consulting Scope of Work
Attachment 2 - Grazing Map
Attachment 3 – Sorich Ranch Park Master Plan
445
BensonBioConsulting.com 1
Scope of Work: Goat Grazing Impact Survey, Sorich Ranch Park Submitted by: Shelly Benson
Benson Bio Consulting
896 W. Sexton Rd.

Sebastopol, CA 95472
[email protected]
707-479-6777
Date submitted: March 16, 2023
This scope of work outlines the tasks, deliverables, and cost for conducting a vegetation survey at Sorich Ranch Park to assess the impact of goat grazing. The park was last grazed in 2020 as a fuels reduction project for fire safety. On February 2, 2023, the San Anselmo Open Space Committee observed that grazed areas have not yet fully recover and is concerned that grazing practices have negatively affected native plant composition in the park.

In order to assess the potential impacts of grazing, this project would:

1. Conduct a botanical assessment of the site. This would include a floristic survey of the park, focusing on habitats where grazing occurred, to assess the diversity of plant species present. It would also identify locations in grazed and ungrazed areas that are suitable for making more detailed measurements to quantify the effects of grazing.

2. A focused grazing survey would be conducted to quantify the impact of grazing in the park. The survey methods will be determined after the initial botanical assessment of the site but will likely include measuring vegetation in several sample plots placed in grazed and ungrazed areas.

Measurements will include species richness, species cover (abundance), and amount of bare ground. A tally of the trees damaged by goat chewing would also be made.

Surveys would be conducted during the peak blooming period for grasses and forbs. The exact survey dates depend on plant phenology but will likely occur in early-mid May. Survey results and a final report could be delivered within 60 days of completion of field work.

The deliverable for this project would consist of a report summarizing the survey findings. The report would include a general description of the vegetation communities within the survey area; a description of survey methods, results, and conclusions for the focused grazing study; a map indicating the areas surveyed; and a list of plant species observed. A cost assessment is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Budget for assessing goat grazing impacts at Sorich Ranch Park.

Task Hours Rate Cost
Site assessment 8 134 1,072
Grazing survey 8 134 1,072
Data management 8 134 1,072
Reporting 8 134 1,072
Total 32 4,288
Item 3.1 - Attachment 1 Item 3.1 - Attachment 1
446
Item 3.1 - Attachment 2 Item 3.1 - Attachment 2
447
Item 3.1 - Attachment 2 Item 3.1 - Attachment 2
448
1 j
!
'l
. l
l
l
.J

MASTER PLAN

SORICH RANCH PARK

SAN ANSELMO, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:

Town of San Anselmo
Open Space Advisory Committee
Parks and Recreation Commission
Parks and Recreation Department
1000 Sir Francis Drake Blvd.

San Anselmo, CA 94960
Prepared by:

Thomas P. Murphy
Department of Landscape Architecture
University of California
Berkeley, California 94720
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
449
l , __ J
I
I
- J
I
_J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
450
l
r
l
~l
J
'l I
. l
l
'
. '
• _j
- j
(page 1 missing)
05/16/96(P:\BAR501 \RESTORE\MSTRPIAN .CVR) 2
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
451
l
j
. '
j
l
l
! - J
i
i . J
' i - ~
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
452
1 l
,-~
J
i
J
l
. l
I
Proposals for development of the Pru·k (even this limited proposal). must be reconciled with concerns for conservation of natural resources and preservation of neighborhood chru-a.cter. The intrinsic values of the park should be safeguarded: nann·al resources and systems must be protected and restored if necessary. :Vfanagement and design should strive to reduce fire and safety hazards. accomodate existing reasonable uses, and reconcile needs of the neighborhood and the community. Abo\·e all else the active participation of the conummity in the process of plamiing. implimentation ~md stewardsllip of the park and its resources should be promoted. These concerns cannot be neglected or ignored if the park resomce is to be sustained. The ultimate goal should be a park that fulfills recreational, educational ru1d conservation demands.

The Project
The Sorich Ranch Park Project is a plan to impro\·e, public enjo;ment. access. awareness and management of the 64 acre. unimproved S01ich Ranch Park and Open Space. 111e objectire is a professional quality. community-based. master plan for improvements and management of the Park. In respones to a request for a proposal by the ... · 1 San Anselmo Open Space Advisory Committee. Parks and Recreation Commission. and . J Parks Depru1ment. the project was undertaken as a volunteer service to the Town: and for pai1ial fulfillment of my i\Jaster of Landscape Architecture degree at U.C. Berkeley .. i
. j
l
J
l
~j
l
l •. ..J
The San Anselmo Open Space, and Park and Recreation Committees hope that with limited improvements some of the present and funu-e recreation needs of residents can be met and the maintenance of the open space. as a back drop to the Town, can be ensured.

Overall. they recognize the need to reconcile coricems for preservation. low impact recreation. and en\ironmental education. Initial committee goals also emphasize passive recreation. impro\·ed access. environmental restoration and low key impacts.

The project is a pruticipatory planning process that has engaged the c0111111wiity in the effort to satisfy their park and recreation needs. The project is based on: an assessment of park and recreation needs and concerns, a park site im·entory. a comnuuiity park goalsetting workshop, a series of public workshops and an exploration of site design concepts.

The final product is a the So.rich Ranch Park .\faster Plan: a site specific plan of the appearance. function and management of the Park. The project has been an opportunity for myself. as designer. to assist the conunwlity \\ith development of recreation and educational resources, through landscape architectural design.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
453
The Process
The Sorich Ranch Park planning process was a participatory process in that it engaged citizens of the community in the effort to plan for the future of the Park. Such a community based processes are invaluable since they can: improve community satisfaction:
increase community awareness of relenmt environmental. so~ial and political issues: foster community values: and promote inf om1ed stewardship of the park by community members. The process was based on a park site in1,·entory: an assessment of the community concerns regarding the park. recreation. and open space: and a series of public \vorkshops and e\'ents. Q1,·er 135 people were inrnh·ed in the process. including park users. neighborhood residents, Parks and Recreation and Open Space Ad,..isory committee members. and staff of the town Parks and Recreation and Planning Departments.

The site in\'entory. carried out O\'er the course of a year. included a field surn~y of natural and cultural factors at the Park and in the sun-ouncling neighborhood. as \Veil as a review of rele\·ant local planning documents. The in\'entory pro,..icled a clear definition of the opportunities and limitations to be addressed in any funll'e plan, and a picture of hmv people currently use the Park. 1J.any citizens and commmrity leaders contributed to the inventory effort.

The assessment of community needs and concerns, regarding park and recreation, was based on behavior obsen·ations at the park, interviews with community leaders and citizens, as well as the results of a community questionnaire. Initially. the views of over 100 people were polled. These eff011s re,..ealed many common concerns and some great ideas.

Acti\'e comrmmity participation in the planning process was further facilitated through a series of public workshops and events. The follo,.,ing events were organized to introduce issues. set goals, identify appropriate programs and acti1,,ities, and evalmte design altemati,..es.

Feb .. 20. 1992 Prelinrinan· Goal Setting ·workshop
Joint meeting of Park and Recreation and Open Space Ad,..isory comnrittee members.

Participants drafted goals and translate results of needs asssessment into specific policies and programs.
...)
-1
~1
I
-1
I
. l
l
_J
j
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
454
~l
J
l
i
i
J
l
C '
I
- _j
~larch. 17. 1992 Introductorv Communitv Workshop I
Illustrated presentation. Introduced key issues disco\'ered in the site inventory.

Participants crafted goals and policies presented in a \Vorkbook: and translated additional concerns into policies.
~:larch. 21.1992 Park Site Tour
Site tour. during which participants assisted ,vith site inventory: discussed possibilities and limitations of the site: and sketched their ideas or \'isions of a future Park in a workbook.

April. 8. 1992 Communitv Park Design \\;-orkshop II
Presentation of concept and preliminary Park site design. Participm1ts reworked fmal goals. and articulated approp1iate activity settings and programs.

April.22. 1992 Communitv Design w·orkshop III
Commemorative tree planting, by voltmteers, at Sorich Ranch Park. Final goals, policies and programs presented. Participants evaluated a spectrum of alternative trail and access plans. Final illustrative park site plan presented.

The major aim of the workshops was to facilitate the community's efforts to establish a concept. and a set of goals for improvements at Sorich Ranch Park. Through an iterative process.the early workshops lead to "community goals and policies". which are the principle statements of the conumnlity concept for the future of the Park. see be!O\V.

The "commwiity goals" and a set of park design p1inciples were the basis for the exploration of performance standards. activity settings, and specific design elelments.

Conceptual diagrams and sketches summarized the key relations between the appropriate Park actirity settings and the Park site.

The final workshop provided the community with the opporturuty to evaluate some of the .Management plans. as well as the overall conceptual Site Plan. The "commmuty goals" and the concepn1al Site Plan reflect the site factors. design principles and the views of those who participated in the project. to date. In each workshop a variety of options and their impacts were discussed. The basic ''commuruty goals" are as listed below. A complete st.,tement of "commuruty goals ,objectfres and policies" is included in the Appendix.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
455
The Master Plan
The following document is the end product of a comm.ittment by the Town staff. elected and appointed TO\vn officials, the consultant. and members of the community to public process to f 01mulate a !\,faster Plan which will significantly enhance and contribute to the quality of life in San A.nsel.J.uo. The infonnation is directed to citizens and officials who may have or want to have influence on the Park's furore: as well as interested persons who want to learn about the naniral and cultural history of the Park.

The :\laster Plan is a mangement plan and site design for S01ich Ranch Park. The Plan is based on community goals and professional park design principles. It is a conunu.nity generated plan for the Park. and not simply a technical rep01t prepared by the consultant: it balances of the desires of many i..ndi \'iduals and several interest groups. The prim::u-y goals of the project established in public workshops ru-e:
-Protect the intrinsic values of Sorich Ranch Park-a quiet. neighborhood park and open space that invites passiYe recreation. exploration and relaxation -Emphasize the concept of a quiet gateway park and explorable, wild open· space that captures. for all towns people. the benefits of the rural past and narural environment of wooded hills, grasslands, hidden canyons and creeks close to the heart of San Anselmo. A refuge and resource for passive recreation at the head of the valley.

In order to develope the Plan the consultant carefully analyzed the setting. the natural and cultural factors ::u1d user needs. The recommended site improrements are concentrated in the lower park area: less than four acres of the 6-1- acre site are effected. leaving the majoiity as a natural open space preserve. .-\ program of diversity and small scale is envisionsd: an official park entrance. a gateway area around the existing ''Bigrock". an open grassy terrace for infom1al recreation. a trail system. seating. and en \1ronmental interpretation.

The :\faster Plan is presented in 6 sections. The first section. the Site ln\·entory describes the character of the park setting. the existing park environment and the ch::u-acter of current use. The second section, User Needs Analysis details the "community concerns and goals" for the Park. These first two sections a.re the basis of i.nfonned planning and inspired desigIL The third section is a Summary of i\Ianagement Recommendations:
presented for the reader who does not wish to read the complete repo11. The fourth section. 5 \ ,'
\
I ' )
I . j
_!
' J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
456
'"'l I
1 r I
' __ ,
l\tfanagement Plan contains detailed analyses of key planning issues. introduced in the Site Inventory and User Needs Analysis. The conceptual site design of the park and concepts for site specific environmental interpretation are presented in the fifth sectioIL Finally a planting plan. implimentation plan and notes are contained in the Appendix.

The Master Plan is to be used in several \vays. First, it is a tool for public commwiication to build enthusiasm and financial supp01t for Park impro\·ement. Second. it is a comprehensive, site-specific conceptual plan of the appearrance and fw1ction of the developed Park. Third. the Plan ,vill serve as the basis for implimention of improrements and restoration of the Park by a licensed landscape architect. qualified Staff. and'or community volunteers. Fourth. the l\Iaster Plan document. particularly the Site I1wentory, ,vill serve as a brief guide to the natural history and environmental processes of the Park. for visitors, students and teachers.

Community Goals for Sorich Ranch Park
GOAL 1.

GOAL2.

GOAL3
GOAL4.

GOALS.

GOAL6.

GOAL 7.

Protect the intrinsic values of Sorich Ranch Park-a quiet. neighborhood pruk and open space that invites passive recreation, exploration and rela"\ation.

Maintain and enhance open space character of Sorich Ranch Park Park area: Upper Park improrements should be limited to minimal trail developments .ind restoration of habitats and natural systems. l\Ieet some of the park .:md recreation needs of tmvnspeople while enswing non-consumpti,·e use of natural resources at Sorich Ranch Park.

Promote visitor awareness of nature and environmental issues so thev can enjoy and protect the Park more readily. •
l\fake Sorich Ranch Park safe and inviting for the park users and nearby residents.

Promote voluntary community participation in the S01ich Ranch Park project.

C)
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
457
Introduction
This major portion of the ).faster Plan describes the findings of the Site Inventory.

The inventory. c::uried out over the course of ye::u·. included a field study of nahrral and culnu-al ch::u-acte1istics of the Park and the suITounding neighborhood .as well as a review of relevant pl::uming documents. The aim was not to be exhaustive. but to provide infomiation that would prove useful in defining the future management direction for the P::uk and serve as ::u1 "introduction to the Park" for the community. The information is addressed to residents. park users, park planners, managers. ::u1d other interested persons.

In fact, many San Anselmo residents ::u1d conummity leaders conhibuted to the inrentory effort.

For the park users, sn1dent or park pl::umer the inventory serves as a brief guided to the natural and cultural history of Sorich Ranch Park and the environmental issues expressed in the Park landscape. From the planning perspective the Inventory provides background for:
-analysis of opportunities and constraints on the use of SRP, -development of planning recommendations .
-development of programs and policies for appropriate use. -design of activity settings and conceptual site plans. -development of management prescriptions.

Issues covered in the inventory include: community context. history, native plants, wildlife. climate. soils, geology. creeks, ecological restomtion, erosion control, fire hazards. public access, trails. and current use. The inventory describes: 'what currently exists'. 'how it may have got that way', and 'what may have existed in the past'. '\\lw.t may exist in the future' is described in the Park ~fanagement Plan and Site Design. two subsequent portion of this repo11.
1 ' 1
j
' l
I
I
/
j
I
1 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
458
1 l
~l
i
j
:;,
---i !
l
~,
0 J
>--J
,_J
·. ,,'
0 ... ·o
}J. -<!>
/
t ~<pMARIN. COUNTY
2 J 4
Sale of Miles
··.1.:
. -. ·::.::
.. ~, .·· ~ .....
t .

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
459
CCl.BIA~ACC'TI'Eill CO)~ IPJ &ill::K CC(Q)Tu'JlliTJ'MIIff AW~ WJE II@ IBIIB3 (0) ill IBI (C) <D IDJ
Park Setting-San Anselmo
S01ich Ranch Park is located at the northeast edge of the town of San Anselmo. in central :\Iruin county. beneath the 1101them shado\VS of J\lt. Tamalpais. TI1e Park is surrounded by residential neighborhoods. mtmicipal land uses. and a cmmty open space preserve.

The Town is sih1ated in a seiies of narrow, \Vooded valleys of the Upper Ross Valley. flanked by moderate to steep hills ru1d ridges. San Anselmo is bordered by the communities of Sru1 Rafael, Ross. ru1d Fairfax. TI1ese communities contain many municipal pru·ks and adjoin lOOO's of acres of public open space. Special sites for every imaginable recreational pursuit ru·e available \Yithin the county.

San Anselmo owes its special character, in large part, to the surrounding undeveloped ridge tops and lands within the Town. To the southwest, Bald Hill provides a beautiful backdrop to the Town. To the north ru1d east, beyond existing residential neighborhoods. "open ridge lines and grassy oak studded slopes of Sorich Ranch Park give residents the benefits of a rural more open lru1dscape as existed in San Anselmo around the turn of the cenhrry".

San Anselmo Historv
A brief local history of the Cpper Ross Valley indicates that the early visitors and many of those who have passed this way since then. have found the ru·ea. its climate, and natural resources appealing for settlement and outdoor recreation. Long before Ew-operu1S anived, the Coast :\lhvok people roan1ed the hills and grasslands and fished the waters of Sru1 Anselmo creek. The Spruush established the first penna.nent Europeari settlements in the ru-ea around 1815. They tilled the land and planted orchards. Later ~Iexican settlers planted grains and raised livestock on their ranchos in the valley. By the 1850's. m ... 'ljor dairies \Vere established in the area. In 1866, these and other daiiies, in 0,,farin county. accow1ted for 75C:o of California nulk production (USDA).

The sights and sounds of the Upper Ross \'alley were primarily pastoral until 187-.J., when the Nmthem Pacific Coast Railroad added a spur line to San Anselmo from San Rafael. Railroad officials an."tious to see towns and people along the lines encouraged some "feverish real estate acti,·ity" (San Anselmo Historical Society) .. -\t the tum of the Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
460
1 'l
i century, San Anselmo was a favorite resort of San Franciscans \Vho wanted to spend the summer out of doors. These "summer folk" camped along the creeks in tents and cabins, ·1
J and toured the area around the funrre Sorich Ranch Park in the Upper Ross Valley. :\Iany older residents recall can1ping in what is now downtO\'m San Anselmo. After the 1906 San Francisco earthquake and fire. the Tmvn's population grew.as many of the summer residents built pe1manent houses, and planted gardens. A second great influx of population came with the opening of the Golden Gate b1idge in 1937. l:rbanization of the ,·alley during this pe1iod. greatly reduced fann land. as ranches were subdivided for residential lots.

Conum1rutv . l
1 Today. San Anselmo is a small residential commwuty of p1inuuily older neighborhoods and single fanuly residential subdivisions, which were established prior to : 1945 and the post \\'\VII housing boonL DO\'rntovvn San Anselmo lies along the stream valley. 15 minutes walk from Sorich Ranch Park. It compiises a thriving main street of restu.arants. and shops. Long established schools, churches and commercial insn1tutions are centrally located downtO\vn. The town architecrure provides a pleasant. "balanced mixture of types and styles". A mix of low-medium density single family residential. multi-fanuly residential and commercial land uses border Sir Frances Drake Boulevard .. the major arterial road in Town. Ho\vever, the TO\vn is predominantly a single fanlily residential community.

Lmv density residential neighborhoods range up the small valleys and O\'er wooded hillslopes. ;\fany houses are perched on steep slopes along very narrO\v streets. Residents of these lulside neighborhoods have little access to private or nearby public outdoor recreational space. San Anselmo has reached 96% of its ma.'\.imun1 residential development potential and it was the second most densely populated conumulity in ~farin county H,546 persons/sq. nu.). according to figures in the 1984 general plan. _ ! The residential population of Sm1 Anselmo. approximately l..J..400 persons (AB.\G. 1980) is predonlinantly white. middle to upper nlicldle class. Demographically. the population is comprised of two sigruficant age groups. Adults orer the age of ..J.5. including a substantial number of retirement age individuals, constitute about ..J.0% of the population. The town has a higher percentage of persons. over the age of 65 than the ~J count;y-\,ide a\'erage. The other major group includes yow1g adults. 25-35 years of age and their young fanulies. Households with families comprised 29% of all households in San Anselmo in 1980. However. older fanulies \\'1th teenage children are in a distinct Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
461

TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO
Marin County, California

GENERAL PLAN
RE~IDPITl~h
['.J Very low Density 1 or Im
[] Single family-Conservation 1 or Ins
n Single family 1. 6
tJ Medium Density 6 • 12
D H19h Dendly 13 • 20
0 Downtown Mi1td 6 • 20
-·· ·---,-~_.._ __ _ ·-... ··-···-
~'--...._
"' "' ()
le
.......... --=-=,_ a -·-·-
l
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
462
'l
I • J
-" I
I
I
)
. ' !
l
I
! . .,,
~-_;
minority. In fact. recent high school enrollments a.re historically low . whereas the demand for day care sen-ices is very high.

The local school district operates "'\'\;-ade Thomas and Brookside elementary schools in Town. High school youth attend Sir Frances Drake High School in San Anselmo.

San Anselmo does not have a strong commercial and industrial base. The majority of employed residents commute to jobs else\vhere in the comity and the Bay area.

The Tmvn is governed by a town council. consisting of.5 elected citizens .. -\n administrator. apppointed by the town council is responsible for seeing that policies and directives of the Council are implemented and depa1t111ents are properly coordinated. i\fanagement of TO\Vll parks and open space is the responsibility of the Planning and Public Works department. Various Town commissions advise the Tmm Council on matters pertaining to plaiming. library. parks ai1d recreation. open space. etc .. All members of these conmiissions are appointed by the Town Council.

There a.re a variety of traditional parks and public open spaces within the town in addition to SRP; each ,vith its O\'\tn intrinsic values. l\frmorial Park is the largest and most popular town park. Until 1967, this centrally located. 10 acre park was the only public park in San Anselmo. These days in ~VIem01ial Park. adults and children enjoy organized sports. playground activities. tennis. fanlily picnics. dog ,valking and informal recreation throughout the day. 365 days a yeai·. Use of this very accessible pai·k .is dominated by acti,·e sports enthusiasts: oppo1tunities for passive use by adults or senior citizens a.re lacking. ~fanagment of the park. in order to mitigate conflicts ainong the many uses and maintain the facilities is a tremendous challenge.

Robson-Harrington Park encompasses an histoiic mansion and 2.7 acres of grounds. acquired in 1 %8. The park has been de,·eloped as a neighborhood park and conununity vegetable garden. TI1e San Anselmo Parks and Recreation department. nms a popular stunmer day camp for local youth at the park.

Creek Park is a downtown w-bai1 nlini-park, popular nith day time downtmrn visitors and workers. Designated creek access and a small ainphitheater add appeal to tllis delightful park.

Faude Park is an undeveloped, 1--t. acre. wooded llilltop site. witllin a residential neighborhood. designated as open space.

Luidsdale Park is a neighborhood mi11i-pa.rk and tot lot, recently designed and constructed by enthusiastic conm1wlity volw1teers. In addition to these facilities. a number of neighborhood school sites a.re used. infom1ally, by Town residents for recreation. )V
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
463
Sorich Ranch Park Neighborhood
The neighborhood adjoining the Park is characterized by a predominance of single family d\vellings. A few small apartment buildings are located near the park on San Francisco Blvd. The neighborhood is typical of those which emerged in the early l 900's around the Bay Area. There is a consistency and harmony in the medium density pattern of houses, although each one is unique. The intimate scale and orientation of the houses . suggests there are many opportunities for social interaction. Residents are predominantly families with young children or senior citizens. Older houses are concentrated in the flat valley and a few. newer houses are situated on the hill slopes. along the park boundary. A pleasant aspect of the neighborhood a.re the dense and sometimes lush yards and plantings along the streets. i\fature street trees commonly create a canopy over the sh·eet throughout the town.

Sorich Ranch Park is popular nith the nearby residents and many view it as their neighborhood park. Several other parks are also within walking distance of the neighborhood including: Memorial Park and Faude Park. Sir Frances Drake High School and Redhill Shopping center are also within 1/2 mile walk.

Adjacent Land Uses
In addition to the mahJre residential neighborhoods, the Park is bordered by: other municipal land uses: a private day care center: undeveloped lands. zoned residential: and a cotmty open space preserve . \\l1en the Town purchased the lands of the Sorich Ranch in the 1960's. it was the original intent.ion top locate the public works yard on the property adjacent to a ne,v park. l11e Corporation yard garage still occuppies the original hay barn.

Activities at the yard include: maintenance and storage of vehicles and tools, and periodic transfer of recyclable glass and cans. tree trimings and leaf litter collected in the park. The activities can be noisy and unsightly for Paik neighbors and users. Traffic to and from the yard is periodic during ,vorking hours. The yard is closed on weekends.

The terrace above the Corporation yard, and adjacent to SRP parking lot \Vas. until recently, used for staging public \Vorks projects. Construction and utility contractors were pemtltted to store vehicles and equipment. in the area. for the duration of a job in the tmvn.

Historically. the terrace area and tl1e deb1is slope. above tl1e Corporation yard. ,vere a municipal dmnp. According to Public Works and Parks employees. most recently, the dump fill consisted of predominantly: tree trinunings and leaf litter from Town parks and streets: as well as other assorted public works debris inducting asphalt. rubble and street sweepings. Debris at the site has accumulated over the last 25 years. Following the I/
-1 I
-1
(
l
I
_)
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
464
1 -1 I
i
'1 i
i • J
1982 floods, the area was filled. in part. with silt and debris removed from stTeets of the Town . The stability of the slope and detailed characte1ization of the fill is indetenn.inate at th.is tin1e. Permanent dumping has been almost entirely discontinued. Fifty percent of the debris currently dumped there is transfered off site by a prirate contractor. at a cost of $400/week (personnal conunl.ll1lcation. Dean Nyberg). Public .'\Vorks Department has begun revegetation of the debris slopes.
){/ The Public Works staging area is also the site of a bi-annual. town-wide "Yard Debris Disposal Day". The San Anselmo Garbage Disposal Co. stations se\·eral roll-off deb1is boxes on the tem1ce for a day long collection of yard deb1is, clumped from residents cars and trncks. The company hauls the yard debris away free of charge as part of the yearly garbage pick-up contract. Some residents complain about inefficiency of the operation and its impact on the San Francisco Boulerard neighborhood. As an altern::i.ti H to the "Debris D::i.y" event. a Tom1-wide ''green cans" proposal was discussed in a Tom1 adrisory committee, in the sp1ing of 1992.

A The boundaries benveen the park. the current public ,vorks staging area and dump r -are not clearly defined. The gravel access road and areas to the south of it continue to be used for limited public works projects. The terrace and areas north of the gravel road have been mulched with wood chips and are currently considered park lands.

In the long range view of this project, all the lands on the terrace and the public works staging areas are cosidered potential park lands. Th.is point of view was affinned in all public discussions of the Park plan. Phased of implementation of the plan could accomodate transition of the existing public works lands on the terrace to park uses. .-\ reduction in the size of public \\'Orks senice area is of concern for Public Works and Parks personnel. Space requirements and site design of the existing Corporation yard ought to be studied in detail.

Private property. which adjoins the Park. includes residential houses and undeveloped lots on Sacramento .-\renue and Cam1el Way. and the SUBUD meditation J center. also on Sacramento . ..\\·enue. The grounds and parking lot of the SUBliD center border the Park. The center is leased to a popular. day care school on weekdays. year round. The grow1cls include a well equipped. traditional playground. Groups of school children from the school are taken on ,valks to SRP once or twice a day weather pemiitting:
making the children some of the most regular paik users. These outings ai·e extremely popular with the children. In fact, they h~rre naiued many landmarks in the park. some of which are adopted in tliis report
Several hundred acres of unde,·eloped private land. zoned residential (R\IP-0.1 ). ' : border the soutlHvest perimeter of the Park. These lands a.re targeted for open space i
Iv
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
465
preservation or public acquisition in the Open Space Element of the San Anselmo General Plan (General Plan Appendix A-26).

San Rafael Ridge Preserve
Undeveloped. public open space. managed by the i\fCOSD adjoins 50% (4600') of the park perimeter. The land. known as San Rafael Ridge Open Space Presen·e(SRR) encompass the ridge lines abore SRP and the eucalyptus gro\·e along the eastern border of the park. The official boundary of county preserve with the tO\vn park is not marked by signs or a fenceline. The first parcel on the Preserre was pmchased by the county in 1976. 10 years after the creation of SRP. The Town park was thus. a cornerstone to the crnTent county open space system.

Regional Parks
In the regional context . SRP is part of a huge resource of public open space managed by a variety of local, state. and federal agencies. The MCOSD lands bordering SRP encompass 1255 acres of undeveloped ridges and miles of trails extending from Sun Valley in San Rafael, to Tierra Linda and around the Santa lVfargarita Valley. as far north as Lucas Valley road. The District manages orer 9000 acres of open space across the county for presen·eation of natural environments and public e1tjoyment. In addition. nearby lands of the ~Jarin ~fonicipal ,Vater District(~L\,.CTVD). ~fount Tan1alpais and Samuel P. Tavlor State Parks and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGi'.',R;,\) encompass tens of thousands of acres of open space. Nearly 40% of ~farin county is managed as public open space. For residents of San .-\nselmo, SRP is a gate\'vay to this diverse mosiac of open space presen·es
"l
(
1 1
I
)
I
I
.J
j
i . J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
466
1 'l
' !
Park Site History
S01icl1 Ranch Park. the name itself ernkes a ,·isions of an historically different use of this piece of land. In fact. the O\'erall appearance of the Park and the swTotmding landscapes of central and ,vestern :\farin county are as much the result of histotic agriculn1ral land use. as natural factors.

The Coast i\li\vok people, the first knom1 inhabitants of the region. managed the lands and the vegetation by setting fires in order to clear bmsh and promote plant growth for graazing deer and antelope. Spanish. j\fex.ican, and American cattle ranchers continued these practices and cleared more land for grazing. planting and settlement. These agticultural practices resulted in the mosaic of woodland and grassland \Ve see today, in places like SRP.

The Park contains no known or recorded archaeological sites of the Coast ,~Ii wok people, who inhabited the area. Occassionally, artifacts are fowid alongside the main creeks in the Ross Valley; none are knO\\-U to ba\'e been recovered on Park lands.

However, there is a possibility of sites or resources being located on the Park or the adjacent presen·e (~ICOSD. 1991).

Spanish settlement of the area began in 1817. followed by subdivision of lands wider the i\Jexican rule in 183-J.. The lands of SRP were granted to Domingo Sais faniily. as pa.it of a 6.100 acre i\Iexican lai1d grant in 1839. From 1869 to 1912. the lai1ds lying between Sir Frances Drake bh·d. and San Rafael Ridge. including SRP. were managed as part of a cattle ranch nm by the J.O.B. Short fa.nilly. In 1912. the lower portion of the ranch was subdi\'ided for residential de\'elopment. Charles Pringle acquired the upper portion of the ranch (including SRP) in 1920 and ran it as a dairy. until the mid-1930's.

The property \vas then acquired by the Spagnoli family. who operated the dairy until 1946. at which time the ranch was sold to Nick and Genevie\·e Sorich. who continued to operate the dairy for 11 more years. The Sotich's grade A creaniery stood at the top of an unimproved circle drive. beyond the end of San Francisco Boulevard. The rufre. lined with ornamental trees. looped arowid Bigrock. just as it does today. i\iai1y long time residents of San Anselmo recall walking up to the dairy for milk. as children. Rising costs and insufficient grazing land were the prime reasons gi \'en for the termin..'ltion of the dairy activity by the Sorich family. in 1957. Subsequently . the fanilly raised cal \'es for se\'eral Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
467
years and lived in a portion of the fom1er creamery. The hay barn was leased for storage and the operation of a small cabinet shop, run by the Torressan fanlily.

In 1959. the property was appraised for sale to the TO\vn of San Anselmo. At that time. fair market value for the 64 acre parcel ,vas set at $60,000. The appraisal, by Farrington Jones and Son of San Anselmo. established the first proposal for development of the land for recreational purposes.
"With little capital outlay a dude ranch could be the highest and best use of the land. Small cabins could be built to accommodate guests. TI1e dude ranch would be slanted toward attracting middle income skilled and clerical workers from San Francisco. A restaurant. open to the general public. with burro rides over the ranch for children. would help bring in local ~Jarin county residents to the dude ranch.

Swimming pool. tennis courts. putting green. etc. would round out the dude ranch.

The subject property is near a recognized bus line. which is an item of convenience for the budget minded individual". Farrf 11gto11 Jo11es a11d Son. 1959 The TO\vn eventually purchased the tract of land. in October 1965. for the purpose of park system expansion and corporation yard use.

Sh01tly thereafter, the Town com1cil retained a landscape architect. Willial?l Kapranos, of San Rafael, to submit a proposal for the initial park planning at SRP. The landscape architect's final proposal completed in December. 1970. was as grand as that presented in the real estate appraisal in 1959, but more foresightful. The proposal described a regional park. dubbed the "Hub Regional Park". encompassing the lands of SRP and approximately 320 additional acres. linking San Ansemo. Tierra Linda. Sleepy Hollow, and San Rafael. Goals of the proposal included: preservation of ridge tops. development of recreational facilities and joint management of a regional park on the llills.

Specifically, the proposal divided the 62 acre SRP into a "llillside area" and a "le,·el area".

The hillside area was programmed for picnics. and "scenic outdoor classrooms". linked by extensive systems of "arterial and exploration trails". 111e 8 acre, level area was programmed to accomodate a new Corporation ya.rd and recreational facility including:
football field. swinuning pool. parking for 75 cars and "landscaped open space areas".

The plan ·would hare required extensive earthwork on the site including bmial of the creeks in cu.lrerts beneath the proposed parking lots.

The Kapranos plan for SRP never got off the drawing boards. However. his regional park idea was a foremnner to the cwTent San Rafael Ridge Open Space Presen·e managed by the i\ICOSD. which encompasses 1255 acres in the area today.

The early 70's did see the demolition of the dairy and stUTounding buildings.

Fmmdations of the crea.merv and milk barn, which stood behind it. currentlv !av . . .

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
468
1 '·, j
-~· ....

SOR! CH RANCH PARK

SITE ANALYSIS
Landmarks and Adjacent

KEY TO SYMBOLS

STREETS
Fl:RE ROADS
TRAILS
CREEKS
Land Uses

LOWER PARK
Contour interval 1 o·
Scale 0'~ .- )lait2SO'
8 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
469
demolished and partially buried on the slope and Terrace beyond the loop drive and Bigrock. Below the confluence of the creeks in Lower park folUldations of another outbuilding lay partially exposed in the creek bank. The original hay barn was converted to the present Corporation yard garage and currently houses workshops and equipment storage. The only other significant reminders of the by gone days of ranching on SRP lands are the barbed wire fence lines and sentinel-like fence posts, that stand silently in the grasslands.

In the late 70's, picnic tables, a park sign. and paved drive were added to the Park .

Construction of a hiking trail to the ridge top. knmv11 as the ''Oin1ax trail ", was begun but apparently never completed. Traces of the trail remain along West creek. In 1976, lands on the ridges stmmmding the Park were acquired by ~1COSD. In subsequent years there has been little additional development in or near the Park. t
I
l
~1 J
-!
--,
(
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
470
1 ··1 .
. \
!
l
\ ~ _.)
SORICH RANCH PARK.

SITE ANALYSIS
Lower Park Existing Conditions
.\ \\. lli
.
. \'
.
~·
l
Contour· interval 1 o·
Scale · ·
0' 100'
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
471
Visual Environment
Sorich Ranch Park is an integral part of the \'isual backdrop of San Anselmo and the Ross V allev. The land is highlv visible to residents of San Anselmo and Ross. as well ,,, -- .,, . as to tra\·ellers on Sir Frances Drake Boulevard. in the Ross Valley The hill slopes of SRP rise rapidly to the crest of San Rafael Ridge and the nearby eucalyptus gro,·e stands in sharp contrast to the adjacent open grasslands. Panoramic vie,vs of San Anselmo and Ross Valley landmarks attract many visitors to SRP. others come for equally special. close -up views of nature.

Visual ()ualities
\'isual qualities are of value and concern to Park ,·isitors, Tmvn residents and planners. This conm1mlity owes much of its special character to the visual qualities of unde,·eloped ridge tops and lands within the Town and the valley. The General Plan of San Anselmo m.-untains that "the visual qualities and view potential of both natural and man-made settings shall be of equal consideration Thith other factors in project revie,vs".

Development on hillside and ridges is regulated in the Town Plan. so as to "maintain. protect.and enhance the open space qualities". In fact. most lands abo\'e 150' mean sea level. within the town and its sphere of influence. lie ,vithin an official Open SpaceConsen·ation Zone or "ridge zone" ( General Plan. 1989).

The Park viewshed-all the area from which pai1s of the site are visible. is bounded by Sai1 Rafael Ridge to the north. Bald Hill and ~It. Tamalpais to the south. Oak Springs Ridge ai1d Bolinas Ridge to the west, Sunny hills Ridge and Ross-San Rafael di\'ide to the east. However. structures, topography, and a commonly dense canopy of trees in the neighborhoods interfere with views and hide the Park site from some locations in the viewshed.

Distant views of the Park focus on the Iidge top at the horizon. the open grasslands. the monolithic rock outcrops and the adjacent eucalypnis grove. View corridors-linear open spaces. such as linear parks or roads perpendicular to a view, allow unobstructed views to the dista.nt park landmarks. Portions of San Francisco Boulevard. Sir Frances Drake Boulevard (south of the ''Hub"), and open space at ;\-femorial park are all ,·iew comdors in the Park viewshed.

Distai1t vie,vs from the Park are numerous and some extraordinary panoramas are afforded those who hike just part way up the hillsides. From the Lower Park the views across the rootops of San Anselmo include the peaks ai1d foothills of Mt. Tan1alpais and 11 l
·1 I
--,
I
I
·1
·i
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
472
~l
'
1 '
- 1
l
r l
1 - \
l
I '- _)
. j
I --~
_ _)
Nit. Baldy. At viewpoints high on the hill side. one can capture views of the San Francisco Theological Seminary, dO\vntown San Anselmo. and Bolinas Ridge. The long ,·iews from the top of the ridge in the SRP encompass San Francisco Bay, San Pablo Bay, Mt. Diablo. the Berkelev hills. the Oak.land and San Francisco citv Sh.v'lines. as well as the towns of . "' "' San Anselmo. Ross, and San Rafael. One can experience a gl9rious sense of distance and openness from these panoramic view points.

In addition to the obvious panoramic vistas, important types of vie,v in the park are ones that off er relief or context to the wild natural setting or present a fresh way of looking _ at the park. The follO\ving are some e.xan1ples:

1. trees. topography, or combination which enclose an area; such as the redwood grore and various shady coves of trees and rock outcrops at the grassland edge.

2. landscape elements ,vhich.frame views; like the trunk or canopy of a mature tree in the woodland. or a snag in the open grassland.

3. landscape elements which give scale or focus to a natural setting: like rock outcrops (Bigrock and Deer rock). boundary fences, and woodland edge

4. places that afford a different angle or perspective on a scene; like a break in the dense underbrush along the stream bank.

5. features that obscure objects or places of interest and off er the element of surprise in the hidden vii>tv; like the slope separating the existing terrace from the Bigrock area.

Visually obtrnsive elements are the final type of views in the Park ,·iewshed. Direct views from the Park. of the Corporation yard. the old dump site and the cyclone fence enclosure are undeniably industrial in appearrance and obtrnsive in the park ,·ie,vshed. In the opinion of many Park visitors. the public works staging area and existing barren ten-ace area are visually obtrusive. In fact. the San Anselmo General Plan states that the yard "should be made visually compatible with the SRP setting''.

Visual Experience
The Park \"isitors initial experience is detemnned by their entrance route. Since most people approach the Park along San Francisco Boulevard on foot or in a car, the road's alignment establishes important sightlines. From the boulevard, the first impression is a distant \1ew of rnral grassland slopes and ,vo0<Uancls at the head of the ,·alley, beyond the tidy front lawns. along the boulevard. This view is deflected as the sidewalk ends and the road rise over a knoll. around a bend past more rural-looking houses, lots and buildings. beyond the TO\vn limit. The clistant grassland view returns as the road al1ead /5
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
473
splits in three or four directions: toward private driveways. the Corporation yard gate and the Park entrance. However, no significant visual clues or landmarks exist here. to exite a sense of arrival or simply indicate that a park is ahead. The Corporation yard gate is not posted either. ,Vith the distant view of the grassland still ahead. one passes beside the Corporation yard gate onto the Park site. Beyond the red\vood. grove, a sign in the picnic area. to the left. indicates this is indeed Solich Ranch Park. The picnic area is cool shady and inviting on a hot summer day. The road then continues up the hill to finally end at the BigRock: reinforcing some landmark quality for th.is monolithic outcrop.

Beyond the parking area around the Bigrock, is the public \Vorks staging area and the barren terrace. bidden from view. These open areas at the foot of the ever steepening view of the grasslands. hare the distinct appea1nnce of a temporary construction site.

However, views from the Te1Tace looking back to the south, over the roof tops of San Anselmo are of Bigrock, Bald Hill, and ~-ft. Tamalpais. From this rnntage point the Corporation yard is almost hidden, below the brow of the Terrace. To the no1th. the wooded strean1 valley curves up the hillside but still a glimpse of the head of the valley eludes the viewer. To the east, the forest of eucalyptus hangs down like a curtain along the Park perimeter.

A closer look, beyond the terrace. reveals the subtle details of this place- -wildflowers. grasses. long runs of solemn fence posts standing on the slope: stately silent oaks: dark shady forest cover; a glint of water flowing over stream gravels: a curious variety of rocks. colorful flights of bluebirds: hawks and vultures soaiing oveti1ead: rabbits flashing through the brush: deer prancing across the grassland: and odd aitifacts of a bygone agricultural era.

The Pai·k is naturally tranquil, which is a significant attraction for many visitors.

The sbunds of ,vind. occassional falling water, birds. boisterous children and other Park visitors are some of the natural sounds heard across the Park. Vehicu.lai· traffic and maintenance activities in the Corporation yard ai·e the major sources of noise. The recycling transfer station is particularly noisy. However. these potentially disturbing operations in the yard occur only on weekdays, 8-4 pm, ,vhich are hours of limited Park use.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
474
Park Landf orm
Sorich Ranch Park comprises 62 acres of grassland and woodland. situated on the south-facing slopes of San R.'lfael Ridge. in the Upper Ross Valley of central Marin Cow1ty. The Ross Valley is pait of the hilly to steep mountains of the California Coast Range. that dses from sea level to 2500' in ~Iarin county. The Upper Ross Valley encompasing the towns of San Anselmo. Ross. and Fai1fax. is smTounded by steep upland slopes ai1d ridges, ,vhich flaiik naiTow alluvial valleys. The valley and the slopes including those in Sorich Ranch Park ai·e dominated by Mt. Tamalpais. the sacred mountain of native American legend. Nmnerous intennitent streai11S, ,vhich flow for short periods in the rainy season, drain the slopes ai1d flow· into Sai1 Anselmo Creek on their way to Sai1 Francisco Bay.

The striking lanclfom1 of the Upper Ross valley and SRP are due in large part to the vaiied and contrasting topographic and geologic setting. Exposed bedrock. exotic soils. common landslides and active erosion all contribute to the appearrance of the landscape.

The land form, its underpinings and processes exert a profound effect on the local climate and the distribution of vegetation.

Climate and :i\,Iicroclimates
Local climate of the Upper Ross Valley is chai-acterized by moderate temperatures and precipitation, due to its proximity to the Pacific Ocean and Sai1 Francisco Bay. at1d the effects of local topography. Smnrners are dry, winters ,vet; in a typical ~Iediterranean climate pattern. Temperatures seldom dip below freezing and rarely exceed 100' F. :Mean annual maximum temperature is 83'F and minimum is 38' F (SCS). The wanner sununer periods are usually followed by strong onshore breezes. Local topography influences both wind direction and speed. Westerly winds are typical dwing summer afternoons. In late -J sun1111er and fall. ''Santa Anna ",vinds blow from the north-north east. periodically. ~Iost of the precipitation in the area falls dwing 6 months of the year, November to April.

Average annual rainfall total for Sat1 Anselmo is approximately -+0''/year. In this inland area summer fog is dry ai1d only occurs in the early mornings. On occassion the ridge tops of Sorich Ranch Park reach above the fog, which blankets the town below. The pai·k lies in the Sunset plat1t climate zone 15.

Microclimates within the park result from local variation in the aspect of slopes and vegetation cover. For exan1ple, the microclin1ate under an oak tree may be quite different than on the adjacent grassland. Under the tree sun1111er temperatures will be more Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
475
moderate. soil moisrure higher. and light intensity will be less. As a result of these microclimate variations. different plants thrive in particular areas and the human comfort level varies accordingly. Generally. the microclimates of the existing picnic area and the redwood grove are shady and pleasant. Deep shade within the bay forest of the Upper park and dappled shade of the oaks in the open grasslands are also s_easonally comfortable. ~Iicroclimate factors should be carefully considered in the location of vruious park and recreation anunenities. including seatiiig and trails.

Topography and Geology
Topographic elevation in the Pru"k ranges from 1-1-0 feet above mean sea level in Lower park 600 feet. neru· the top of the Sru1 Rafael Ridge. The Park is typified by steep temain. with slopes ranging from 0% to greater than 60 %. The slopes of the open grasslru1d rising from Lower pru"k to Deer rock average 30'.b. There are a few broad ridges ·with slopes as gentle as 10 % ru1d the lmver portions of tl1e Park include fairly level tenain and several terraces along the creek. The south facing slopes are somewhat hummock-y and lumpy in appearrance, due in part to the prevalance of ancient and recent landslide deposits as well as huge monolithoic outcrops of bedrock. ~Iarin county occupies a geologic setting that is not static or stable, but dynamic and has been so for the last 150 million years. It's changing constantly. on the scale of geologic time: quite slowly in most places, but rapidly in some. The uplift of bedrock and evolution of soils are occuning slowly. lru1dslides and erosion occur rapidly.

The slopes of Sotich Ranch Park and the Upper Ross Valley, north of San Francisco Boulevard. are underlain by a disrupted bedrock assemblage of large and small masses of various hard rock types. embedded in a fine grained matrix of sheared ru1d crushed rock material. This combination of disrupted rock masses is k.nmv11 as melange.

It represents a broad zone in the earth where old bedrocks were broken and sheared. as a result of the interaction of regional scale tectonic plates of the earths crust. dri ,·en in opposing directions past each other by forces deep in the eru1h. Subsequent gradual uplift and erosion have exposed the rocks at the surface. This ancient melange is part of the Franciscan geologic fotmation, which is approximately 150 million years old.

The lru1dscape of the melru1ge temme at SRP is characterized by the presence of scattered prominent outcrops and monumental masses of hard rock projecting out of the othenvise smooth grassslancls. The hard masses ordinarily comprise ru1 ass011ment of rock types, principally mrui.ne sandstone, reel chert, sea floor volcanic rock and serpentine. The resistant blocks can range from a fraction of a foot to a mile in length. The ,veak melange matrix of crushed rock material commonly weathers to higllly e;,:pansi,·e clay soils. It is ~,
l
I
J
I
J
i
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
476
l
-1
l
- ' i
__ I ,
this erratic distribution and different strengths of the bedrock W1derl1ing the slopes that yields the interesting and pleasing landscape of SRP and much of central ;\,Iruin.

Some of the yoW1gest geologic materials in the area are unconsolidated sand and gravel that lies under the streams and flat areas along the creeks of the Upper Ross valley.

Landslides
Landslide deposits are abundant in SRP. indeed they blanket these slopes and the slopes of many of the 1-idges of the Ross Valley. In SRP. landslides ov~rlie the ancient bedrock of melange. Land slides constitute a geologic hazard to structures and roads and trails throughtout much of coastal California. They yield add complexity and interest to the natlU'al landscape of the Park.

Landslides are surficial deposits of rock and soil that ha\'e separated from their original positions on steep slopes and mored dmv11 under the influence of gravity. They indicate an existing or past condition of unstable slopes. The principal criteria for recognition of such deposits are the characte1istic topographic expressions (e.g. scarps, and hummod .. y- ground surfaces) that result from the do\\'11ward and outward displacement of the sliding masses.

Creeks and Springs
Four seasonally intermittent creeks orginate on the Park uplands. These creeks flow off the site into culve1ts, which channel the water under the Co1poration yard. adjacent neighborhoods. and :\Iemorial Park: eventually they flow into San Anselmo Creek. near the "Hub". Two of the creeks, here referred to East and West creeks drain the central po1tion of the Park. TI1ese hvo creeks meet at a confluence in the Lower park and flmv along the redwood grove to a culvert under San Francisco Boulevard. at the southwest comer of the park. A third creek, knmm here as Sorich Park creek drains the northeast comer of the Park: it flmvs off site into the eucalyptus grove and then back across the southeast corner of the park along the perimeter of the old dW11p site and the Corporation yard until it too enters a culvert A fourth creek drains the n01thwest comer of the park. abo\'e the SUBUD center.

East and West creeks both cut dmvn to bedrock in the bay forest of Upper Park.

Small cascades occur dtning high flmvs, over several reaches of each stream. Water can be heard rushing dom1 the channels on these occassions in winter and spring. , However. as a result of the downcut channels, the stream banks are usually steep: access and stream crossings are quite difficult in Upper Park
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
477
At their confluence, near the base of the slope the two streams cut through softer alluvial soils and sediment acctn11ulates in a gravel bar. Beyond the confluence. the creek cuts a steep bank on the hill slope before running past the redwood grove. This cutbank is W1Stable and the park perimeter fence line has been underminecL In fact a reconnaissance topographic survey of the park boundary in the area indicates that the active creek channel may have shifted onto adjacent private property and off the park lands. as a result of undercutting of this bank. Access to the creek at and below the confluence is good: the creek can be forded here also. Above the confluence. East creek is lined with a dense willo\v thicket and the channel is deep making access more difficult. Pieces of steel culvert are partially buried in the channel here, at an historic stream crossing last used during the June 1976 firefight.

So1ich Ranch creek. which drains the eucalyptus grove, cuts tlu·ough soft allm·ial soils along the southern perimeter of the Park. Access is good. although a \villow thicket lines the chammel periodically. Debiis and runoff from the adjacent. disused dump site enters the creek channel on occassion.

Several perennial springs. located high on the ridge at the northern perimeter of the park are a source water for the intennittent streams. However, by the beginning cif the dry season most of the water. soaking the do\vnslope wet meadows, never reaches the dry stream channels. The complex bedrock of melange and hard rock masses beneath the park lands creates an unusual distribution of these springs. Many of the large rock masses contain abundant open fractures that can trap considerable amounts of rain water. \vhich is released in the dry season. Thus. these monolithic blocks constitute natural "water tanks" high on the ridge. Locally. other fractures in the bedrock serve as conduits for groundwater. Several springs were still flowing in sununer of 1992. the sixth year of the recent drought. They provide a crncial source of water for local wildlife and plants.

Soils
A ,·aiiety of soils. including unique seqJentine soils. occur in the park. Soils are fonned by the weathe1ing of rocks and other materials present on the smface: therefore, soils vary from place to place, depending on the bedrock. topography ai1d clin1ate. Soil is more than brmv11 mud. It is a natural body on the earth surface that supports plants. It consists of an intricate ensemble of minerals and organic matter (Prnnuske. 1987). The type of soil plays a major role. along with m.icroclin1ate and topgraphy plays in detennining what kind of plants gro\v in an ai·ea. In tum. the plants affect '1.vhat species of animal cai1 live there and the comfort level of humans in the ai·ea (USDA, 1985). . J I
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
478
r-'l
l
,
Soils of the Park are derived from bedrock of Franciscan melange, including ,-1 sandstone, shale. greenstone, and serpentine. The soils are mo~erate to deep, well drained. slightly acidic upland soils (USDA.1985). The Soil Survey of Marin county ~1 (USDA, 1985) describes two main local soil types:

C l
Tacoloma soil-a grayish brown loan1. which supports hardwoods. bay and oak Saurin soil-a yellov1.ish brown clay loani. which supports annual grassland Serpentine soils are relati\·ely baiTen soils. \Vhich form over serpentine bedrock: a rock of tmusual chemical composition. The soils are shallow. clay loams and often stony (USDA). They support fe\v species of plants, although a number of endemic species are particularly adapted to the soils (see Sensitive Ecological Areas).

The clay rich soils of the Pai"k are a geologic hazai·d to streets and structures built upon them. without adequate engineering of the foundations. These soils. conunon to sites elsewhere in :1\farin. are prone to swelling when wet and shrinking when dry: consequently the heaving of fmmdations and roads results. The instability of the steep hillsides throughout :1\-Iarin is also atributable to these shrink-swell clay soils (Smith, 1976). Runoff of rain falling on these soils is rapid and locally ,the hazard of soil erosion is high - ' ! particularly when vegetation cover is sparse. - ) -J
' I __ _j
Erosion and Drainage
Sites of significant soil erosion at SRP are indicated on the Hazard map. The natural process of soil erosion is the product of soil. climate. topography. vegetation. and human or aiumal activity (USDA.1985). Throughout stable watersheds the rate of erosion is slow: but in many watersheds, including SRP, human land uses have accelerated the rate of erosion beyond natures ability to recover. With the loss of soil. vegetation is lost and slope stability is compromised; structures. roads and trails may eventually be lost.

Erosion at SRP has been caused by overgrazing of livestock. improper road grading and routing of trails across overly steep slopes. Overgrazing of livestock has caused erosion and soil compaction resulting in increased runoff of rainfall. Exainination of stream channels in the Park indicates: significant downcutting as a consequence of the rapid runoff. sediment accumulation at the confluence of the East and West creeks. and stream bank failure near the redwood gro\'e. Instablility of the downcut strean1 blanks eventually results in the loss of riparian \'egetation.

Fire roads and service roads in the Park and on the adjacent preserve, originally constructed as ranch access roads. ai·e often improperly located and inadequ..1tely graded (~ICOSD, 1991 ). Continued use of the roads has resulted in gullying and erosion in Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
479
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
480
. ' I
j
l • J
Park Vegetation
A mosaic of different plant communities covers the ridges hillslopes and stream valleys of Sorich Ranch Park. There are four major vegetatioµ types on the site: grassland, shrubland. \Voodlancl. and forest as well as hist01ic oman1ental plantings around the ranch site. The present vegetation mosaic has developed O\'er time. tlu·ough complex interactions between en\·ironmental conditions on the site including: geology, soils, topography. m.icroclimate, plant succession and historic land use practices. The area supports the sunival of numerous conunon plants and some rare species in a relatively natural mosaic.

The vegetation is ,·aluable for its ecological. esthetic and recreational resomce potential.

Howe\'er. the mosaic of vegetation in combination with the steep slopes and dry climate create a relati rely high fire hazard for the area.

The purpose of th.is imentory and analysis of the vegetation is to assess the current distribution of vegetation and the degree of fire hazard it represents: to identify sensiti,·e ecological areas: to assess envirorunental factors affecting the distribution of vegetation: to describe the major vegetation changes that have occurred as a result of man's infli1ence, particularly the importation of weeds and non-native plants. The inventory will support recommendations for planning and management of the Park.

Field s1ITTeys of the study area. conducted through out the year, and aerial photo inte1pretation indicate the vegetation mosaic can be divided into several specific plant communities. TI1e conununities are illustrated on the Vegetation Inventory :\fap and include: oak-bay forest, eucalyptus forest. oak woodland. riparian 'woodland'. redwood grove. oak-baccharis brnshland. North Coast Scrub. grassland. wet seeps and springs. and ornamental plantings. This inventory complements and extends a recent sn1dy of vegetation on lands s1m0tmding the Park. managed bv ,\ICOSD. The following - - . - .,, - descriptions characterize each vegetation conunun.ity in tern1s of dominant species . . J composition of the understory and grouudcover layers. ~-j
Oak-Bav Forest
The oak-bay forest. found along the hillside strean1 courses and dr:nvs between the grassland ridges. is dominated by coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and California bay (Umbellularia califomica). These forests are found where fairly moist conditions and moderately \Veil de\'eloped soils occur. Coast li\'e oaks fa.·or the somewhat drier areas.

These forest also support California buckeye (Aesculus califomica), California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) and madrone (Arbutus menziesii) in conditions of more moderate Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
481
places. In the past, inadequate grading of the Ridge trail on ;\ICOSD preserve routed ,vater onto SRP from the preserve. causing severe gullying above the upper reaches of East creek. Drainage in this area continues to be inadequate. Rtmoff from the old road above the SlJBLU parking lot. also known as the San Anselmo trail, is rep01ted to be draining on to residential property at the south east comer of the park. Cwrently roads on the MCOSD preserve are graded by the ~vICOSD and the i\fCFD. Roads on the SRP are tl1e maintenance responsibility of the town of San Anselmo.

The main user-made trail. Deer rock trail, \Vas dereloped across orerly steep slopes, and is resultng in erosion of tl1e trail and hillside ,·egetation. Trails leading to Stm Valley and the :t,.,ft. Tan1,.-tlpais cemetery, in the south east coner of tl1e park, are also eroded \Vhere the routes cross steep slopes.

Gullying of slopes and ponding of water occurs on the existing parking lot, the terrace and public works staging area as a result of inadequate drainage.

The effects of soil erosion are not limited to the site where soil is lost. The detached soil, called sediment, enters the ,vater system and settles out at culvert inlets. in stream bottoms, or the esnmry at Corte i\fadera. It can clog the culverts and reduce their capacity to handle serious storm flows: thereby increasing flooding. F1oods inundated San Anselmo in 1982, when culverts and channels could not accomodate the storm flows.

Sediment will also fill in \vetlands and blanket stream bottoms destroying habitat for fish and aquatic animal species. Small erosion problems in the uplands, like SRP, can cont:Iibute to vast regional losses (l!SDA, 1985).
' l
l
. 1
.1
~)
I
1 I ._J
' j
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
482
, 1
I
1 i
i ,_ J
~-J
-v~r1 ·

SORI CH RANCH PARK

SITE ANALYSIS
Vegetation Map
KEY 1'0 SYMBOLS
· S SENSITIVE PLANT AREAS
0 OAK WOODLAND & BAY WOODLAND

C COASTAL SCRUB

B BARREN
Contour interval Io·
Sea I e o· ,-.c:::,-t •
LOWER PARK 6

G GRASSLAND

E EUCALYPTUS

R RIPARIAN
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
483
moisnire. Manire stands of the dominant trees average 30-60' in hieght. The understory of the oak-bay forest varies \vith dominant tree species and degree of shade. Few plants are found in the deep shade beneath mature stands of bay trees. The ground is commonly covered with bay leaves, twigs and broken branches. In less shaded areas of mixed stands of trees, a diverse understory. 3-6' in height. has become established consisting of: poison oak (Toxicodendron diversiloba), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia). California blackbeny (Rubus ursinus). coyotebush (Bacchaiis pilulaiis). monkey flower (Diplacus mirantiacus).

Typically. more moist areas (rare on this site) also include: western sword fem (Polystichum munitum), maidenhair fem (Adiantum jordaili). snowben-y (Symphoricarpus rivu.laris). red flO\vering cunant (Ribes sanguiti.itun). and rye grasses (Elymus glaucus). \\7estem huckleberry (Vacinium ovatum). and California hazelnut (Corylus califonlica) also grow in the more moist understory of an oak-bay forest. Beneath the oak trees on drier sites in the park a va1iety of grasses and forbs occur.

Oak Woodland
Oak woodland occurs on the margins of the oak-bay forest, on dry south facing slopes of SRP. In contrast to the oak-bay forest the typical oak woodlands have·open canopies, grassy ground co1,·ers and are donlinated by coast live oak and valley oak (Quercus lobata). The valley oak occurs in deeper soils where it attains great stature. mature trees range from 30-100' tall. Trees are widely spaced and oak woodlai1d grades into grass land communities. Near moist drainages. the oaks are often associated ,vith buckeye. toyon. madrone. and bay. Although there is no tme understory, scattered shmbs such as mai1zailita(Arctostaphylos spp.), ceanothus (Ceanothus spp.), poison oak and coyote bush, invade the \Voodlai1d edge. .-\. mixture of annual and peremlial grasses is the typical groundco\·er.

Oak woodland is one of the most common plant conum1nities of northern California. however seedling predation by grazing cattle. deer and rodents are so intense that seedling oaks are rare in mai1y areas. The oak woodland is considered an endangered plant commwiity by ma11y researchers (G1iffith. 1977). Unless we focus on careful management. "there will be no young oaks to replace the patriai·chs of the oak woodlands when they topple from old age".(Shufford and Timossi.1989) Ri paria11 "woodland"
This plant conununity is limited to the stream banks of the Lower Paik at the base of the steep wooded ca11yons. The clonlina.nt vegetation is conunonly a 6-1 O' slm.1b layer of anoyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) and thickets of California blackberry a11d poison oak. 11 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
484
l
J
!
1 ,·1
1 . j
l
~J
,_J
Currently no tree canopy exist in these corridors. The groundcover includes: bracken fem ( Pteridim aquilinum), rnsh(Juncus spp.). horsetails(Eqiusetum arvense), hedge nettle(Stachys chamissonis). stinging nettle CCrtica californica) ·and a mosaic of grasses and forbs. \\7here this community grades into oak-bay forest, at the base of the steeper canvons. the moisture loving, shade tolerant California bav trees mix \Vith the willows. . - - . l\Jany riparian communties in the l\Jarin county, ranch country (including these in SRP) have been seriously degraded by grazing and tran1pling of cattle. Locally. the typical trees in a healthy riparian co1riclor include: bigleaf maple(.-\.cer macrophyllwn). white alder(.-\.lnus rhombifolia). and California sycamore(Platanus racemosa). .-\. typical association of riparian plants is also not well developed here. in the Lower park. because the creek does not cany water in the dry summer months.

Redwood Grove
A second growth conimunity of a dozen coast redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens) occur along the stream bank in the Lower park. These 60-80' tall trees cast deep shade across the picnic area. late in the day. The distribution of redwood forest communities depends on high summer humidity and deep alluvial soils, found in the stream vai.leys.

The redwood understory in Lower park includes young valley oaks, California blackberry, and coyote bush. The ground cover is patchy; some redwood son-el (Oxallis oregana), herbaceous annuals and grasses grow under the trees and shrubs. Typically. the understory comprises western hucklebeny(Vaccinium ovatum), western azalea(Rhondodendron occidentale). woodrose(Rosa cal.ifomica). and blackberry. The groundcover includes western S\Vord fern. redwood violet (Viola sempen'irens) and wild ginger(Asarum caudatum).

Baccharis.,Poison Oak Brnsh..land
Shrubland dominated by baccharis (Baccharis pilularis), also known as coyote bush. and poison oak occur on shallow disturbed soils and in the transition zones between wo0<lland and the grassland. ..\ diverse association of herbaceous broadleaf perennials. native perennial grasses are pat1 of this plant comnnm.ity including: sticky monke:i1ower. blackberry, yerba buena,(San1reja douglasii), bracken fem, and goldenrod (Solidago califomica). The density of corerage varies from areas total..ly dominated by shrubs to areas of scattered shrubs an1ong grassland or oak woodland. Baccharis is an important successional species that will invade distrnbed soils (e.g. landslide areas. road cuts and bare ground) and grassland areas following the cessation of grazing (~JcB1ide) Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
485
Northern Coastal Scrub
A second type of brushland plant conmmnity in the Park is dominated by coastal sage (Artemisia califomica), and stick-y mon.keyflower. Northern Coastal Scrub occurs on very shallow. rock··y soils and south facing slopes of the Park. This one layer association of evergreen sluubs is typically 2-1-' high and includes lesser ~ounts of: coyotebush. poison oak , califomia blackberry, and lupines(Lupinus spp. ). The scrub community is generally a dense intertwining of almost impenetrable shrnbs and sparse ground CO\'er of grasses. herbaceous a1muals and pe1Tennials. This native plant community is highly adapted to \\·ilcl fire and regenerates \'ery quickly.

Grassland
Grasslands dominate the mosaic of plant communities in SRP co\'edng the broad south facing slopes and ridge tops where soil is thin. Basically the grassland is an arurnal type dominated by European annual grasses with scattered but locally abundant native perennial and annual grass communities. 'While there are differences in which species are dominant in any one location these differences have not been used to separate grassland communities within the complex mosaic. The dominant annual grass is wild oat (Avena fatua) a European annual grass. Other common exotic annual grasses that co-dominate at specific sites include: soft chess (Bromus mollis), ripgut brome (Bromus rigidus). Italian rye grass (Loli um multiflomm). The native California perennial grasss associated \vith these annuals include: purple needle grass (Stipa pulchra), Califom.ia brome (Bromus spp. ). blue wild rye (El1mus glaucus), California melic (l\Jelic califomica). These native species were common to the perennial grasslands of Califom.ia in the 19th century prior to the introduction of European annual grasses. In areas of extremely thin soil eroded soil. on south facing slopes. the primary grassland cover is red stem filaree (Erodium cicutarium).

On scattered sites that are more moist. wildflowers. broadleaf herbaceous groundcovers and woody perennials are abundant. including: soap plant (Chlorogalum pomeridium), pacific iris (Iris douglassi). blackben-y. yarrow. dwmf plantian (Plantago hookeiian). pearly everlasting (Anaphalis margruitacea). lupine, mule ears(W"yethis angustifolia). (others)
Some grassland areas of the Park are dominated by the native purple needle grass.

Pru1icularly unique occurrences of needle grass are found in the serpentine grassland. high on the south facing slopes between the East and ,,,-,·est branches of Sorich Ranch creek.

Growing with the needle grass bunches are exotic annual grasses ru1d a host of natire perennial and annual flowering plants; plants that make th.is community a rich wildflower habitat.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
486
l
l
j
- J
I - .. .J
Grasslands above the spring in the East creek drainage at the 1101th side of the Park are distinguished from the other areas by the abtmdance of Harding grass (Phalaris tuberosa stenoptera), an introduced perennial forage grass. This grass species was introduced in the area by grazing cattle. which spread the seed from lmvland pastures.

Locally. the grass has developed into "wolf plants" 3-5' in hieght and 2-3' across. since the cessation of cattle grazing. They dominate O\'er the less competitive native perennial grasses .
. -\ \vide variety of wildflowers (flowe1ing herbaceous perennials and a1muals) occur throughout the grasshmcls of the Park. :'.'. fany of the species flower into early summer season. and soap plant among others flowers into late sununer. Howerer. this study and others( i\fCOSD.1991) corroborate claims of reduced wildflower populations. probably the result of hea,·y grazing by cattle.

Wet Meadows and Springs
·wet meadow vegetation exists in grassland areas located in the upper reaches of each creek d.rain.,ge and below several isolated springs in the park. The vegetation occurs in areas that are wet year rotmd and in some ru·eas that dry out in late summer. The flora of the springs is not abundant or diverse. however, down slope, moist grasslands often support a wide rnriety of flowering perennials and annuals mentioned abo,·e. In areas of the seep and springs the primary grom1d covers are rnshes (Jm1cus) and sedges (Cru·ex).

At the site of several seeps the native plant community is invade and displaced by exotic pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata): an oman1ental fountain grass with large feathery plumes. that range in height from 2 to 1 o·. Other exotic perennial grasses include: bemrnda grass(Cynodon dadctylon) .• md tall fescue(Fescue arnndinacea).

These emergent wetlands and other stream bank regetation are importartt because they control erosion. provide recreation and esthetic benefit; contribute to environmental values. including water quality: and support fish arid wildlife. Historic grazing practices on the park lands hare resulted in changes in the water table and runoff pattems. which both negatirely impact the emergent wetlands and habitat. California has lost almost 90'1 of its wetlands as a result of these ru1d otl1er development impacts.

Eucal\]?tus Forest
.-\ forest of blue gum eucalyptus (Eucal:tus globulus) borders the northeast edge or the park. The forest is m.maged in part by the ~fCOSD. Oiiginally planted. throughout California. for timber; the trees proved too brittle and have been used for firewood in some areas. These mature trees tower 100' abore the grassland. The undcrstory is limited to a Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
487
few species, including blackberry ru1d poison oak, which can tolerate the rolatile oils produced by the trees. (Eucalypts have shown some success at invading grassland plant communities) A fe\v trees and saplings may actually occur on SRP lands. along the boundary. As a species the trees are highly flammable. This large forest area has burn in the past ru1d was partially logged. l\fany of the remaining trees are resprouts and saplings.

Vegetation Changes
The patterns and composition of the vegetation mosaic are the result of complex interactions between plant succession, wildfire. erosion. climate , and human intervention.

Plru1t succession is a natural process by which one vegetation conununity invades and eventually occupies ru1 area previously occupied by another community. The process continues \\1th one vegetation conununity following another into the site. At each stage. the vegetation will modify the microclimate and soil conditions around themselves: thus improving conditions for the suceeding plant conununity. Eventually a dim.ax conununity of plants is established. one \Vhich is in equilibrium \"\-ith the improved site conditions. In temperate climates the forest is the ultimate clima.'\ community, unless local conditions limit the growth of trees: in which case shrubs or grassland could be the climax community.

V/11.ile succession is a natural process of change. which includes periodic fires: human inter1:ention has disrupted the process and induced change locally. through the suppression of wildfires and overgrazing of cattle on park lands.

Its uncertain what the mosaic -of vegetation \Vas like in this area when the Coast wliwok people roamed these hills. Records show that Native Americans. who populated the hills and woodlands of central 1Iarin county. burned local areas when they weren't burned by natural wildfire (:\·L.\J\VD, 1991 ).

Since the arrival of the Europeans in the 1800's the most significant changes in native vegetation occmi-ed. Overgrazing of livestock caused erosion. clisrnpted natln-al creeks. and induced the invasion of nati,·e grasslands by exotic European annual grasses.

The natural vegetation commmuties recovered, beginning in the l 950's. \\-1th the cessation of grazing and continued suppression of wild fires. However, the resulting plant communities are not the same as before European settlement.

The grassland conummities we see today in \far.in and across SRP have been drastically altered since the ruTival of Europeru1s (Healy.1977). Fom1erly .. California native grasslru1ds were dominated by perennial bunch grasses interspersed with rumuals. Today. grasslands are dominated largely by the introduced European annuals. \Vhich generally 7/
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
488
i
J
l
i
1 i
j
~--,
I
!
- l
. '
. j
,.__ _ _j
- _j
tolerate livestock grazing better than the natfres. The spread of other introduced weedy species was also greatly aided by grazing practices in the period froml850's to the1870's.

Aedal photography and snapshots taken of the park lands O\'er the last -is years. show that there have been some major changes in the \'egetation mosiac since the cessation of grazing in the late l 950's. 111e most significant change has been the expansion of the brnshland communities of bacchaiis and poison oak. .-\s a result the b0tmdary between forest and grassland has become obscmTed. Another major changes is the loss of wet meadow habitat. Erosion and gullying of the creeks. probably the result of O\·ergrazing. has made the wet meadows drier and less suitable for species that depend on soil moisture.

The spread of non-native plants into these ai·eas further reduces the soil moistlU'e and access to the water for wildlife.

Field observations of the various plant conumutlties in the Park indicate that significant changes in the pattem and composition of conumuiities may continue. under cunent management practices (i.e. let nanrre take it's course). :;\Iost of the exposed south facing slopes support a grassland climax conuuunity. Both fire and grazing ha\'e influenced the succession of species in the grasslands. Fires hare been common as indicated by historic records and the bumed fence posts. Today the grasslands are dominated by the introduced annual grasses. 111e cessation of grazing \vill fa\'or the return of native perennials on some sites, but generally the these annual grasslands \Vill remain static. The in\'asive Harding grassland will expand (MCOSD.1991). Grassland communities overlie deeper soils. or are adjacent to oak woodland are succeeding to baccharis brushland. in the absence of fire or grazing.

Brushlands will continue to expand at the edge of the woocllands and into the grasslands. Baccharis brushland will also invade landslide areas in the grasshmd ar1d 011 unstable banks of road cuts or streams. If fire does occur the brnshland will regenerate by sprouting (McBride & Beatty,1986). These commmtlties will succeed to oak woodland without disnrrbance of fire or landslide.

The oak woodland is a man1re plant community. Periodic fires and grazing have stabilized the existing pattern and species. \\'ith time the oaks \\·ill regenerate and expand into the grassland (~!COSD.1991 ). However. with the cessation of grazing and suppression of wildfire, the ,voocllar1d is being invaded by poison oak and baccharis. This mixed community of oak and brnsh is stable in the absence of fire and grazing (i\kBricle & Beatty. 1986), but it is an extreme fire hazard.

The oak-bay forest conununity. occuring in the deep. steam-side soils. is also a cli.rnax communty. Grazing has impacted this conununity locally, where little or no Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
489
understory exists due to the browsing and trampling of livestock. 111e mature trees ,vill regenerate. but the understory may return only at the margins of the forest. \Veeds and Non-Native Plants
.-\t many sites in the Park non-native plants and exotic weeds are out-competing and crowding-out the native plants. Native plants occur naturally and are well strited to the region and the specific conditions ,vhere they grow (see Native Plants Piinciples). The introduction of exotic plants to California began in the l 700's when the first European settlements were established. The degree to which these plants hm·e effected the nati\·e vegetation has varied considerably. Once established they are often difficult or impossible to eradicate. Introduced grasses hm'e changed the character of California grasslands and some species ha,·e significantly displaced local native plants (Shuford & Timossi. 1989). \\l1en non-nati\'e plants become so well adapted to new environments, they successfully reproduce and become "naturalized". European grasses are naturalized in this area where they have survived for almost 200 years. Elimination of these species is vitrually impossible and may not be desirable given current conditions (l\ICOSD, 1991).

A weed is a plant that grO\VS, predominantly in areas distrubed by mru1. \Vithout being deliberately culitivated (Baker. 197-1-). 'Weeds can be natives or non-natives.

Undesirable weeds or noxious weds are plants that have an invasive tendency and depress the growth and reproduction of other plants. usually those more desired by human culture.

The San Rafael Ridge Preserve r.-Janagement Plan 0-,.!COSD.1991) categoiized local populations of undesirable weedy plants in tenns of priority for control and invasiveness.

The "weeds of concern", the more invasive plants that tend to dominate a whole vegetation community. which occur at SRP include: Purple Starth.istle, French Broom. Svveet Fennel. and Pampas Grass. The populations of these plants at SRP should be in-adicated. "Successional weeds" are plants that have the potential to dominate an area if conditions are right. Control of these weeds is difficult and total in-aclication is not possible without "extra-ordinary methods''. Successional ,veeds at SRP include: Harding Grass and Yellow Stru1histle. These populations should be monitored and in-adicatecl locally to control their spread.
~-1
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
490
1 j
'l
l
i
'l
l
l I
- '
I
- 1
J
1 J
i ~J
Sensitive Ecological Areas
The plant commwrities of SRP are not especially unusual m1d most of the vegetation is relatively common in the region. Some of the most sensitive plant communities in the Park are located on small discontinuous outcrops of seq,entine soils. situated on the southfacing ridge between the East and \\"est Creeks. Serpentine soil is derived from rocks that are rich in magnesium and other minerals usually toxic to plants. However. serpentine soils in ~Im'in cmmty, and elsewhere in California. harbor a rich vm"iety of tmique. native plants found no where else in the world (Kruckebm·g.1986). TI1ese nati res m·e particularly ,veil adapted to the serpentine soils. The most significant plant identified on these soils in SRPis the native annual jewel-flower (Streptanthus glandulasus var. secundus?). These pruticular plants maybe Tamalpais jewel flmver (S.t. var. pulchellus) ,vhich is rare and listed by the California Native Plants Survey (1988). Very few exotic annuals can tolerate these soils and the areas become "refuges" for the less unique native grasses including purple needle grass, that cm1 not successfully compete \v"ith the exotic European mmuals in the richer soils (MCOSD.1991).

Other sensitive plant communities, requiring special management are the wet seeps, springs and riparian corridors in Lower Park. These areas should be managed to eliminate or control invasive exotic plants. stabilize erosion and reduce adverse impacts of recreational use.

Existing Lower Park Vegetation
The vegetation cover on the Lo,ver park site includes a variety of historic ornamental plants and some recent tree plantings by the Parks Department and comnumity volunteers. There are few places where the overall concept of the historic plantings can be deduced. Vegetable gardens. once located on the creek-side ten-ace. at the present picnic area, ha"·e long since dissappeared. Orchard trees and ornan1ental shrubs planted around dairy farm site, in Lower Pm-k. have not been tended for years. However. the friuts of scattered plum-cherry and fig trees m·e still enjoyed by foraging birds, animals and curious park visitors. The only clear reminder of the historic plan are the privet and Japanese maple trees that line the driveway around Bigrock. which once lead up to the creamery. The preservation value of the existing trees and shrubs should be considered. Priority should Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
491
be gfren according to health. marurity, native species, fruiting species, visual enhancement and historic value.

Much of the Lower Park terrace area is currently barren of \'egetation. except for annual grasses and weedy perennials that threaten to take over larger areas of the site.

Recently, the Park Department mulched the area with chip bark and treated it \.Vitl1 preemergent herbicide in order to control spread of weeds and in· preparation for revegetation.

Three small revegetation projects \.Vere recently completed in the Lower park. In 1989. eighteen 10 gal., silk oak trees(Podicarpus gracilor) were planted at the top of the slope above the dmup. in an attempt to screen the corporation yard from \'ie\v of the Lo,ver Park use areas. These Australian broadleaf evergreen trees froze in the cold winter of 1989 and were remo,·ed. Tl\'O dozen. 10 gal. liquidamber trees (Llquidan1ber styraciflua). donated by 1fa.rin Re-Leaf were planted as replacements, in the fall of 1992. Community volunteers and a local Cub Scout group assisted the Parks Department workers with replanting. In addition, the OSAC and Marin Re-Leaf organized the planti1ig of approximately 50 valley oak and buckeye seeds in December 1990. Volunteers collected the acorns at SRP and from a site in Amador county by volutneers. A.proximately 2 dozen sprouts have emerged, since planting in the grassland above the terrace. These seedlings are maintained in deer-proof cages and require periodic summer water. ef
l
l
· 1
J
- J
1 j
. J
I • J
I
J
i
__ J
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
492
l Wildlife
rl
J
In natural communities, like SRP. plants and animals are interdependent and interact in complex ways. The grasslands. oak woodlands, and oak-bay forest provide habitat and food sources for a variety of animals. The park and adjoining county preserve ', encompass sufficient space to suppo11 species that require a variety of habitats. large ranges. and /or are sensitive to human presence. The management and alteration of the l
vegetation in the area. in any fashion. necessarily has an impact on the resident animal population. Historic use of the hmds for grazing livestock significantly impacted vegetation and ·wildlife habitat. Considerable an10unts of natural food \Vere consummed by the grazing animals. Habitat was often destroyed by trampling and browsing. Grazing induced changes in water courses and erosion of stream bank habitats. Cessation of grazing has made much of the food and improved habitat a\'ailable to wilcllif e again. The presence of year rmmcl water on the park land, at a munber of springs ( even in the 6th year of a regional drought) is critical to resident wildlife populations. - '
i
-J
'_J
:

A large variety of mammals. birds. reptiles and insects were observed during site visits to the park, however no formal wilcllife surveys were conducted. Published studies of wildlife use of the general area indicate that typical mammals residing in the park include:
black-tailed deer. bobcat, skunk. racoon, gray fox, house mouse, deer mouse, harvest mouse. pocket gopher. Sonoma chipmunk. gray squin-el. jack rabbit. mole. opossum.

Pacific shrew, and vagrant shrew. Studies of the adjacent county Preserve and other lands in the .Mt. Tamalpais area indicate that these lands. including SRP, may be over-populated vvith deer, due to the cessation of hunting and the elinlination of predators C\ICOSD.1991 ). ~fany bird species reside and forage in the park and adjoining PreserYe, some are rare and listed as "protected" or "species of special concern" by the California Depai1ment of Fish and Gaine. The variety of birds observed included: Great horned owl. tmkey vulture, red-tailed hawk. California quail. acorn woodpecker. western bluebird. red- '"inged blackbird. ai1d bush titmouse.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
493
A review of wildlife literatlrre and a bird list provided by Jeru1 Stru·kweather for nearby Sleepy Hollow Divide Preserve (~ICOSD) indicate that the following "sensitive" bird species use the Preserve and in all likelihood use the park as well.

Black shouldered kite
Sharp shinned hawk
Golden eagle
Burrowing owl
Northern harrier
Purple martin
Osprey
The presence of free roaming domestic cats ru1~ dogs on the preserve ha,·e an impact 011 the resident population of ruumals. Roruning dogs will chase deer and disturb nesting ground birds. Om1ers should keep dogs under control while exercising them in the pru-k and away from sensiti ,·e areas, pruticulru·ly the springs. Hunting by domestic cats is probably a greater problem for small animals and birds.

Continuation of the cwTent park management practices including fire suppression will have little significant effect on area wildlife. Changes in ru·ea vegetation are relatively slow and small, subsequent effects on the wildlife would be equally minor. A major fire would ob,·iously affect many animals some would perish, some would be displaced. others would thrive on the ne,v vegetation.
,1
'l ,
· 1
J
l
i
-l
· 1
I
'
J
I
l
I __ J
J
I • j
I
. j
J
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
494
r-,
" l Fire Hazards
~1
l
C l
' i - J
' !
~j
This portion of the Site Inventory is an assessment of existing fire hazard. based on the present vegetation distribution. Fire hazard .lt SRP was detennined using the Califomia Fire Hazard Se\·erity Classification System. also known as CHISCS (Helms. 1973): and a perimeter fire hazard rating scheme proposed for the adjacent ~ICOSD preserve. A fire Hazard ~fap of the Park indicates a mosaic of low to extreme fire hazards .

The most c1itical area as regards to fire hazard is the perimeter of the Park. where it borders residential development. This dangerous urban-wildland interface occurs throught many California communities. They are potentially the most ciitical fire-prone areas in the state, because of the danger of fire spreading from open space across the mban areas. The Oakland and Berkeley Hills fires of 1991 atests to the destructi re power of fire in such a situation. Fire hazard is increases at this inte1face because there is an increase in the \'ariety of flammable mate1ials. The risk is greater since more and more people in.habit the inte1face zone: and people are the cause of most fires. 1l1e range of values to be protect at the interface include environmental, cultural, economic values and human life.

Fire Histof\'
Fire has always been a major component of the ecology of th.is land and the natural landscape of California. The most recent major fire to bum SRP lands ,vas in 1976. Prior to human settlement. lightning-caused fires burned across the woodland and grassland of the Ross Valley. Later, Native Americans set fires in the shmblands in order: to disrnpt the invasion of grassland by shmbs, promote yom1g plant gro\'\·1h for grazing deer and antelope. and manage regetation for their needs. These prescribed bums and the early natural fire tended to be frequent and relatively small blazes ()..D.CTYD.1991). ,Vith the arri\•al of Ew-opean settlers. intentional ground fires ,vere set in the area by ranchers. in order to clear areas for grazing. especially following the Gold Rush era. Th.is practice continued locally. up until the early l 920's. As the area became urbanized. around the tum of the cennuy. presc1ibed burns became less frequent aiid wildfires were actirely suppressed. Although naniral fires hare become less frequent since th.is time. they tend to co\·er larger areas since the era of total suppression of fires begai1.

A re,·iew of the local fire depai1ment reports. library ai1d newspaper accounts. as ,veil as interviews with tmvnspeople and fire officials reveal a record of numerous fires at __ j SRP. The last major fire burned the park lands in Jtme. 1976. Locally, fires have ranged in size from a few square feet to 70 actes. which burned in the Jtme 76 blaze. In that fire at i . . J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
495
Fire Hazards
This portion of the Site hH'entory is an assessment of existing fire hazard. based on the present vegetation distribution. Fire hazard at SRP was detennined using the California Fire Hazard Sererit)' Classification System. also known as ·crnscs (Helms. 1973): and a perimeter fire hazard rating scheme proposed for the adjacent :\ICOSD preserve . .-\ fire Hazard :\fap of the Park indicates a mosaic of low to exn·eme fire hazards .

The most critical area as regards to fire hazard is the perimeter of the Park. n·here it borders residential development. This dangerous urban-wildland inte1face occurs throught many California communities. They are potentially the most c1itical fire-prone areas in the state, because of the danger of fire spreading from open space across the urban areas. The Oakland and Berkeley Hills fires of 1991 atests to the destructi,·e pO\\'er of fire in such a situation. Fi.re hazard is increases at th.is inte1face because there is an increase in the ,·aiiet)· of flammable mate1ials. The risk is greater since more and more people inhabit the inte1face zone: and people are the cause of most fires. TI1e range of values to be protect at the interface include environmental, cultural, economic values and human life.

Fire Historv
Fire li.'ls always been a major component of the ecology of this land and the natural landscape of California. TI1e most recent major fire to bum SRP lands was in 1976. Piior to humai1 senlement. lighnling-caused fires bw11ed across the woodland and grassland of the Ross Valley. Later, Nati.'e . .\n1ericans set fires in the shrub lands in order: to disrnpt the invasion of grassland by shrubs, promote young plai1t gron·th for grazing deer and antelope. and maiiage vegetation for their needs. These prescribed burns and the early natural fire tended to be frequent and relatively small blazes (1ThffiTI.1991 ).

With the airival of Ew-opean settlers. intentional ground fires ,vere set in the ai~a by ranchers. in order to clear areas for grazing. especially following the Gold Rush era. This practice continued locally. up until the early l 920's. As the area became urbanized. around the tum of the centlU)'. prescribed burns became less frequent ai1d wildfires were actively suppressed. Although natliral fires have become less frequent since this time. they tend to cover larger areas since the era of total suppression of fires begai1.

A review of the local fire depaitment reports, library and newspaper accounts. as \Veil as interviews with tO\vnspeople and fire officials re,·eal a record of numerous fires at SRP. The last major fire bwned the park lands in Jtme, 1976. Locally. fires have ranged in size from a few squ .. 'll"e feet to 70 acres. \vhich burned in the June '76 blaze. In that fire at - j
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
496
'l
l
,
l
1 i
1 j
r j
1 - j
foster than one on ground level. or one burning dO\'ruhill (Racltke.1983). Residences and properties located uphill of open space or park hmds are thus at much greater risk. Winds blowing up the canyons in the late afternoons. on warn.1 sunny·days fwther increase the danger in the upslope areas. ,vinds ·will also diire fire across slope. Residences located on a hillside with open space adjacent are thus also at dsk (?\-ICOSD.1991 ).

South facing slopes of SRP suppo1t drier fuels than 11011h or east facing slopes. thus a.re locally more flanmiable. Slopes in excess of 40'1- are charactc1izecl as high fire hazards. due to access and fire dJnamics. Therefore. in tenns of topography. much of the SRP is classified as high fire hazard.

Ce11ai.I1 aspects of a vegetation conununity contribute to potential fire hazard in an area. Each vegetation conmumity in the Park has a different potential to bum during a wildfire. The fuel potential of a vegetation unit depends on type and size of the plants. their density. clist:J.ibution. and prop01tion of liYe to dead plru1t mate1fal. The fuel charactetistics of SRP sho\v that there are significant fuel loads that c.u1 be expected to suppo11 a fast moving wildfire. In the fire hazard analysis the Park vegetation is divided into 4 types according to criteria adopted in the MCOSD fire maiiagement study ~ICOSD. 1991).

1. Grasslai1d. The grasslands in the Park are a mixture of perennial ru1d annual grasses. Fire moves rapidly through grassland, particularly when there is a thatch of dead grass built-up. This fuel burns quickly; grassland fires ca.11 travel 160'/minute in a 10 mph wind. However,the intensity is limited to the traveling front of the fire as the fuel is quickly used up. Grasslru1ds burned in a fire would not be ad•;esely affected as long as the burn occurred after the seed had set for the year. in early summer.

2.0ak woodland. Generally, grassland fires that move into typical oak woodlai1d burn slO\vly due to lack of fuel; trees are seldom dainaged. The main concern in the oak wood1ai1d is the hea,·y undergrowth that haS developed in many locations in the Park.

Since grazing ceased and active suppression of wildfires began. dense undergrowth of bacchaiis and poison oak ha,;e become established in the woodlai1d These shrubs provide ~ ; i11tem1ediate size fuel. or kindling. between buming grasses on the grOlmd ..u1d lai·ger fuel in the canopy of trees. Once a fire reaches the cr0\n1 of the trees it is much more difficult to control and embers carried aloft can start new fires. Tilis "laddering" of fuels is similar to building a campfire with tinder, kindling and fuel. and is a very hazardous fuel situation.

Hot wildfires in the oak woodlai1d that reached the canopy would kill many of the larger trees.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
497

3.Brusbfand. This fire hazard unit combines the baccbaiis:'poison oak brushland and the northern coastal scrub vegetation units. The burshlai1ds a.re the most hazardous native \'egetation type C\fCOSD.1991). In SRP the unit supp01ts large ,·olumes of dead woody mate1ial. through ,vhich a fire can travel fast and bum very hot. Shrubs are more difficult to ignite thai1 grassland. Howe\'er. they ai·e invading grassland ai1d woodland in a natural succession. ai1d thus increasing the likelihood of a more intense fire once ignited. and pro,·iding a "ladder of fuel" into the woodlai1cl canopy. :\lost shrub species ,vould resprout after a "ildfire .
.. J..<)ak-bay forest. This tm.it includes the bay forest and \'egetation occurring along the streains in the Pai·k (Ripaiian and Redwood grore). Existing fuel hazards in the bay forests are low ai1d few changes are likely to occur in the next few decades. The dense canopy of bay trees in the oak-bay forest decrease the understory fuels. Relative humidity near the streams is greater, making the fuels less ,·olatile. In addition. leaf litter beneath the bay trees is not paiticularly conducive to fire ignition (rvICOSD.1991). This mrit is the least fire-prone in the Pai·k.

Fire Hazard Rating
The main fire hazard at SRP is the movement of wildfire from the open space across the Park pe1imeter and on to adjacent residential property. The assessment of fire hazard at the Park perimeter is therefore the focus of these ratings. recommendations are included in the ). Ianagement Plan.

The pe1irueter fire hazai·d assessment shown on the accompanying map was detennined following field observations of fuel type and slope conditions. It is based on the criteria proposed for perimeter fire hazard assessment on the adjacent 1ICOSD preserve (rvICOSD.1991 ). The c1itical areas are. beginning \\ith most critical:

1. The pelimeter ,vhere residences are located upslope from grassland in the Park.

2. The peiimeter ,vhere residences are located along the cross slope on the same hillside as adjacent Park grassland.
3 . .-\11 other grassland adjacent to residences.
-t.. Wooded areas at the pe1imeter. located below residences.

5. "\\:"ooded ai·eas at the peiimeter, along the cross slope. on the same lriHside as adjacent Park woodlands.

The fire hazard for the interior of the Pai·k is classified according to CFHSCS developed for California wildlands (Helms, 1973) and adopted by the CDF and the CSFS. l
~l
I
---,
I
'
- '
I
l
- '
I
j
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
498
l
'1
'l
I
. i
! . j
j
I
- j
_J

SORI CH RANCH PARK

SITE ANALYSIS
Fire Hazard Map
PER:cMETER !':CRE HAZARD ZONES -·1---
2 3
Contour interval 10'
Scale ~ 1i-e M
ci::fi$(S (1-1 ... I .... '~)
~ i~T1~
c:;::::J H' "H
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
499
The scale was developed to provide local govemments a practical system of classifying areas of varying fire hazard severity. It is used to place specific conditions under ,vb.ich use or developement can take place. The system is based on 3 factors: fuel loading (the quantity of flammable vegetation per wut of land area), fire weather, and slope. The SRP area is ranked high on the cdtical fire weather scale. In temis of topography most of the area lies on -l0% slope or greater. Vegetation. or fuel loading is the cdtical ,·aiiable: it varies from light(grassland) to heavy (woodland and brnshland). According to the CF1-ISC scale. 75% of SRP land is moderate fire hazard. the rest is extreme to high hazard (see Fire Hazard :\Iap ).

A wildfire in the interior of the park would change the vegetation mosaic over the short tem1, but probably not create any major long te1m impacts (\ fCOSD, 1991). In fact. the large grassland fire of June. 1976 doesn't appeai· to ha,·e drastically altered the vegetation mosaic, mapped from ae1ial photographs taken prior to the fire. Grasslands that bum in "cool fires" or prescdbed bw11s would not be adversely effected as longs the seed had set in early swnmer. Such a grass fire could be ben.ificial, removing thatch build up and stimulating spread of certain native perennials and wild flowers (!\ICOSD,1991). A prescribed bum in the oak woodland is not likely to adversely effect the mature tJ.'ees. The fire would help reduce the build up of understmy fuels and shn1bs as well as reduce the likelihood of a hot, uncontrollable canopy fire which would kill mature trees.

After a major fire or controlled bum. immediate action should be taken to reduce the potential property dan1age and enrironrnental ill-effects of \vinter rains on ba1i-en slopes and dangers of landsliding. Erosion on bwned watershed lands may be 20 times as great as on the same vegetated area (Radtke, 1983 ).

Fire Protection and Access
The Ross Valley Fire Depaitment is responsible for the fire protection of lands of SRP and the town of San Anselmo. The ;\Jarin County Fire Department provides protection for the un-i.ncorporated areas of the county adjacent to the Park. The nearest fire hydrant connection. to Lower Park is located in the Corporation yard approxin1ately -t.O' from the park entrai1ce, S' inside the cyclone fence line separating the Park and the Yard.

Fire equipment access to the Lmver park is available at the main entrance on San Francisco Boulernrd. Access to the Upper Park is available by way of an existing net\vork of service roads located on county open space lands arow1d SRP. A service road across the top of San Rafael Ridge. links the Upper Park to Tomahawk Drive in San Anselmo and Ridgewood D1fre in San Rafael. Another sen-ice road (a.k.a. San Anselmo Trail) mns down from th.is ridge road, through Upper Park. temlinating in the pri\'ate d1ive\vay at · 1
l
l
. '
l
· 1
l
'
I
l
. 1
.1
i ·- J
- J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
500
#500 San Francisco Blvd .. Access to the sen·ice road from belO\v; over the private drive, is not ensured by any known agreement. An additional. unimproved dual track lies along the east boundmy of the Park adjacent to the old Town dwnp site. Th.is track begins in the Corporation yard. runs uphill along the eucalyptus forest and joins the major service road ''1 on the ridge.
'' '
' '
,.
- j
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
501
Park Access, Am1nenities and Trails
Existing Access and Ammenities
. .\ nuiety of direct and indirect access points exist aroimd the Park perimeter. although existing ammenities are \·ery limited. TI1e park is easy to get to from nearby neighborhoods. the town center. adjacent public lands and communities. Access is possible for walkers. bicyclists. equestrians and automobiles. Existing facilities in the Lower Park include: a picnic area, ii1.fom1al parking area, and park sign. The only developments in the Upper Park are a few user-made trails and two piimitive sen·ice roads.
i\fain Entrance
The maii1 entrance to the Park located at the end of San Francisco Boulevard, provides direct access for all park users and parking for a limited munber of cars. TI1e last 150 yds. of Sau Francisco Boulevard, outside the park, are maintained by the county, and ther is no sidewalk. Pedestiians must walk in the road on their approach to the Park.· There is no sidewalk or path for pedesuians once mside the Park gate either. The entrance itself is rather inaspicious. fran1ed by a stand of redwood trees on the left and the cyclone fence that stUTotmds the Corporation yard to the 1ight. . .\ sign identifying the Park entrance is setback behind the redlrood trees. but its only visible once inside the Park. Tilis small paii1ted wood sign depicts a prinlitive relief map of the Park. The map is a joy for small children from a nearby day care center. who visit the Park regularly ..

Behind the sign is a small picnic area in the shade of the redwood trees. The area includes 2 picnic tables and a litter ban-el. Unfo1tunately , the otherwise pleasant picnic area faces onto the entry road and the workings of the Corporation yard. beyond the cyclone fence. No \Vater is available at the Park.

An iITegularly shaped. asphalt parking area lies at the end of the main access road. 300' inside the gate. TI1e parking area swTourids "Bigrock", a huge outcrop of red che11. the size of a small house, rising 25" above the parking area. and crown ,vith an elderberry tree. Bigrock is a landmark, and a focal point of nearly every cllild's visit to the Park.

Unfortunately, asphalt comes right up to the edge of the rock creating an island of it. ~Iuch of the asphalt is in a bad state of repaii·. There is space for about 10 cars. although no more than 3 were observed parked here at one time. Parking spaces in the area are not marked. -j
j

I I -- )
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
502
1 !
J
.-, I
Red,vood bollards and a cable gate limit vehicular access to the terrace and Upper Park from the parking area. Hmvever, the barrier is not complete and still pemuts motorcycles or 4\vd vehicles access to Upper Park and the county open space.

Unimproved Official Direct Access
Two unimproved sites of direct park access, from the swTmmding neighborhoods. exist where nmTow strips of public park lm1d extends between residential lots out to Sacramento Avenue and Sai1 Francisco Boulevard. Neither site is used regulm·ly to gain access no signs indicated that public access is pemlitted,ai1d no clearly established trail is present at either location. In fact , several neighbors are unaware of public ownerslup of the strips of wildland.

Limited impro,·ements at either of the sites would provide better access to po1tions of the Park for neighbors, visitors, firefighters ai1d maintenance workers; and could alleviate trespass on private property in the case of the San Francisco Boule,·ard site.

Ho\\·ever, the narrowness of the sites and their adjacency to residential lots linuts their appropriateness as sites for improved public access. In any case, potential off-road vellicle access at these sites must be restricted as they afford access to the park as well as· County . -
1 open space.
' j • J
Official Indirect Access
Indirect access to the pm·k along 3/-J. of a mile of park perimeter from ~ ICOSD lm1ds on San Rafael Ridge is very popular. TI1e Park-Preserve boundary is currently unmarked by fences or sign posts, it follows no particular natural feattrres; but lies close to the popular ridge-top road1trail. This is an open boundary \'\ith respect to nat11I'al processes and wildlife movement. Logically, the ~ICOSD manages it as an open boundary with respect to recreational uses. the Town should do like,'\-ise. \ ~1 Unofficial Indirect Access
J\fany park user find the indirect access to the park. across private lands of the SUBUD center. on Sacran1ento Avenue very convenient. From the SUBUD center parking lot. at the comer of Sacramento A venue and San Franscisco Boulevard, two narrow, unimproved trails lead up a steep hill slope to join an unpaved, service road on park land, knmvn here as the San Anselmo trail. TI1e steep road. eventually leads up to the Ridge trail on the ~ICOSD preserve. The Sm1 Anselmo trail/road is populm· with walkers and used occassionally by equestrians and riders of mountain bicycles. Dmvnh.ill this trail/road joins a private dri,·eway at# 500 San Francisco Blvd. The park boundaiy is not Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
503

SORI CH RANCH PARK

SITE ANALYSIS
Park Units, Existing TraiJ. and
Streets
Fire Roads OOc:tCl
Trails ---- Access pts. €)
Proposed trails (GP) 00000
0 Contour interval Io·
Sea le O' ~ ,-. M 250'
Access
-- ~
I
I
I C '
'
j
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
504
,-J
l
·1
'
posted along the road or at the info1mal access trails on SCBUD property. Visitors commonly trespass on private property in their effo1t to reach the street from the Park or vice versa. The official direct access from San Francisco Boulevard. mentioned above offers a legal alternative to trespass. but is not posted. ·1 In the south east comer of the Park. indirect park access across the piivate, ~It.

Tamalpais cemetery lands is also popular with park users. Trails leading to this point from - 1 the Sun Valley area of San R.-ifael and adjacent ~ICOSD lands ru·e used by walkers. r •-:!I
l
I
- j
equestrians and cyclists.

Existing Trails
The existing network of trails in the Park is limited and inf 01mal. Pedesnia.n use of the trails is most common. However, equestrians ride throughout the Pru·k ru1cl mow1tati11 bike enclthusiasts lide the cwt roads. Park trails include; 2 unmaintained di1t roads. a populru· user-made trail, as well as se,·eral inf 01mal tracks developed by hikers and animals. The lack of maintained n1lils in the park has lead to the establishment of the usermade paths; these "desire lines " connect fm'orite destinations in the park. The small usermade trails are benign and don't impact the terrain or natural resources. However, the more popular trails are often routed over steep terrain, or near wet meadows, thereby resulting in erosion, loss of vegetation, and seasonally impassable routes.

Currently, no fom1al trails of paths exist \vithin the Lmver Park. From the park entrance. at Sru1 Francisco Boulevru·d. pedestiians walk up the main access road to reach the picnic area. parking ru1d info1mal ti1lilheads for routes to the Ridge trail.

The 3 u1..'li11 trails in the Upper Park are routed up over steep slopes across the grassland towru·d the ridge. at the northern perimeter of the Park. These trails provide a loop from the Lower Park to the ridge and back.

Two of these trails coincide with nruTow. umnaintained dirt roads. They are used by equestl"ians and bicyclists. year round. The most popular of the two. here ref etTed to as the San Anselmo Trail, mns from the Ridge trail dm,·n the ridge above the Sl"Bl D center, to Sacramento A venue. and Sru1 Francisco Boulevard. The access from there to the street is problematic. as described abo,·e. On the lmver portion of the San Anselmo trai11road areas of gullying ru1d erosion exist. From the San Anselmo trail the southward ,·iews ru·e distant and panoramic. However. the sun on the trail is often blazing hot. in summer: there is only a single shade tree along the trail to take refuge w1der. on this populru· route. , The Boundary Trail coincides with a second unmaintained road: it lies along the eastern perimeter of the Pruk adjacent to the eucalytus grove. Th.is seldom used. track i . _,
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
505
begins at the Ridge trail and rnns steeply do\vnhill crossing a wet seep area and continuing into the rear of the Corporation yard. The old road bed is also gullied in places. Along th.is trail. the smell of eucalytus is strong in the heat of a summer afternoon: early mornings are shady and Great-homed owls can be seen roosting in the snags at the edge of the grassland.

The most popular user-made trail in Upper Park. refeiTed to here as the Deer Rock trail. is routed up the grassland slopes from the Lower park tem1ce to 'Deer Rock" and beyond. where it jou1s the Ridge trail on the :\ ICOSD Prese1Te. This steep. umnaintained su1gle track trail offers no shade for those climbing toward the monolithic profile of Deer rock. The trail is severly eroded and impassable during ,vet ,veather. ,vb.en rainfall rnns u1 a gullly dom1 the trail. However.the riews are often as breathe-taking as the climb: and the ,vine! is often strong. blowing wares across the grassland.

The Ridge trail. located on the acljacent ~ICOSD preserve is a seiies of generally ,veil maintained service roads that nm along the San Rafael Ridge abore SRP. The trail is very populru· with all users of the Park ru1d the preserve; it links the 3 main trails across SRP in to a loop. Official access to the Ridge trail is provided at the west end of Ridgewood Diive, in Sru1 Rafael. and the north end of Tomaliawk Drive, in San Anselmo.

A portion of the road is cwTently routed across the northeast comer of SRP land. In this area serious erosion of the road has resulted from inadequate grading or road alignment.

The road is officially maintained by the ~ICOSD or the ~Iarin County Fire Dept.

Another populru· trail on .\ ICOSD land. referred to as the Sorich Ranch Trail, is routed through the eucalyptus forest east of the Park. The trail begins at the end of Ridgewood Dr. in San Rafael ru1d is routed dO\vn a fire road toward the :\It. Trunalpais cemetery, from there it is proposed to continue as a single-track trail to the south east comer of SRP. The trail is officially maintained for dual use of pedestrians and equestiian. Usermade trails in the area already connect to Sun Valley and the cemetery: and ru·e used by mountain bike riders as well.
41 l
i
. 1
l
·,
(
i
I
__ J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
506
~, 1 Park :\Ianagement and Planning
l j
C' J
.· i
'
! _J
This portion of the SRP inventory includes: a summary of the ctment park management framework. the roles of the ad\·isory boards and con1111unity interest groups. and goals of the San Anselmo General Plan with respect to park and open space issues.

Recent management eff0tts have been cooperatire,ancl groups cum~ntly inrnh·ecl hare resoh·ed to suppmt the completion of the :\faster Plan.

Assodations, Committees and Departments
The tO\\·n of San Anselmo is responsible for managing all 62 acres of park and open space at SRP. The Planning and Public ·works Department, in cooperation with other Town departments and boards is responsible for admin.iste1ing. maintaining and operating parks and open space for the use and enjoyment of the public. The Park and Recreation Department sponsors sports, recreation, cultural and educational activities for the public and is responsible for maintenance of parks. Two TO\vn committees, composed ·of citizens appointed by the Town Council, advise the Council on park and open space matters. The To\vn Police Department provides police protection and the Ross Valley Fire Department provides fire protection in the town and parks.

The Parks and Recreation Department has successfully developed a highly dirersified program of recreational programs for residents. Four to\\n parks and two open space preserves are managed by the Depaitment. The Superintendent of Parks serves as technical advisor to the Town Council ai1d the Tomi commissions on all park and open space management issues. Currently, mangement of the open space preserves is essentially passire, with a goal of leaving the sites as undeveloped recreational areas ai1d \'isual ammenities.

The p1im~u-y puprose of the San .-.\.nselmo Open Space . ..\dvisory Conmlittee (SAOSAC) is to serve as an ad\·ocate for open space. and advise the Town Council on open space issues. It is a pro-active group, wllich ,vas instmmental in developing the Open Space Element of the San Anselmo General Plan.

The main function of the San Anselmo Parks and Recreation Commission (SPRC) is to adYise the Town Council on matters pe1ta.ining to planning of recreation acti rities and the development and management of to\vn parks.

The ~femorial Park Dog 0,'\>11ers Association (j\IPDOA) is a recently organized community group, acti\'e in local discussions of park ai1d open space, as they pertain to use Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
507
of such public spaces for the exercise and enjoyment of dogs and dog owners. The organization of 90 dues paying members promotes responsible use of parks for dog walking. This responsible group polices the popular use of ~Iemorial Park by dog owners and encourages mvners to clean up dog litter in the park. San .-\nselmo CUITently has no leash law. Dogs a.re permitted to be exercised off leash. tmder the owners roice control within the Town limits, including all parks and open spaces.

General Plan
Three elements of the San Anselmo General Plan. adopted in 1989. relate directly to planning and management of SRP: Parks. Recreation, and Public Facilities element ; Open Space element: and Conservation element. The SRP ~\faster Plan addresses the concerns established in these General Plan elements.

Parks and Recreation Element
The Parks and Recreation Element goal is to "provide recreation for the Town residents". The element also states that "the Tm"n does not need to anticipate a significant increase in public park needs under the current population. However, there a.re a few deficiencies in current programs. which should be remedied by a public acquisition program." A deficiency in per capita acres of park and open space is specifically mentioned. The National Recreation Association minimtun standard of ..J. acres of usuable recreation space for each 1. 000 residents would require 56 acres of playground and park in San Anselmo. A park is defined in th.is :'.\!aster Plan as it is in the General Plan. as public land, ·which contains public facilities for active and passire recreation for residents engaged in recreation actirities. Currently. the Town has only 16 acres of "parks", if SRP is correctly classified as open space. Open space is defined here. as public land ,,ith access for nature study. hiking, etc.: to be left in its natural state. with no impro,·ements more extensire than trails and firebreaks.

It is a goal of the ~faster Plan to o,·ercome some of tllis deficiency by: pro,·iding opporttm.ities for passive and infomlal recreation activities at SRP; and impro,ing access to recreation opportmlities in tllis open space. surrounding the Tm,·11. 4j
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
508
r J
I
:
__ _, I
,
·~-j
T,vo additional recommendations of the Parks and Recreation element (PR) are adopted as objectives of the :\faster Plan.
-Resting places along the trails and street approaches to trails and parks should be part of the facilities provided in support of public non-auto use of open space. -The present Corporation yard and municipa.l shop should ·be made visua.lly compatible with the SRP sening by use off encing. landscaping and the demolition of obsolete and visually distn1bing buildings.

Community needs for s,vimming pool. temus cotuts and additional playing fields outlined in the PR element are not capable of being met at SRP. Such facilities can not be made compatible with open space a.nunenities and neighborhood character of the area.

Open Space Element
Fi,·e key goals of the Open Space Element. wluch relate to the SRP pl::mni.ng project are listed belmv.
-Protect ridge lines. including the "Ridge Zone" and presen·e the natural features of hillside lands.
-Protect highly visible hillside slopes and riciges from development. and maintain the visual presence of woodlands. riparian areas. and stream courses which are found on, or traverse identified open space lands.
-Provide recreational areas for town residents.
-Establish and maintain a trail system. pro,·iding residents ~vith non-intrusire access to parks/open space from residential areas.
-Educate the communit)· regarding open space issues.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
509
Conservation Element
All seven goals of the Conservation Element and se,·eral policy listed guided the SRP planning process.
-~finimize environmental hann and disruption of natmal features. particularly in hillside and unstable soil areas.
-Protect creeks from pollution and against unnecessary distrurbance of the natural contours and vegetation of the banks.
-Establish policies and guidelines for the protection of watersheds. necessary to minimize e:'\cessive water nmoff.
-Presen·e and protect significant habitats for fish. ·wildlife and plants. -Preserve ridge tops and other locally important natural or man-made historic areas. -Presen:e historic important buildings.
-Protect scenic value of San Anselmo bv reasonable regulation of signs and placement of utilities. • ~ -
Other key guidelines of the ConserTation element include:
-Streruns shall be maintained in. or restored to their natural state. Removal of vegetation on the hillsides should be closely controlled in order to minimize . erosion. siltation of watercourses and runoff.
-Water supply. flood control. waste water and solid waste disposal. soil conservation and open space preservation shall be coordinated to create the greatest possible public benefit and the least environmental damage. -Visual qualities and view potential of both natlll"al and human settings shall be an equal consideration with other factors in any project revievv. -To,vn and county C\ICOSD) intend to cooperate in preserving contiguous open space areas in the San Ansehno planning area and each agency should refer any development in its area to the other.

Recent Planning at SRP
Until recently. management of the Park has been essentially passive. \vith a goal of leaving the open space as an undeveloped. little used park and visual backdrop.

However.for two years prior to the initiation of this project. the Open Space committee (SAOS . ..\C) and the Parks Department worked together to improve the landscape and appearance of SRP. Several projects ,vere uncler1aken ,vith minimal funds and many hours of voltmteer effort (see Vegetation inventory).
· In 1989. a sketch plan and budget for improvements ,vas completed by SAOSAC volunteers and submitted to the Town Cow1cil. in hopes of garnering some Proposition 70 grant monies for a SRP project. The plan included extensire planting of trees and shrubs, three picnic areas. trail improvements, screening the Corporation yard and an improved 6)
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
510
1 . !
. i
,,
• J
'
I . ~
I _J
i
__ , i
i
__ , I
parking area. The budget request totaled $39,930. Unfortunately, the Cow1cil did not ftmd the request. They felt that the limited monies available would have a higher per capita impact if used at ~Iemorial Park. In spite of this def eat, efforts by SAOSAC volunteers continued and focused on tree planting and clean-up projects.

During this same period, the Park and Recreation Commission heard preliminary proposals to develope part of SRP as an alternative site for dog owners to exercise their dogs off leash. This was an effort to transfer some of the heavy impact of this controversial use of :\femorial Park to SRP. Detailed proposals for this acti,·ity did not develope.

In light of the variety of uses and improvements proposed for SRP the t\vo advisory committees and the Parks Department agreed tb..'1t a comprehensi ,·e master phu1 was required for SRP. A proposal outlining the SRP Master Plan project was unanimously accepted at a joint meeting of the Committees in April, 1991. Representatives of the Memorial Park Dog Owners Assocition also supported the proposal and agreed to work ,vith the Committees.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
511
Introduction
Sorich Ranch Park is popular with neighbors and a some conununity residents. :Most users perceive the Park as a rn.luable. natmal open space and beautiful backdrop to the Town: although. it is unknown to many residents of San .:.\nselmo. Those who do find the Park appealing are conuuonly children and parents ,,.ith children or grandchildren. The most popular activities at the park relate to the park's intrinsic values and include hiking and walking. The user-made loop trail to the ridge top is popular with atheletic users.

Howerer, much of the Park is only accessible to the atheletic and ach·enturesome. clue to the steep slopes and limited development of trails. Consequently, the popular use areas are the picnic area. parking lot, and Bigrock: all located in the Lower Park. near the main entrance, at the base of the hill.

This inventory of ctm·ent park uses is based on direct observation of park users and their behavior traces; interviews ,vith park users; and a park use questionnaire. The activities of park users were observed directly, at various times of the day, throughout the week, over the cou.rse of the year long study. The questionaire polled the views of park users and residents of San Anselmo (see Users Needs Analysis). The survey san1ple represented a cross section of adult residents. The vie,vs expressed in the survey \Vere those of a variety of interest groups and indi\·iduals. a full discuccion of the qurestionnaire is included in the l'ser Needs Analysis section of this rep01t. The following observations and inf onnation indicate how people use the Park. ClllTently and the deg~e of their satisfaction with its condition.

Park Users
Sorich Ranch Park is a fanrily place. People \Vho use the Park with their clrildren make up -1-0% of park visitors. who responded to the questionnaire. Families with small children. 1-6 years of age are the largest group of park \'isitors. Older unaccompanied child.ren play and explore in the Park on occassion.

T\vo age groups under represented at the Park are teens and elderly persons. \\lien teens do visit the Park. they come in small groups, by car to park or just pass through- "cruising". Elderly persons were conspicuously absent, given that they represent a large prop01tion of Town residents. A lack of basic park an1menities. such as shaded seating. focal points, or a social environn1ent, maybe the reason for their absence. Overall the nun1ber of male and female park visitors was about equal. ' 1
l
l
' 1
I
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
512
~J
' J )
l ' '
. l
'
Non-users of the Park constitute 17% of the questionnaire respondents. These people don't frequent the Park, in large part. because they are unfamiliar with its location (56%) or they feel there is nothing for them to do (37l:1' ). The· Park. "is not inviting enough", said one non-user.

Park Vse
The appeal of the Park is more than seasonal. it gets year round use. A majority of those who know about it. use it frequently. It is used at least once a month by more th.u1 57% of those \.Vl10 answered the questionniare. Twenty-one percent of the users ,·isit once a week or more. Evenings are popular: and ·weekends and the cooler days of spring and fall are the most popular days.

Most people walk to the park (-+6'1 ): bike 1iding is also popular (23 % ). One third of the park users, who answered the survey, say they chive to the park. cmTently.

Although more than one or two cars a.re seldom seen park in the lot. The most popular access point is the main entrance at the end of San Francisco Blvd .. Howe\'er, hikers commonly enter across private land at the SUB UD parking lot (see Access. Trails and f\.mmenities) .

Acti'rities
The most popular activities at the Park relate to the its intrinsic values .. which include natural aspects of the site and its relation to the adjacent neighborhood. Hi.king or walking, alone or \.Vith ftiends. are the most popular activities (59%) with those surveyed.

Observing the natural surroundings and taking in the ,iews were both popular activities with -l-2(} of the respondents. The lack of maintained trails in the Park has lead to the establishment of several popular user-made paths. which connect favorite destinations and focal points. These are fully described in the Trail and Access in\'entory. Commonly. walkers take a loop trail from the Park entrance up to the ridge top, along the Ridge Trail i _J and dmvn the iSan Anselmo trail/roadroad to the Sl}BUD parking lot on Sacramento -- , '
Avenue.

Runners constituted 10% of the users surveyed and they find the current steep route to the ridge top enjoyable. In the past the Open Space Committee's .-\nnual Fun Run has been routed through the Park.

Dog \Valking is popular at SRP. 27% of survey respondents take their dogs there on occassion. ~Iost dog walkers walk to the Park. but a number of people dd\'e to the Park to exercise their dogs. Dogs are exercised. most frequently. in the Lower Park. The gra,·el surfaced, public \Vorks staging area is most popular, in pai1 because it is relatirely Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
513
free of thistles and foxtails. However. many people walk the trails \\·ith their clogs. Dogs are also exercised, just in side the park gate, as evidenced by the dog litter in the picnic area and at the parking lot perimeter. The social gathering of dog owners and their dogs is not as common as in ::\Iemorial Park. The rights of dog owners to walk their dogs in the Park has been maintained throughout the park planning process.

Ch.ildren(7-l 2 )'TS.) frequently play in the Park. The Bigrock is a focal point of games for many of these children. Nearly every child. observed ente1ing or leaving the park. scrambled O\"er the rock for a moment or longer. Children also play beside the creek. explore the woods. build forts in the deep shade and ride bikes o\·er the open di11 slopes of Lower park.

Riding bikes to the park is popular with 23 % of survey respondents. :\ fountain bike 1iders were not often observed on trails or roads in the Park However. mountain bike riding is popular and pennitted on the Ridge trail. abo\·e SRP on the ~ICOSD presel"\"e.

Occasionally, 1iders \Vere obse1Ted descending the San Anselmo trail/road into SRP. Th.is route takes riders dO\vn the dual track road and across the park boundary at the base of the hill, then onto a private driveway at #500 San Francisco Blvcl. Bike tracks are common on other SRP trails. indicating that the area does have some attraction for the mountain bike enthusiasts. The Sorich Park trail, in the southwest corner of the park. is popular with riders. However. they are not legally pernutted on this trail. across \.ICOSD lands.

Horseback riding is a popular acti\ity on adjacent :MCOSD presen-e and occassionally 1iders descend the San Anselmo trail/road into SRP, just as the mountain bike riders do. Equesnians also trespass across the private drive\vay. in order to continue their ride. Generally the area is popular \'\tith equestrians, because there are several horse stables on land adjoining the :\.ICOSD preserve on the ridge .. -\ small paddock is also located on private land that adjoins the northwest corner of SRP. The Sorich Park trail is popular with equeshians, also. Dual use of the trail by hikers and equestrians is promoted in the MCOSD management plan.

Questionnaire results indicate that people seldom go to SRP for picnics. HO\vever. now and then. small groups were obsen·ed picnicking or resting in the shade of the Lower park picnic area. The two. existing tables are the only seating a\'ailable in the park.

Illicit Activities
.-\ ,·ariety of beh 1\'ior .. n·aces and some inten·iews indicated that "party go-ers", among others, make illicit use of the park. The gravel at the base of Bigrock is littered with broken glass and pop-tops and occasionally alcoholic beverage containers are scattered around the parking lot. Elsewhere in the Park litter is not a problem.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
514
l
~l
I
·1
·· 1
- l
. l
I _J
Apparently, the circle drive, around Bigrock. is a popular "car cruising" destination. Tire tracks and some deep ruts occur around the pavement in the area; and several of the trees along the drive have been struck by cars and heavily damaged.

Tire tracks across the upper Terrace area indicate that the barricade and ditch above the parking area are not adequate to deter automobile access in this area. Off-road vehicle access to the park and adjacent .MCOSD lands is prohibited. Finally, pools of crank case oil and oil stained pavement in the parking area. indicate that the parking lot is also used illicitly as site for auto maintenance.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
515
The following section outlines the analysis of the site. -gained from the preceeding inventory of the Character of the Park Environment and tl1e Character of Park Use.

Oppornmities and constraints for management and design of the listed belmv. The analysis is the link between the Site IIl\·entory, where resources and liablities were catalogued. and the Site Design or L\Ianagement Plan, where form is given to the plans for the funire of the Park. All plans for future management or site improvements at SRP should be the direct resttlts of such an inrentory and analysis of the site.

Opportunities
-improre fire access roads
-establish fire hyckant
-enhance wildlife habitats
-use well adapted native plants
-preserve panoramic views
-protect groundwater and springs
-preserve park history
-promote links to adjacent open space
-allow all reasonable uses
-improve recreational access
-provide alternatives for short commutes
-enhance links bet\veen communities
-pursue acquisition of open space
-continued demand for recreation.
-adhere to General Plan
-cooperate actively with MCOSD management
-promote more commtmity participation
-improve safety
-use appropriate horticultme
-seek ftmding and volunteer assistance
-focus on intrinsic values
-establish priorites and phasing
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
516
~l
l
l
' l
( )
'
I '_,
__ J
i - ;
Constraints
-fire hazard exist at park perimeter
-wildlife need springs
-free-roaming dogs and cats desrupt wilflife
-many exotic plants are invasive
-bmshlands will expand due to succession
-corporation yard is obtmsi re
-some existing uses conflict
-trespass occurs on private properyt
-multiple use of roads is penuitttecl ;\!COSD
-erosion is prevelant
-SRP is unknown to many people
-bigrock play is unsafe
-conflicts between auots
-conflicts between autos and pedestrians.
-adjacent land uses are incompatible
-Town resources are limited at this time
-Park acreage per capita deficit
-illicit uses
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
517
The process of identifying park user needs and setting goals for improvements at SRP was guided by the initial goals of the advisory committees. numerous interviews '"ith community leaders and citizens outside the advisory committees. the San Anselmo General Plan. and the analysis of responses to a community wide questionnaire on pm-k and recreation issues. This comprehensive, needs assessment process captured a wide range of views, put the issues in context, and focused the goal setting process. In a community of people with diverse values and interests, the ,,-idest range of views needs to be considered, by all invoh·ed in the community park planning process. l
)
·1
l
~l
I
I
· 1
1 I
. l
j
I
J
I
. J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
518
~l
l
l
1 j
l
' 1
' )
l
~J
i ___ j
i
i __ J
__ J
i
I -._..)
Needs Analysis
Ini,tial Goals
The preliminnry goals of the San Anselmo Open Space Advisory Conunittee i,vere outlined at the beginning of the process.
-Enhance the "unde\·eloped" Park.
-Create a passive recreation Park through community participation. -Park should meet some present and future recreation needs of San .-\nselmo. -Open space character should be preserved.
-De\-·elopment should be focused on the lo\'ver 4 acres. -Environmental education and awareness should be promoted.

In addition.the Open Space Conunittee suggested the following specific improvements:
-picnic sites;
-drought tolerant. native plant materials:
-trails to connect to ridge trail;
-enhance/restore ecological areas. particularly the spring and creek:
-shade in lower park.

Parks and Recreation Commission and Staff expressed similar concerns and defined three additional issues.
-Provide for use of the park for dog i,valking and exercise -Safer,.
-Lmv budget and low maintenance improvements.

The officially acknowledge, deficiency of park and recreation acreage in San Anselmo was discussed on several occassions (see Park ~fanagement History).

Expectations were that the Plan ,vould address this issue as well.

I nter,iews-Context
Focused interviews with 25-30 people. including town leaders, staff and citizens, echoed many of the committees specific concerns about the Park. but also revealed a wider range of general issues. These general issues provide context for the specific concerns.

Comments recorded below are condensed from numerous interviews. The interview outline and full range of responses are contained in the Appendix.

The following general comments about of town parks were shared by many people: and are common to several neighborhood parks in San Anselmo.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
519
-"each town park is valued by the community for is inninsic values". -"park and recreation facilities in to,vn are popular and impacted by hea ry use" -"the nature of improvements will be of greatest concern and greatest value to the neighbors of the park".
-"many parks lack ammenities for adult and elderly residents''. :\Iost people recognized that ~Im-in county has a lot to off er in tenns of recreational opportunities. However. most altematfres require driving; and parking is said to often be a problem. In addition, several people said, ''there aren't enough recreation sites for nonatheletic activities in Sm1 Anselmo parks". Some related concerns, regarding SRP, mentioned in the interviews included:
-I don't know much about the park it seems inaccessible and not to inviting to me. -Much of the Park is open space and not a typical park. howe•:er both functions should be accommodated.
-SRP should not be allocated for any single, dominant use or user group. -Impacts of the adjacent land uses on the park experience or vice versa are important issues.

Questionnaire
A questionnaire designed to assess the whole community's concerns. preferences and goals for improvements at SRP was run in the Ross Valley Rep01ter in October. 1991.

The design of the questionnaire was guided by the sununary of interviews, the initial goals expressed by the Open Space Committee and Parks and Recreation Conunission. as well as park site research. A draft questiorumire was reviewed by both commissions and the Park and Recreation staff. in late September.

The editor of the Ross Valley Reporter (RVR). Cinda Becker, agreed to run the questionnaire "editorially". at no cost to the town .. .\ copy of the questionnaire and the front page. lead article, which accompanied it are included in this report.

The response was good and included many thoughtful letters and some colorful drawings of the park. About 80 questionaires were returned, which is approximately a 1 % response rate and typical of this type of newspaper survey. The tedious job of tallying responses. was unde11aken by volunteers at the Open Space Committee. with the aid of a computer progrmn. Questionnaire results are summarized in ranked percentage lists of responses (see Appendix). The content analysis of responses in ternis of specific issues indicated patterns of park use and user preferences, which guided the overall community 6/
-1
I
1 I
-1
l
l
I
J
I C )
I
I - J
I
. J
I
- J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
520
~l
J
l
l ,
~l
l
. 1
• 1
j
goal-setting process. Survey results and the content analysis were published in the Ross Valley Ross and presented to workshop participants.

Respondents
The questionnaire polled the vie,vs of park users. nonusers and residents of various San Anselmo neighborhoods and not just those who Ii \'e in the San Francisco Bl v cl. area. adjacent to the Sorich Ranch Park. The n1..'ljo1ity of respondents (83%) currently use the park or have used it in the recent past. .-\ study of street addresses of respondents who live in San .-\nselmo indicated that 1/3 lire in the San Francisco Bh·d. neighborhood. The remaining 2/3 live in other neighborhoods throughout the town. A majority (54£}) Ii re closer than one mile to the park. Apparently. the park planning project is a concern to people who lire throughout the conu11u11ity.

Non-users of the park constituted 17% of the survey respondents. These people don't frequent the park, in large pa.it. because they are tmfai1liliai· with its location (56% ) . or they feel there is nothing for them to do there (37% ). The pai·k "is not inviting enough", said one non-user.

The san1ple of people who answered the questionnaire represents a cross ·section of the ages of adult residents of San Anselmo. All age groups are represented including elderly ( +65) and young adults (20-3-1-). However. compared to the 1980 census fig mes (General Plan. source:ABAG) the san1ple group appears biased in favor of 35-55 year olds and against younger adults and elderly. ~fore cmTent demographic data (1990 census) ought to indicate a better fit in light of the national trend toward an aging population. \\7'omen constitute 55% of those who answered the survey.

The views of a variety of interest groups are recorded in the sun·ey sample. Dog mvners constitute 40% of the respondents. park neighbors 27%, bike riders 23(}. serum· citizens 18%. and non-users of the park 17%.

J Content Analysis-Visions ~
' , __ J
i
_J
'\\l1en making community plans. like the Sorich Ranch Park plan it is often challenging to discover. a unif1ing theme. that capture the essence of what a conunuruty is trying to aclliere. Howe\·er. discovering such a rision or concept is impo1tai1t, for it will guide the design and management of the pai'k. Questionnaire respondents considered. eleven concepts of the ''future" of S01icl1 Ranch Park. derived from interviews of tO\vnspeople and site study, and they wrote in suppo11 for several other concepts. ~Iost people shai·ed the vision of tlze park as a quiet open space of hills, woodlands and creeks: a Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
521
place to see natl/re and take in the dramatic views of the town and the ra!ley: a place where ones awareness of the natural em!fronment is piqlled.

More than 'in% of respondents thought that the most appropriate of the 11 concepts proposed in the questionnaire for use of the place were: maintaining present open space character: the opp01tunity to take in \'iews of town and ;\It. Tamalpais: and emphasizing the park as a quiet place away from town. Of those who "ranked" these top three choices. open space character was the most important. The folU1:h most popular concept was "a park designed to promote \'isitor awareness of nature and environmental issues. so one can enjoy and respect the place more fully" (71 % agreed it was appropriate) The fifth ranked concept ,vas for a park plan that will promote volunteer programs to plan. build and maintain the park (64% agreed it was appropriate). There ,vas also agreement among 6-t.l1t of respondents. that the park improvements and programs should focus on introducing children to nature. Conceptually. the type of acli\'ilies appropriate at SRP were a lesser concern (ranked 8th) but. clearly the allocation of space in the park for acti \·e recreation or large adults groups was unacceptable to more than half of respondents (51 % ). The visions of the Committees and those of others wrote in comments were generally compatible with the concepts supported in the poll. ~linority views recorded in the questionna.ire·are included the survey results.

Content Analysis-Issues
A second challenge in the comnumity planning is to agree on detailed policies that ·will enable visions to be realized in the near future. Analysis of opinions from the interviews and the questionnaire. regarding the appropriateness of specific policies and activities contributed to understanding user preferences and establishing detatailed policies.

The detailed policies are discussed below in tem1s of 10 important issues. The conceptual statements and visions favored by respondents ,vere supported in large part by the policies and activities appro\·ed in the questionnaire. Inconsistencies were resolved in discussions. other minority views are recorded in the Appendix.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
522
l
l
l
How ;\.fuch 01ange?
The majority of respondents ( 60%) felt that improvements should be implemented at SRP; and park improvements should be more thru1just a clean-up (-1-9'1-y). Opinion '"1 , indicated that new trails should be added and existing ones repaired (..J.-1.l1-y. 36%n). i
l
J
r l
' j
l
~J
~ _J
,_j
~-J
Generally impro\'ements should be focused on the lower park. (63%y) as recommended initially by the committee. Park improvements should focus on the natural. intrinsic \"alues of the park site ru1d on use by individuals or small groups. Appropriate actfrities selected from the lists by respondents included: wildlife habitat (87% ). hiking trails (861:;:-). wild places to explore (82%), nature study (68%), self-guided nature trail (69%). vista points along trails (72% ), native plants display garden (68% ). Improvements suggested th.at may imply some lmge scale ch.ru1ges, imposition of structures in the Pru·k, or use by large groups were usually not approved.

Access and Awareness
A majority felt that access and awareness of the Park should be promoted. The Park is unknown to many residents including 10% of those who ans\vered the · questionnaire. Ho\Ve\·er, there is some concern that wide publicity of the park will adversly impact the neighborhood and the Pru"k. A "captivating entrance" is not \Vhat people hare in mind (60%n). Questionnaire results indicate that, the public/private boundaries of the park should be clruified (62%y) and signs at the entry and bow1daries should be informative (67%y). Trails should be linked to the County trails on the ridge (82 % ) and to other parks in tmn1 with a walking guide (50% ). In general. most people adrocated for good pedestrian access (71 % ).

Overwhelming support was expressed in the interviews ru1d questionnaire(71 % ) for making the P.lrk inviting ru1d accessible to seniors. Support for specific features that may impro\'e appeal and access for them included: an easy trail to the ridge (79'} ). a short. flat loop \Valk (62%). a place to meet freinds and rela."\ (65%), trail-side benches (58'1:-) ru1d a shaded seating area (76% ).

Opinions indicated. access for fanulies ru1d children should also be promoted (59% ). Specific, features suggested as appropriate, by respondents included: water fountain ( 69% ). a toilet ( 6-1-% ), shaded seating, and flat loop walks. l\Iore problematic issues, on which opinion was split included: a fanuly picnic area (49%y. 36'1-n. 15%nc). play strucnire (36%y. 4-1-'tn. 21 %), limited summer day crunp use (37%y, 40%n. 23%nc), and outdoor classroom (42%y, 33%11, 2-t.%nc). These activities Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
523
or features need to be clearly defined in site specific temis. They should be low impact and "sit lightly on the land", in words of one towns person.

Finally. there was only minority support for specific acti'rities that would appeal to large groups pursuing active sports and educational endea\·ors including: volleyball, small stage. ceremonial grove, connnunity gardens. or par-course. This reaction may be due. in part, to the percei ·red scale and tone of such features. as well as the impact of large popular appeal of the Park on the neighborhoods.

Educational .-\ctivities
Conceptually. there was strong support for promoting visitor awareness of nature and enviromnental issues (71 % ): and introducing children to nature (64C'f ). Relernnt policies that were approved included: providing infom1ati,·e signs (67%), nature study (68%). nature trails (68%). history ,valk (54%) and natire plants garden (65%).

Passive or Active Recreation
Passive recreation activities for individuals or small groups, that draw on the intrinsic values of this park are more popular with respondents (57%y), than active recreational uses (28%y) which might require special facilities, attract large groups or could currently be pursued at another to,vn park. Strong support was \'Oiced for most of the passive recreational uses listed. except for the stage area and ceremonial grove. these included: short loop walks. places to relax, shaded seating. sunbathing, and all the educational acti,ities listed above. :,.,rare active recreational uses that were supported included rarious uses of the trail systenL A majority disapproved of volleyball and a parcourse. Enthusiasm for a childrens play structure or a tot lot was mixed. Se\·eral people remarked "don't make another :\Iemotial Park, please". Inteniewees expressed concern that their are insufficient sites nearby for non-atheletic activities.

Trails And :\Iultiple Uses
.-\ccessible hiking trails and places left to explore are two of the top rated policies approved in the questionn.iare. Trails to the ridge top (79% ): a short, flat loop walk in the Lower Park( 62%): shaded seating (76%); and \·ist.1 points along the trails (72%) are appealing to a majority of those polled in the questionnaire. i\Iultiple use of a trail system in a compatible, and nonconsumptive fashion should be promoted. Respondents to the questionnaire, representing several park user groups feel that in concept. trail use for running(64%) and horseback rid.ing(49%) are appropriate. Opinions, regarding the use of the trails for mountain bike riding. are split(..i6%y, -it {}n. 13%nc). Ctmently 23% of the I
l
'l
I
,-1
J
' J
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
524
l
l
i I
. ' 1
1 j
user of SRP ride bikes to the Park. on occasion. Policies for management of a trail system for multiple use must be established and enforced. TI1e Park is a resource for a community of ages and interests and should not be approriated for any single use.

Parking
Although one third of the people polled drive to the Park on occassion there are seldom more than 2-3 cars parked in the present parking area. Parking in itself is not a problem at SRP. A majority stated that limited parking, for fifteen cars is appropriate (67%) and occassional overflow parking in the neighborhood is reasonable (-+711-y. 32 %11. 21 %nc). If parking demand increases. more of the natural park site should not be pm·ed (54%y).

Dogs '\Val king
A consensus on some policies pertaining to clog walking at Solich Ranch Park was reached in the questionnaire, but on other related questions opinions \Vere erenly dirided Forty percent of the survey respondents own dogs, but only 10% of those. exercise their dogs regularly at SRP. However, in the questionnaire, 27% of the ctUTent users of the park mentioned that they do occassio11ally walk their dogs at SRP.

Policy statements in the questionnaire, pertaining to dog walking, distinguished between the Upper Park (the hill side area adjoining the County Open space and popular for hiking etc.); and the Lower Park (the flatter more accessible area at the park entry). Survey respondents agreed (55'1y. 29%n), that in the Lower Park. dogs should be allowed offleash. under control of the o\vner, and the owner must remove any feces. A suggestion to allow dogs off-leash in the lower park. but only within a designated landscaped area for dogs, ·was rejected mildly (36%y, -t.+%11, 21 %nc). Opinion on the appropriateness of "a separate dog exercise area" was e\·enly split (41 %y, 41 %11, 18%nc). In intrerviews. most responsible dog O\Vners say, they simply want a safe place to exercise their dogs and socialize '"ith other owners. The problematic results and the popular concern for this issue indicate a need for agreement on a clearer statement of policy and site specific descriptions of alternati re solutions.

On the issue of ctuTent use of :\ Iemorial Park for exercising dogs. opinions were split as to "whether or not it is a problem", with a sizable number of people not expressing an opinion (33%y, 38%n, 28%nc). Although. a majority (5-+%) agreed that dog use should not be shifted from ~Iemorial Park to Sorich Park. If there is a problem it should be dealt \\'ith in the Park not exported. In general the dog use issue is important but it should not overwhelm the discussion of other equally important issues.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
525
Habitat Restoration and :\fana2ement
Habitat protection and enhancement is an important issues in the Upper Park area.

Similar undeveloped. ·wooded south-facing slopes are tmconunon locally. Q\·envhelming support was expressed for policies which promote restoration and rn..·magernent of natural resow-ces and habitats in the Park. Currently. the most popular activities for the respondents are observing and exploring nature. and taking in the views. Related policies that were approved include: restore creeks and springs (92 % ), repair erosion gullies (62 !} ). enhance habitat for native plants and animals (83% ).

Park :\fanagement and ~fatetials
Concerns about drought and fire hazard were expressed by many residents, \Vho responded to the questionnaire. The use of drought tolerant and nati \'e plant materials was advocated by 90% of those polled. i\:fany people addressed th.is issue with indi,·idual comments and suggestions for specific materials. The elimination of poison oak \Vas a conm10n concern of park users.

Fi.re hazard management is another important concern for all residents and land managers in the Ross Valley and adjacent communities. A majority of questionnaire respondents (51 % ) agreed that controlled bw-ning of the grassland, in order to minimize fire hazard. would be reasonable.

Adjacent land Cses
The management and visual impacts of the adjacent public ,vorks staging area, corporation yard and dump were concerns of a majority of residents and park users. In the opinion of 77% of the respondents the Corporation yard and dump should both be visually screened from the park: and 87% supported cleaning up the dump and addressing safety issues surrmmding it. Opinion was split over the suggestion that "the dump be eliminated" (42% y. 26%n, 32'1-nc). Users also expressed concern over the "debris day activity" and 45% declared it should be redesigned.
i
I
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
526
~l
j
Conununity Goals and Appropriate Acthities
Process
The final "commwiity goals'' were dereloped from content analysis of the ~1 numerous interviews. the questionnaire results. as well as the field study of the park site and its cmTent use . .-\.t public workshops. members of the adrisory committees participated - l
1 in translating the analysis of issues into specific goals and policies. Approximately ..J.O townspeople and representatives of se,·era.l interest groups (CNPS, ~.IPDOA. Drake H.S.) participated in the the goal setting sessions. In addition, over 100 people contlibuted to the goals process through the questi01maire and inten-iews.

All of the policies that receive ovenvhelm.ing support in the interviews and questionnaire were included in the draft goals. Those th.at elicited predominantly negatfre responses were omniitted. In several instances, opinions ,vere divided or inconclusive. In these situations, alternative statements were presented in the draft goals for affirnmtion by workshop participants. At each workshop participants took the opportun.iity to edit the workbook of draft goals, craft additional policies, and prioritize statements. These goals reflect the agreements reached by the project participants; and by virtue of the process, represent the best assessment of the goals of the community. The final goals are consistent Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
527
'"ith the intent of the General Plan and the goals of the SAOS...\C and SAPRC for Sorich Ranch Park. The basic ''community goals" are as listed below. A complete statement of "community goals ,objectives and policies" is included in the . ..\ppendix.

GOAL 1.

GOAL 2.

GOAL3
GOAL4.

GOALS.

GOAL6.

GOAL 7.

Protect the intrinsic values of Sorich Ranch Park-a quiet, neighborhood park and open space that invites passive recreation. exploration and rela.-,.ation.

Maintain and enhance open space character of Sodch Ranch Park Park area; Upper Park improvements should be limited to minimal trail developments and restoration of habitats and natural systems.

Meet some of the park and recreation needs of townspeople while ensuring non-consumptive use of natural resources at Sorich Ranch Park.

Promote visitor awareness of nature and environmental issues so thev can enjoy and protect the Park more readily. •
Make Sorich Ranch Park safe and inviting for the park users and nearby residents.

Promote· voluntary community participation in the Sorich Ranch Park project.
6i
~ l
i
· 1
1 I
~l l
. l
J
I
I ' J
J
J
I
j
I
j
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
528
1 j
l
. fl
J Performance Standards
'l
.1
l
l
- '
Activities tlli'lt lli'1ppen in the park have certain space requirements. Pe1formance standards define the activity settings in terms of users needs and space requirements. Some of the specific activities and experiences that should be encouraged and accomodated at SRP are listed below. These activities were deemed appropriate for SRP by respondents to the "community" questionnaire. Descriptions of "site specific" pe1formance standards help in designing of places and evaluating portions of a design. later in the public process. The process used to develope perfommnce standards and activity settings is illusti-ated using several activities, selected from the list of appropriate activities (see Appendix). This process was modified from work by Randolph Hester, outlined in his book. ''Neighborhood Spaces \Vith People'', published in 198-+. Hester developed a checklist of ! social factors that influence social behavior. The success of a park design is perceirecl by the user in temis of how these factors are satisfied TI1e process is an alternative to general · ~ design guidelines, which don't necessarily relate to particular enriroI1Illental situatiollS or particular users.
~ 1
l : 1
___ j
i
j
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
529
Appromiate .-\ctivities to be Encouraged at SRP
sitting and watching nature or views
sitting and watching peopk+
sitting and talking \1.ith a friend or friends
sitting in the shade, or sunshine
sitting beside the trails
~eting friends and neighbors
playing frisbc:e
rolling in the grass
playing al BigRock
playing in the creek.
climbing trc:es
picnicing
enjoying the park \1.ith a small group
finding out aboutrrnture
taking in views and nature+
introducing children to nature
learning abou1 native plants
leaming about fire hazard
finding out about Park and Open Space events
appreciating local ranch history
walking liesurdy
running or jogging
hiking to the ridge "easily"
walking from SRP to other parks
walking in from the neighborhood*
walking a dog off-leash*
getting a dog a drink
scooping dog litter
running a dog on the trails
riding motmtain bikes
riding horses
parking cars and bikes
day camping in summer
using toilet
getting a drink
rc:cycl in g l i ttc:r
recycling yard debris
recognizing park ~1trances and boundaries
contacting authorities about misuse of park
participating in future planning
voltuueering for park activities
Perfonnance Standards and .-\ctivitv Settings
In the course of exploring design_ alternatives, site specific perfonnance standards for numerous activities, deemed appropriate at SRP, were described as indicated below. 7(
l
.,
I
'l
l
I
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
530
l l
l
l
'
1 J
J
__j
,._ _ _}
, __ l J
Those included: playing on BigRock, riding mountain bikes, chiving to SRP and parking, sitting and talking to friends, non-atheltic walking at SRP, appreciating vistas and nature etc. Se-reral other examples of the products of the process are included in the Appendix.

Activitv:

Sitting alone and watching people
Perfonnance Standards:

1. People one wants to do activity \\1th or \\ithour?
-how many?
-who?
3 or more peopk
adults watch children:
-distances?
elderly watch everyone:
teens watch teens
social distances(+3')
maintain privacy
-compatible w/ picnicing
walking
-conflicts w/
.'.!. Setting for activity?
-medium large
-near activities. entrances
-flat or sloped
-partially enclosed or open
-<:onv ,mi ent

3. Comfort factors'?
-~ating
-microclirnate
-time of day
dog \Valki.ng
non-auto traffic
active sports
large group activities
racing dogs
-degree: of enclosure (prospect!refuge)
-safe location
-conv~roce
Activity Settings: DR.-\ WINGS
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
531
The design program is guided .in pai1. by the follmving principles and design criteria. 111ey ai·e relevant. not only to the development of th_e design. but frnitful enjoyment and successful management of the Paik
Com1nunitJ Participation in the Planning Process
\\~idespread concern about the enrironment ai1d co111111tmity de,·elopment matters poses some real challenges ai1cl opportunities for communities, planners ai1cl landscape architects. ..\s the public becomes more infonnecl ai1d sophisticated in these matters. planners and designers must face the challenge of how to better comprehend and respond to the public's concerns. A lot of time and effort is often spent working out teclmical plans, which ne•,er get beyond the dra,ving board. because public support for them is lacking.

Often the lack of support originates in the initial difference in point of view between planners and public. Improved communication and participation have become highly sought objectives of planning processes.

Active community p::u1icipation in the process is most import::u1t to the success of a park design project is. A plan that recognizes the needs and pleasures of the community, will be ,veil used and successful. Benefits of community participation in park planning can include:
-neighbors contribute thoughts on the issues.
-designer benefits from flo,v of ideas and compromises. -neighborhood grows more cohesi,·e. with sense of pride and awareness. -comnumity stew;:u·dsh.ip of the plan will ensue and a sense of "owning" the project may follow.

This project is dedicated to designing and implimenting a community participation process which offers promise of improving the interchange of ideas between the planners, the designer and the public: reg::u·ding goals. solutions and program concepts. which are sensitive to environmental factors of the site. The public should be an educated participant; the process and final design should be educatfre of the en,·irorunent itself. Successful public design projects rely on public participation ai1d interest in the design process, for it is I - _)
I
- J
I
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
532
l
1 'l
l
that interest which stimulates the designer to achieve works of significance. (Hershey. 1988)
,.l Environmental Awareness
1 1 J
'. l
t ,_J
Landscape site design is one of the major forces affecting our natural en\'iromnent:
and its one of the most imp011ant. because it is concerned with en\'ironmental educationachei \'ing and preserving quality in the enviromuent. However. for this to happen there must be widespread public demand a for quality designed environment: which can only come from an en\'ironmentally aware public. Citizens ecluG1.ted about envirorunental issues make better cluoces. Such citizens reqtrire places designed to human scale. for human safety. recreation and relaxation; and places designed for expeiience of conunwuty values.

If these places are educative, that is designed for learning about the en\·ironment. then the goal of tlus circular process can be realized. An environmentally aware public ,,.m be better able to ask for better enviromuental design.

Public park planning project, like tlus one, can be environmental education experiences, in themseh·es, in that they are aimed at producing local citizens who are:
knowleclgable about the local enviromuent and its associated problems; aware and skilled in how to become involved in helping to sol\'e these problems: and motivated to ,vork toward their solution (Stapp et.al.). These aims for improved environmental awareness and education can to be accomplished through: conumm.ity participation in the plamung and design process: expe1ience of the park site design. once irnplimented; and design of educatfre planiung doctuuents.

The SRP project is designed specifically to invoh·e citizens in the planning, design and implimentation of the Park plan. Through this process, current and funrre project participants. planners. stewards. and students of the Park have had and will continue to have the oppornm.ity to gain knowledge. skill and expeiience soh·ing the local en ,·i.ronmental problems.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
533
Elements of the SRP site design pro,·ide environmental infomiation and experiences: thereby creating the potential for learning. Infonnation can be con\'eyed through:
-signs. S)1nbols. and subtle clues (prefe1ncl over text). -objects, materials and acti\'ities which are associated with an en\'iromnental process at the park site (trails alignment. nati,·e plants. soils. rock walls. creek access. etc.).
-directly revealing the natural objects or process through interpreted e:,.periences.(outdoor classroom. field nips)
The SRP master plan document is. itself, designed to infonn residents, park users. planners and other interested persons about SRP. The Site Inventory. in particular. has complimentary infonnative aims. First. it pro\'ides infonnation that will be useful to the conummity and its plam1ers, in defining the future management options at SRP. Second. it serves as a brief guide to the natural history. environmental process and issues expressed in the Park landscape. A guide that visitors, students and teachers can use to increase their appreciation and understanding of the Park.

As threats to our environment grow in number and complexity the need to educate children, as well as adults about environmental concepts takes on increasing in1po11ance.

TI1eir generation must better understand the earth and how to care for the natural resources.

Historically. in Ame1ica. learning ,vas supposed to take place indoors and outdoor emrironments \Vere for play. Ho\ve,·er. a grO\ving body of expe11s ad,·ocate for updating educational methods and breaking don·n walls between indoor and outdoor learning envirorunents. TI1e SRP Plan strfres to promote acti,·e outdoor learning. and foster increased environmental awareness through use of natural materials; as well as design and interpretation of objects. places. and experiences that ha·ve high learning value.

Cultural Landscape Preservation
Landscape is never fixed. it is always changing with time: yet the acknO\vledgement of historic landscape use often enhances the experience of sense of place. The few historic landscape elements at SRP worthy of note and presen·ation date back to the history of the area as a dairy farm. These elements include: the hay ham (pa11 of the existing Corporation -1
-i
1 I
i
;
J
I
- j
j
I
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
534
1 f
'l
J
rl
J
yard). rare insitu fragments of the folllldations of the creamery and farm outbuildings. fence lines and fence posts, and the tree lined dri\'eway to the dairy.

There are several approaches to landscape presen·atio1L TI1e approach taken here focuses·on interpretation of an historic landscape f01m, with the integration of new uses and contemporary conditions. It i1woh·es research of the original design. so that new design can reinforce historic integ1ity. while integrating a contemporary program. A vaiiety of inte1preti \'e treatments approp1iate for implementation at SRP include:
-"polite descdption "; create a rappo1t between what is existing ai1d what has been added. Paint murals of dairy or ranch themes on Corporation yard bai11. Outline the old creainery fmmdation with the planting design demen~ site. -,·isual screens: reduce intrusion of non-contextual elements. Screen out visual impact of adjacent land uses ,vi.th natural materials (e.g. board fences or vegetation).
-adaptive use; new uses of hist01ic elements which confom1 to the histo1ic context.

Old doonvay fom1dations of the creamery adapted as trai1sition area from parking into Bigrock area and from Bigrock area into Upper Park and terrace.

Environ1nental Restoration
Our new found awareness off the ecological decline of the Bay Area's forests. grasslands. creeks, and wetlands can be translated into action to repair ecological damage through environmental restoration projects and careful management of existing natural resouces. A long history of ecological abuse ha.s impacted the SRP lands. Current en\'ironmental conditions in the Pai·k ha\'e potentially significant local impacts and equally significant regional impacts a.s distant a.s Bay Area salt marshes.

An increasing number of people are coming to the conclusion that e\'en global environmental problems require some sort of persoru1al and local conmnuuty conmuttment.

Many are advocating "hands on" approaches to e1wirollll1ental restoration and any effort to integrate an awareness of ecology into day to day life. En\'iroru11ental restoration projects can provide people with an increased understanding of ecology and an opportu1uty to do something positive for the environment. as well as work along side members of the conunuruty-thus facilitating conm1muty growth (RTE).

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
535
There are a number of specific projects and environmental problems at SRP. ''Hands on" solutions, involving volunteer would be appropriate in many instances. particulary those indicated belmv "V". The projects are listed in order of most immediate need of attention.
!.Regrade and reregetate t e1nce with drought tolerant plants (V).

2.Regrade service road.

3.I.rraclicate and control of in\·asive exotic plants (V).

4.Stabilize and revegetate strean1 bank in Lower Park (V).

5.Regrade parking lot.

6.Realign and revegetate Deer rock trail (V).

7.Stabilize and re\·egetate dump slope.

8.Re\·egetate Deer rock sp1ings (\').

9.Reregetate and maintain oaks in Lower Park grassland (V).

Regional Native Plants
Native plants. by definition occur naturally: and are admirably well suited to the region and specific site conditions where they grow. Plants that have been introduced from outside California are often refe1Ted to as exotic. These non-native. exotic plants often require special care in order to flumish. Some non-native plants do flu01ish in the Bay Area without special care: these plants have become naturalized. They are adapted to the dry swnmers and short rainy ,·1,inter of the local, i\Iediterannean type climate. However. naturalized plants are \'Ulnerable to local diseases, extreme cold, and drought. They are also capable of "out competing" native plants and displacing then from their natural habitats. ·w·ith the loss of native plants. native birds and manm1als.

Contrary to popular belief a landscape of California native plants need not be dull. dry, and dusty even in mid-sunm1er. Thoughtful selection of native plants from this region of the California coastal foothills can offer year rotmd beauty and interest with lush foliage. showy flowers and fniit. 111e esthetic value of native plants give th.is region much of its distinctive beauty and attraction. Native plants reinforce the 'sense of place" and local character of the hmdscape.
-1 }
l
·1
!
i
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
536
l
·-1
e 1
'
The vaiious sizes and divesitv of native flora can be used to satisfv the functional . . requirements of park or garden lai1dscapes including: windbreaks, shade, erosion control. visual screens. wildlife cover and forage.

Dependence on natives introduces less risk into management of park and garden vegetation. Native plants are well adapted to local climate. soils. drought conditions ai1d fire. Once established, natives will flourish \\·ith much less maintanence ,Uld require minimum water: useful attJ.ibutes for park depaitments with limited resources. However. all plm1ts need some water. young plants need more in the first 1-3 ye.u-s. in onler to get established. Some nati re phmts that grow nan1rally along streaius and moist ai·eas need a great deal of ,vater. The use of native plants or "approp1iate h01ticulttU"e" must be based on careful study of local enrironmental factor;:; and pl.u1t requirements.

The application of a pwist concept of native plai1t h01ticulnu·e. ,vhereby only nati re plants. histo1ically known to hm·e grO\m on this site ai·e used. is not the intent of this project. However. the propogation of oak seedlings from acorns colleckd on the site by SAOSAC rnltmteers in 1989. has already seen success. Such activities should be encouraged with other species in the park.

The native plant palette suggested is representative of native plants adapted· to this · l site and the inland valleys of the Coastal California and Marin county. Selective planting of , ; native flora from other regions of the state. in the Lower park is approp1iate for accent, public education or historic focus. The educational intent of this project merits an attempt to demonstrate the esthetic atKi functional attJ.ibutes of the n..1ti,·e. drought tolerai1t species available in the area. A pai·k also offers the opportunity to test species for their nmintenance requirements ai1d general durability. TI1e linuted histo1ical focus of the park also suggests that ce11ain :\Iediterrane.m plai1ts symbolic of the California ranch landscape may help caITy off the theme and reinforce the history of agricultural hU1d use around San Anselmo.

The growth habits of these all wild native plants may frnstrate the sense of a well maiucured lai1dscape that urban residents and maintenance workers often aspire to. Special attention to generous spacing and careful selection, will help ease the temptation to pnme and hedge. in a ni.mner which would radically alter the original intent of the nati"e planting design.

Substitt1tes for nuf grass ai-e difficult to find: it also remains the largest \Vater consumer. Still, there ai·e grasses ai1d native nuxes that are more water conserving thm1 others as well as lawn substitutes.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
537
S01ne Park Design Criteria
Parks provide opporhmity for play which is inherently valuable. Provide "wild places" without programmed activities or formal restriction on use, to enhance sense of freedom. encourage creative play and foster environmental awareness.

Environmental Education
Enhance educational qualities of the Parks. Solich Ranch Park has several characteiistics with high environmental value: ranch history, urban wilderness. and accessibility to local schools and neighborhoods. The project provides an opportunity to developed design ideas which highlight the Park's environmental education potential for children and adults.

Existing Features
Incorporate valued qualities of the existing site. Existing valued qualities of the park reflect idiosyncratic values of its current users and a.re not always easily understood by planners. Factors that should be incorporated include: Bigrock. and a "steep direct route" to the ridge for runners and atheletic walkers.

Ctment Uses
Reflect cunent use cl1."l.racteristics in the park design. Attention should be paid to uses and abuses of the park.

Neighborl10od Park
Neighbod1ood parks are desirable because they imprm·e the overall neighborhood in1age. If the park has the qualities of fitting into the neighborhood. its residents may feel drawn to paticiate in the stewardship of the park and police illegitimate uses.

Safetv
Park users should not be exposed to hazardous situations: known dangers should be removed from the park environment.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
538
' 1
'
l ' 1
'
!
~_J
~fanagement
Methods should be adopted that reduce the potential for accident liability and damage to n.'1tural resources or esthetic qualities of the park.

Access
It is important that e,·eryone, regardless of disability. have the opportunity to expe1ience the various aspects of the park together. p.uticularly those that are accessible in Lo\'ver Park.

Spatial Design
-Design for a rnriety of social-spatial experiences, including overt socializing (just getting together) and core1t socializing (just ,vatching the world go by). -Proi·icle for social and physical requirements or all ages of park users, particularly children. elderly, non-atheltic or mobility impaired persons. -Create a memorable place through sense of aniva.l.
-Strong edges create definable spaces.
-Connections bet,veen places and the uses of particular places should be clear. -Heirachy of spaces and circttlation creates a sense of order. -Intricacy creates interest.

BO
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
539
~wffiffi~IBW @rn1 il(£~fil~~Willi~'"J
IB~(C@ffiffiJl~IID~ ~II©~~
This smnm:.uy of major recollllnendations for the m:.u1agement of Solich Ranch P:.u'k is presented for the reader who does not wish to read the complete :\Lmagement Phm.

A detailed Malysis. explaining why these :.u1<l other actions are reconunendecl is included in the fourth section of the repo1t, the ;\l:.umgement Pl:.u1. The items listed below are all priority items. The top ptiority items. are items that should be addressed \vith in the next three to fire ye:.u-s. This list of major recommendations :.u1d those in the l\lanagement Pl:.lll are listed without consideration for time or resources. \Vatershed :\Ianagement
L Control gully erosion in Upper P:.u"k, sites # 1. 2. 3, :.u1d -+. Stabilize :.u1d repair if practical. Confer with i\ICOSD for assistance and cost sharing.

2. Establish an grading :.u1d drainage plan for Lower Park ten-ace :.u1d parking area. in order to reduce erosion :.llld promote retention of runoff on site. 3 Stabilize :.u1d revegate Lower Park terrace where trails. and bare slopes aggravate erosion and gullying. Establish a landscape pl:.u1ting plan for the terrace.

4. Steep user-made trail to Deer Rock causing hillside erosion and loss of \'egetation.

Immediately. post sign to discourage use in \Vet weather. fa·entually close trail following construction of a new route: stabilize and reregetate the hillside.

5. Stream banks eroding. Annor \vith willow wattling and re\·egetate. Confer \\·ith :tvICRCD regarding removal of rip-rap.

Vegetation :\Ianagement

1. Eliminate or control the exotic weed population throughout the Park. with the environmentally safest control methods. Limit the use of herbicides to spot applications; dependent on Tom1 policy for herbicide use.
l I
- ,
1 l
1 j
I
J
I
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
540

2. In Lower Park. re\'egetate with regional native plants. or a select naturalized species according to the Planting Plan .

3. In Upper Park. m...-umge the vegetation for hist01ic plant diversity and reduced fire hazard.and revegetate eroded areas with regional native pl..-u1ts only . -1-. Protect and maintain the fragile native pl..-u1t communities on serpentine soils. Contact the C.0l'PS for assist..-u1ce \Vi.th a detailed inventory of these sites for rare native plants. ~l including: Jewelflower.
"'l
I ,
-;-,,-......
. l
-J
I
~J
I
;
·--·'

5. Protect ..-u1d maintain nati \·e oak trees in the P..-u-k. according cull'ent guidelines.

6. I.ni.gate only to establish revegetated ..-u·eas in the P..-u-k. \Vildlife Mangement

1. Stress the need for dog owners to closely control off-leash dogs. as they can significantly impact \vilcllife. Post this recommendation on access and trailhead signs, etc., as a condition of pemutted use of open space by dog owners.

2. Remove barbed wire and limit fences to pemut open range of large animals.

3. All springs and wet m.eadmvs shall be protected from livestock, horses and dogs.

Fire Hazard Management
l.Peii.meter Fuel breaks.
a. Mow lugh p1i.ority area shown on the fire haz..'lfd tre..-unent map, ..-umually. Adopt the mowing prescriptions of the i\1COSD:
b. Remo\'e all exotic trees and shrubs located "'itlun 50' of the Park perimeter. c. Pmne the wooded areas included on the Fire Hazard Map. Re-pmning may be required every 10 years.
d. ~low along both sides of the service road and around the perimeter of the parking area, 15' from the road edge, according the mowing prescription above (1).

2. Town should confer \'\'1th the MCOSD ..-u1d owners of adjacent unde\'eloped private property, in order to reduce fire hazard where the park adjoins these properties.

3. Fire Hazard Brochure. The Town. in cooperation \'\'1th ;\ICOSD. R\'FD ..-u1d :\ICFD, should prepare or update an existing brochure, for distribution to residents living ne..-u· the P..-u·k and Preser\'e. The brochure should exp.lain means of reducing fire lmz..-u·d .and include lists of pl..-u1ts to be used and plru1ts to be avoided. .-.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
541

4. Reduce by one third the brushland labeled on the Fire Hazard Map. Hand prune brnsh and bum in the winter or eady spring for 2 successi\'e years. in order to get rid of the baccharis sprouts and poison oak.

5. Enstu·e the ,isibility and adequate access to municipal water supply at the standpipe in the Coq,oration yard.

Public Access :\fanagement

1. Maintain emergency access at main entrance. and to San Anselmo trail/road. (see Neighborhood Access) Pro\'ide gates at li.I1lited access points for mowing equipment and emergency rehicles.

2. Make park entrances clear in\'iting and legitimate .

3. Pro\'ide access to basic sen·ices and information for mobility impaired park users .

Designate parking for mobility impaired visitors.

4. Prohibit access to the park for motorcycles and off-road vehicles. Constmct adequate barricades at the following entry points: Lower Park entrance and parking area .. San Francisco Bl\'d .. Sacramento Ave and SUBlJD parking lot accesses. Confer ~vith ~:ICOSD on cost sharing for these ORV barrier impro\'ement.

5. Provide safe pedestrian access and circulation that minimizes conflict ,vith ,·eh.ides at:
main entry, parking area. and along San Francisco Blvd. on the approach to the Park.

Design pedestrian and auto entrances. separated by plantings and realign entrance road.

6. Relocate parking for 10-15 cars, to a portion of the existing public works staging area. i\lin.inlize the size of the parking area: pa,·e it with gra\'el and screen it from ,·ie.-v.

Occassional O\'erflow parking, by legitimate park users, should be pemutted in the neighborhood. Traffic impacts on the neighborhood should be monitored.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
542
1 l
J
l
Trails l\Ianagement

1. Establish a limited system of trails \'\'ithin the P.lFk that meet reasonable. multiple-use demands for recreation and safety. A new hierarchy of trails includes: Exploration trails:
'\Valking trails: :Multiple purpose trails: Dual-use trails. Construction of the trails and neighborhood access described above should proceed according to the following priority list.
a. Construct the Loop Trail:
b. Construct the Deer Rock Trail:
c. Re-route the San Anselmo Trail:
d. Discotu-age unofficial trail access across SUBUD parking lot, e.Discom-age trail access bet\veen residences on San Francisco Boulevard. f. Close the lower portion of San Anselmo trail ranch road to recreational users. g. Construct the Sun Valley Trail:
h. Constrnct the Sacramento Avenue a.nil (Seminary Trail);

2. Prior to construction of trails, or other d.isnrrbance or covering of a substantial amount of ·· 1 ground. surveys for archaeological artifact and sensitive plants should be conducted . ! 3 Post a standard sign at all trailheads in the Park and at appropriate locations on the Park perimeter where SRP trails connect \\'1th regional ti-ails.

I
-+. Standard access improrements at each trailhead should include: an ORV barricade. a standard sign (as above). and barriers (gates. or styles) to equestJ.ians and/or motmtain bike riders where appropiiate.

5. Provide resting/seating places (e.g. split log benches) at trailheads and periodically (approx. 400' inten:als) along walking and multi-purpose trails . ~J Ammenities and Appropriate Use
. __ J
i ---'

1. Impliment of the site improvements described below gradually as resmu-ces and maintenance come available.

2. Provide a safe i.nfom1al play space around Bigrock. Remove asphalt circle dri re armmd Big Rock area and reregetate the area as the main Park entry. Relocate parking to a portion of the the existing staging area.

3. Provide adequate social seating opportunities and universal access to basic services and infomiation.for mobility impaired pm·k users.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
543

4. Provide a variety of seating areas in the sw1 and the shade of LO\ver Park. Quiet areas. as well as. social seating areas near the entry, trail heads and activity areas. Sh..1.de provided by plantings or an appropriate timber strnctme.

5. Locate picnic tables at Creek-side,in low fire danger areas at Bigrock area. on terrace in Lower park near \'iew points.

6.Pro\·ide an i11.fo1mation and interpretation board. A small. low key. information panel. located near the entry or gate\vay to trails.

7. Plant a natire plants "demonstration" area . .-\small.low key. planting area that demonstrates the utility and beauty of ~!min native plants.

8. Pro\'ide a portable public toilet on a trial basis, locate it at the edge of the proposed parking lot and screen it from \'iew.

9. Pro\'icle a drinking f mmtain in Lower park.

10. Pro\·ide a small group seating area: infonnal seating on log rounds or timber benches, located away from public use areas and fit to the contour of a hillside.

12. Design a self-guided "nature" trail with only subtle clues to help visitors interpret the natural and environmental character of SRP.

13. Accomodate those who walk their dogs in Upper and Lower SRP with a policy consistent with ~ICOSD policy Throughout SRP (Lower and Upper areas) allow dogs off-leash. but under owners control and mvay from \\·ildlife or sensitive ecological areas (sp1ings). A . .1.~'D In Lower Park. require owners to remove their dogs litter (feces).

Pooper-scoopers shall be provided in Lower Park.

Visual Resources

1. :Make \'iews toward the Corporation yard visually compatible with the Park setting by using e•,ergreen plantings. fencing andlor removal of visually disturbing buildings. as stated in General Plan.

2. Refurbish existing Corporation yard buildings 1,vith mate1ials and a paint scheme that reduces their visual impact and reflects their historic connection to Sorich Ranch. '= .)
J
I
I ---~
\
I
_J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
544
~l
1 j
)
~,
1 J
l
, l
l
Park and Open Space l\tianagement

1. Guide impro·rements \\'1th a phasing plan. Implement improvements at such time when maintenance is available.

2. Llmit public promotion of the park.

3. Promote low maintenance improvements ..
-+. Project shall not overburden the t0\\-11 resources6. Implement improvements and monitor impacts \\-1th assistance of community volunteers.

5. Establish a program of regular maintenance by staff and connnunity volunteers. Consult with local enviromnental groups and service organization for assistance \v1th implementation of planting .

6. Include enforcement codes and authority on all necessary signs. Post hours of legal -l park use, and phone numbers for assistance and emergency. ' \ __ ,
__ , I
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
545
Introduction
This portion of the ~faster Plan presents the ~fanagement Plan for Sorich Ranch Park. For each issue described in the Site Inventory, the Plan presents: management goals; vaiious maimgement options; the impacts that would result for each option: and fin..'ll recommendations. The mai1agement goals reflect the "comnnmity goals" for the SRP project ai1d se~·eral Town policies. i\Jai1agement options for specific issues ,vere presented at public workshops and compai·ed for their effectireness and environmental impacts. The assessment of some management options and impacts at SRP ai·e based, in part, on findings of the recent MCOSD management plan for the San Rafael Ridge Preserve. ·which adjoins Sorich Ranch Park.
-,
i
j
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
546
1 I
1 i
'\iVatershed i\Ianage1nent-Erosion and Creeks
Goals
...\ long history of grazing and poor land management practices. ,vhich pre-date the Town's acquisition of the Park lands. continue to cause soil erosion. streambank failtm~. loss of Hgetation: and literally undennine the intrinsic values of the park. The goals of this plan m-e to make reconuuendations to repair existing erosion problems and guard against future erosion and resource damage at SRP. Several key goals of the Open Space and Conservation Elements of the San Anselmo general plan promote protection and restoration of the local landscapes. An objective of the "conununity goals" for SRP explicitly states that the conununity, ''protect 11,.1.tural resources and restore natural systems that have , l deteriorated clue to past land management practices. The erosion problems outlined in the Site Inventory must be addressed of they vvill simply get worse, resulting in loss of Park resources and public access" (Objective 2D) .
. -l
_J Options
J
~-J
( ~ •• .I
j L •• J
I I . l ---1
Continue Current :\fanagement
:;\fanagement of erosion and drainage in the Pru·k has focused on seasonal maintenance of culverts. debris removal, scraping the public ,vorks area. ru1d recent mulching of the "ten-ace". Continuation of this limited management of the watershed and existing erosion problems could result in the following impacts. -Soil erosion and gullying at sites in Lower Park including the terrace and the existing picnic ai-ea.
-Drainage of nmoff from Park roads ai1d trails on to prh'ate property, with potential property damage.
-Erosion ai1d loss of vegetation in the protected ''Ridge Zone". -Reduced capacity of culverts to handle storm runoff.
-Degradation of aquatic habitat in the park and dmvnstream to C011e Madera marsh. -Loss of wetland meadows, decreased natural spring flows, and lower water table in the Paik
Limited short tenn solutions do not no1mally address the sources of these problems; local regrading of roads and trails and revegetation ai-e often necessary.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
547
Repajr Existing Erosion Problems
The significant erosion problems are described in the Site Inventory (Lanclfom1 section) and indicated on the Landform map. Some basic suggestions for repair are listed on the following pages. However. actual remedies must be site specific and should be designed in the field by Staff or experts. faniiliar with erosion control. Some additional guidelines can be found in several excellent publications including one put out by the ::-..Iaiin Cotmty Resotrrce Conservation District (Pmnuske. 1987): ainong others (AB.-\G. 1980), (Olson and Hom. 1976). Short tenn solutions ai·e sometimes the onlv ,·iable solutions to erosion problems. Although. evaluating the entire watershed ai1d attempting to reduce soil erosion ai1d mnoff in combination ,vith repairing individual sites may be more satisfatory in the long nm. In order to explore this approach consultation ,vith the ~ Iarin County Resource Consen·ation District (MCRCD) and U.S. Soil Conservation Serrice (SCS) ,vou.ld be helpful.

Lower Park-batTen slopes
Soil erosion and gullying are serious problems across the large areas of bare soil in Lower Park. Vegetation is the best protection for bare soil. because it absorbs ai1d uses water. Native plai1ts are well adapted to suit specific soil and rainfall conditions. In addition to revegetation. regrac~1g may also be required in some areas to provide adequate drainage.

On tmdisturbed. vegetated slopes water percolates through the soil or flows evenly across the ground into nearby creeks. v.rater should not be focused to one spot on the ground surface, such as the bai·e ditch. that smTounds the terrace. The natural protection of the ground is not sufficient to prevent the runoff from breaking through the bare soil and creating a gully. The ditch should be regraded to a gentle s,vale and revegetated. once the terrace and slopes above it are regraded and revegetated. If it is necessary to concentrate runoff: roadside ditches should be ,·egetated and include check dan1S or ai1110ring to prevent d0\"11cutting. Runoff from a ditch should be directed to an natural drainage with the ditch outlet area protected to prevent erosion of the natural drainage.

Plans for improved drainage in Lower Park must preceed any site impro\'ements or revegatation in the area. ~Iinor regrading of the ten-ace and circle diire will be required in order to alleviate ponding of water on the ten-ace. gulljing of slopes. erosion at the ditch. and to ensure success of reregation efforts. A "conceptual plai1" for grading ai1d di-ainage of Lower Park is included in the Appendix.
.-.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
548
l
l J
1 ~l
1 --,
- 1
1 ' J
- J
i
Road and Trail Erosion
The existing roads and trails in SRP traverse steep slopes. where drainage is inadequate; significant erosion problems exist in several areas. Some serious erosion problems warrant closing and relocating trails.

Roads and trails should be located or graded so as to direct rnnoff aLToss the stuface and do\\-nlu.11 without concentrating it on the road/trail. or in a ditch. This can be accomplished with gentle outslopes. a road crom1. rolling dips. or waterb..u-s. Herbaceous vegetation can also help protect road and trail Slllfaces from nmoff. ...\ grass seed mixture can be smvn directly on the smface to protect it dwing the rainy season. Trails and roads recommended for closure may require stabilization as well as revegati.011.

A properly graded road or trail v\ill result in reduced maintenance cost. reduced erosion, and reduced spread of weeds along the route. A regular maintenance program can nip erosion problems in the bud.

Gullving
Inadequate grading of the Ridge Trail on the MCOSD preserve has resulted in major erosion and gullying across SRP lands on the hillside above East Creek. Gulljing is also occcuring in the grasslands at the head of ,Vest Creek and Sorich Ranch Creek.

Some gullies spread slowly , others seem to devour land as they race uphill. The frontline of the typical gully is called a headcut. As \Vater falls over the headcut it continually erodes.

The first step in reparing gullies is to discover \vhy the gully fonned. Address the cause and redirect the runoff. Depending on the degree of erosion the head cut may need to be stabliized. Headcuts are best stabilized by am1oring the soil after diverting the water away. This may prevent the gully from lengthening. Repairing tl1e gully can be a much more complicated project. The final goal of a repair is to transfom1 the gash into a gentle. well-annored swale that will carry nmoff with out eroding. Several repair techniques listed in the Appendix have been used successfully in \Vest ;\farin County: each is applicable to different situations. Consultation \\-1th Staff or experts familiar with gully repair is suggested before tackling a repair.

Creek Restoration-bank failure
In Upper Park. both East and West Creek downcut to bedrock. due in part to effects of overgrazing in the past Below their confluence in Lower Park the steep stream bank is destabilized and fails periodically. In steep terrain like SRP, streams are constantly changing in response to weather patterns and changes in the watershed. Specific repairs Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
549
may protect one section of the creek but periodic maintenance is usually required. For chronic severe problems an evaluation of the entire watershed may be required. Most large scale stream bank erosion sites require an engineered solution. particularly if there are structmes do\vnstream, \Vb.ich might be effected by the repairs. ;\.ti.nor sites th .. 1.t are less than 3 ft. high and 10 ft. long can be addressed without engineering using the same techniques reconunended for repair of headcuts and gullies. Reveget..1.tion with willow sprigs and other plants can be implimented without enclnnge1ing downstream properties (Pnmuske .1987).

The stream bank failure in Lower Park occurs at an outside cune in the creek. Onsite solutions to this bank failure include annodng the bank or deflecting the flow. o,·erly steep b .. mk failures should be pulled back and sloped for stablility before reregetation In th.is small channel the unstable bank could be rumored with herbaceous or woody vegetation. A..ltemately. mulch secured with netting or filter fabric could be used in combination \Vith ai1 herbaceous ground co,·er. Nati re grass nlixtures of amrn:ils. perennials. a11d legumes ai·e reconunended to provide long-term protection. TI1e MCRCD or the SCS can provide assistance with approp1iate niixes and application methods.

Willow sprigs planted with grass seed or by themselves are an effective and inexpensive meai1s of armo1ing strean1 banks. Spligs can be collected and pla11ted when willO\v is dom1ant. vVillow responds well to hem·y pruning and the existing plants. in Lower Park, could proride cuttings for a small area of restoration. ~vlethods of pnuling the existing plants and re,·egetating ,vith willow ai·e described in the ~ 1CRCD publication, Groundwork-a handbook/or erosion control in north coastal California.

Deflecting the streain flow away from unstable baiiks can buy time for eroding sites and allow the vegetation to get established. Howenr. it cai1 also cause erosion of unprotected baiiks nearby. thus should only be used following careful study and \Vith regular mo1litoring of the site. Deflectors can be constructed of logs. or rocks that are securely ai1chored to the stream bail.ks.

Storm damaged trees. concrete tiprap. and a raiiety farm yard debtis (e.g. sheet metal and inigaton pipe) hare ended up in the creeks at SRP orer the years and forced the strean1 flO\v into the baiiks. causing erosion. Some of the debris should be removed.

However, some of it prorides aquatic habitat ai1d has become a natrn-al component of the strean1. If sediment has accwnulated behind natlu-al or other obstacles. remo\·ing them may have dan1aging effects on the stream. Consult a restoration expert if need be. TI1e iron pipes, pai1ially buried in the chaimel of East Creek on the no11h side of the tet1'ace, should not be removed as they are integral to batik stability at this time. The concrete rip-rap in the ~I
!
I
I ._.J
i .~
i
J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
550
~l
r l
' ! ._J
j channel below the confluence should probably be removed following the revegetation of the bank failure downstream (seek advice of an expert).

Landslides
Landslides are abundant in SRP. Although they are difficult to predict or repair. there are \Vays to help prevent new slides. No strnctures or roads should be constructed on known active landslides. Existing roads and trails that cut into landslides should be recontoured to the 01iginal contour. re-seeded and a.nd:or abandoned. Runoff should never be cham1eled dO\vn a known slide area. All existing vegetation should be retained. If small slides occur, they can be re-seeded ,vith the same methods described for headcut repairs.

Slides often re-seed thenseh·es. in fact bacchaiis sluubs often sprout in areas of h.isto1ic landslides.

Recommendations
The follo"'ing general recommendations for erosion control and stream stabilization should be addressed as part on-going park maintenance. ~faintenance and repair of erosion problems in Upper Park should be earned out \Vith the cooperation of MCOSD. p.uticulady in situations where the source of the problem lies on MCOSD lands. Basic guidelines for repair and maintenance are set fotth in this report and in the repo1ts referenced on erosion control. Specific solutions to erosion problems may require additional professional assist.u1ce and manpower. The :\!min County Resource Conservation District may be of assistarice initially.

1. Establish an grading and drainage plan for LO\ver Park terrace and parking area, in order to reduce erosion and promote retention of runoff on site.(Policy 2.D.6) 2 Stabilize and reregate Lower P.u·k terrace where trails. aitd b.u·e slopes aggravate erosion and gullying. Establish a landscape planting plan for the ten-ace.(Policy 2.DA)

3. Oose and revegetate roads and trails that are ero<ling.(Policy 2.D.3

4. Stabilize and revegetate slopes where poorly designed roads, trails, overgrazing, etc. have caused hillside erosion and siltation of watercourses.(Policy 2.D. l) Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
551

5. i\:Iaintain and restore natural appearrance and runoff capacity of stream by development of small structural and landscape imprm·ements.(Policy 2.D. 7) .

6. Control removal of any vegetation from hillsides or stream channels in order to minimize erosion and siltation.(Policy 2.D.2)

7. Confer ,vith :\ICOSD regarding efforts to stabilize. revegetate slopes and restore natural drainage patterns 011 ~ICOSD lands. which are aggravating erosion 011 SRP lands.(Policy

2.D.5)

8. Protect all springs and wet meadows from impacts of hikers and horses.(Policy 2.D.8) The following list of specific erosion problems was detennined subsequent to site smveys in sp1i11g and stnmner, 1992. The list is .manged in order of decreasing p1io1ity for action. TI1e munbering sequence con-esponds to the numbers included on the Erosion and Hazard Map. Sites ref e1Ted to in the Erosion control plan for the MCOSD preserve which impact SRP are indicated with ru1 asterisk(*).

1. Gullying at the base of San Anselmo trail/road. Runoff gets dive1ted onto SL'BUD parking lot and residential properties on San Francisco Boulevard. Requires detailed review by e~perts.

2. Gullying on upper po1tions of Sru1 Anselmo trail/road. Grade road to get rnnoff off the surface (include waterbars if necessruy). Revegetate road surface with grasses.

3. *Large gully causing hillside erosion above East creek and springs. Confer with ~ICOSD on repairs ru1d cost shruing. Reroute runoff from i\ICOSD land and repair gully.

4. *Gully causing hillside erosion and siltation of creek. Confer ·with i\ICOSD on repairs ru1d cost shruing. Reroute rnnoff from ?\ICOSD land ru1d repair gully.

5. Runoff from circle driveway eroding slope above existing picnic ru·ea. Reroute runoff do\\·TI the road surface as long as it remains paved. eventually remove asphalt and regrade stuface of trail. route water away from slope and revegetate the slope.

6. Steep user-made trail to Deer Rock. causing hillside erosion ru1d loss of vegetation.

Immediately. post sign to discourage use in wet weather. Eventually close trail follo\,fog constrnction of a new route; stabilize and revegetate the hillside.

7. Standing water on the terrace and gulljing of the slopes. Regrade terrace. in order to distribute 1unoff: don't concentrate runoff in a ditch. Revegeate terrace and slopes.

8. Standing water in ditch ru1d gullying at headcut and outlet. Regrade ditch in to swale ru1d revegetate. Focus only a limited amount of water to the ditch. if necessru}'· Redgracle existing outfall and remove majority of rip-rap. Construct energy dissapator at ditch outlet in the creek.
j
I
. J
. j
' i
_ J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
552
l
l
l
" '
' 1 . I
' J
' l
~J
i ·-.J
I ~- • ...J
j
I - . .J
,
!
)

9. Gullying and rillying on the e:..isting Pubic \\"arks staging area and slope of Dump.

Regrade terrace and dissapate runoff over the area.

10. Gullying on slopes of old Dump. Divert runoff from the Dump slope. l\[onitor stability of slope.

11. Stream banks eroding. Armor with \Villow wattling and revegetate. Confer with :MCRCD regarding remornl of rip-rap.
--· . -
/
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
553
·1
· 1
l
. t
I
l
l
. 1
' _l
I
I
. J
Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
554
l
. '
. j
l
~J
i
)
i --~J
CJ

9. Gullying and rillying on the existing Pubic "\\.,.arks staging area and slope of Dump.

Regrade terrace and dissapate runoff over the area.

10. Gullying on slopes of old Dump. Divert runoff from the Dump slope. :Monitor stability of slope.

11. Stream banks eroding. Armor with willow wattling and revegetate. Confer with l\ICRCD regarding removal of rip-rap.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
555
Vegetation l\lanage1nent
Goals
A goal of th.is Plan is to make reconunencl..1.tions for vegetation management at SRP which" preserves diversity of vegetation. with preference gi\'en for regional native plants over other nanualizecl species or exotics". Regional native plants of SRP are plants that grow or have been k.110,"n to grow, in the local inland valleys and hills of the California Coast Range. The Pl~u1 promotes an impm1ant policies of General Plan. "to preserve and protect significant habitat for fish wildlife and flora".

Options
Continue Current i\Iangement
The ctnTent management scheme of not inte1f ering with vegetation in the Park or open space (except for minor removal of exotics) could be continued. Th.is option includes:
no control of invasive weeds. no b1ush control, no prescribed bums. no grasslands grazing. The following impacts could be expected at SRP if this management option is selected.

1. Brush understory of the oak woodland will increase and expand into the grassland.

2. Oaks may continue to generate and expand into the grassland.

3. Grassland dominated by exotic annual species will remain static or reduce in size where they are invaded by brnsh and woodlands .
.:+. Expansion of the brnshlands and accumulation of the dead unclerstory of the oak woodland will pro\·ide excellent fuel for major wildfires with destruction of the oaks.

5. Existing exotic populations of ,veeds '"ill spread.

6. Soil erosion and gullying wil continue at sites m Lower Park Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
556
j
1 J
1 l
cJ
~ j
·- J

7. The exact appearrance of the vegetation at SRP, in 30 years cannot be predicted.

The possible occurrence of wildfires at SRP IS also unpredictable; However. wildfires are inevitable, and such fires Tuill drastically alter the vegetation(~ ICOSD. 1991. 1· Th, ffi--0. 1991 ).

8. There will be no additional cost in dollars or resources to the Town.

Control of Exotic Weeds
In order to preHnt the spread of exotic weeds the Tomi could eliminate or control' the weeds. Generally. cutting plants at or near the base is the environmentally safest control method. Specific control methods are outlined in the Appendix.

Control of Brnsh Expansion
The spread of baccharis and poison oak brushlands. into the woodlands and across the grasslands. can be viewed as natw-al succession (Mcbride) or aitifical invasion as discussed in the Site Inventory. The cessation of grazing :111d the suppression of natural fires have both promoted brush expansion. The brush provides excellent \vildlife. habitat.

However it also provides fuel which could support a major \vildfire. The 1JCOSD recommends reducing the poison oak/baccharis brnshland patches by one third of their current size in order to maintain plant diversity. ·which existed prior to the cessation of grazing and to reduce fire hazard in the oak wooclland.

Grazing Program
The disturbed state of the grasslmds in the Park: the loss of native wildflo,vers: the spread of foxtails and exotic thistles: and the dominance of exotic annual grass over native perennials are all. in part. the result of overgrazing. However. if managed sensitively. grazing can have beneficial effects on the native grasslands (MCOSD.1991) . .-\ proper grazing program will favor the establishment of native pereruual grasses and broadleaf plants (~ICOSD,1991). The ~ICOSD preserve 111:111.agement plan includes careful monitoring of a "pilot grazing program" on the preserve. Such programs could supply infonnation on how to better manage historically grazed lands. including Sorich Ranch Park. The Town should confer with the MCOSD on this and other management issues, regularly.

Item 3.1 - Attachment 3 Item 3.1 - Attachment 3
557
Recommendations

1. Eliminate or control the exotic weed population throughout the Park. with the environmentally safest control methods. Limit the use of herbicides to spot applications:
dependent on Town policy for herbicide use. Work closely with the California Natire Plants Society (C!';'PS) to eliminate exotics. They ha\'e severai groups expe1iencecl in eliminating weeds. who may be able to assist. Superrised rolunteer labor could be used to impliment the weed contol projects. The following list of \Veeds are of special concern at SRP.

Purple Starthistle
Pampas Grass
French Broom
Sweet Fennel
Eucalyptus
Harding grass
Y ellow-Starthistle

2. In Lower Park. maintain all existing non-invasive plants (except for weeds).

3. In Lower Park. revegetate with regional native plants, or a select naturalized species according to the Planting Plan (see Appendi"\).

4. In Upper Park. manage the vegetation for histodc plant diversity and reduced fire hazard.

5. In Upper Park. re\·egetate eroded areas with regional native plants only (see Appendix).

6. Protect and maintain the fragile native plant communities on serpentine soils. Contact the CNPS for assistance with a detailed inventory of these sites for rare n..'lti\·e plants, including Jewelflower.

San Anselmo City CouncilMay 23, 2023

San Anselmo City Council
May 23, 2023